Slashdot Mirror
Judge: Defendant 'Had a Right' To Shoot Down Drone (wdrb.com)
EzInKy writes: Back in July, Kentucky resident William Merideth was arrested after he shot down a drone flying near his property. The arrest wasn't because of the destroyed drone, but because Merideth fired a gun within the city limits. Now, after a two-hour hearing in Bullitt District Court, a judge has dismissed all charges against Merideth. The owner of the drone, David Boggs, has always contested Merideth's claim that it was hovering over his yard. "But Judge Rebecca Ward says that since at least two witnesses could see the drone below the tree line, it was an invasion of privacy." Ward further said that Merideth "had a right to shoot at this drone."
He used a shotgun, not a 9mm.
If he could hit a flying drone with a 9mm, he was either an extremely good shooter . . . or incredibly lucky. At the gun club ("Schützenverein") that I visit there are some ex German Army folks who could shoot the ears off a fly. They would not be able to do this to a drone with a 9mm.
The defendant in this case used a shotgun with bird shot: totally innocuous over long range.
This was a very dangerous action.
No, it wasn't. And this is what prevents serious gun legislation in the US: Too many people talking about something they know nothing about. This is a free lunch for the NRA: The people proposing new gun legislation don't even know the difference between bird shot or a 9mm. When these folks get around being unable to know the difference between their asses and their elbows, they could propose tighter gun restriction legislation that even the NRA would agree to.
Actually, serious drone pilots and gun folks have something in common: They follow a simple rule of "Don't be an asshole!" I don't fly my RC critters anywhere which would bother other folks. Gun folks don't shoot in any areas that could put other folks in danger.
Really simple, actually, and could be applied to virtually any device that two-legged critters can control or carry: "Don't be an asshole!"
But, apparently, that is too difficult for a lot of folks.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If the law says firing a gun within the city is illegal then it should be illegal regardless of other criminality in the vicinity.
People like you are why a law making it illegal to yell, "fire!" in a crowded theater actually has to spell out that it's legal when there is a fire. Because if it didn't, you would find yourself unable to apply common sense to the situation and find some poor sap guilty of the crime when he was really doing everyone a service. I'm not sure what causes it, but the inability to evaluate rules in context is a plague on our society. It leads to zero tolerance policies where kids get expelled for taking bites out of a Pop Tart in the wrong order. IMHO people who make rules like that are a threat to society orders of magnitude worse than the people their rules are supposed to effect.
The militia part is not modifying the right to bear arms. The quote reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
For those with reading comprehension, there are two statements in this sentence. 1) that a militia that is well regulated is necessary to keep a free state secure and 2) that the people have a right to keep and bear arms that the government cannot infringe upon.
There's one more thing that's important to note -- (3) these two things are combined in the same sentence because (1) is **a** justification for (2). Some interpret the sentence to mean that (1) is the only justification for (2), but the history of these types of clauses in, say, state constitutions from the same time does not really support such a reading.
Anyhow, the more useful aid I find in interpreting these things is to transfer the statement to something less controversial:
"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
If the Constitution said that, would we infer that only registered voters (part of the "electorate") should get to keep and read books? If you're a kid or you don't vote, you don't get to read?
OR... do we interpret it to mean that the first part of the sentence is ONE important reason why "the people" in general should get to read books -- but it only applies to a subset of "the people," namely the "electorate." There may be other good reasons why other people may benefit from books, and hence the right is granted to "the people" later in the sentence (rather than a repetition of "the electorate" only) but the Constitution (which is a fairly terse document in general) doesn't list all of them.
Personally, I find the latter interpretation (i.e., a general right for "the people") to be much more compelling when we transfer the logic to a sentence on a less controversial topic.
(By the way, I'm actually in favor of much greater regulations on guns, perhaps even beyond what the 2nd amendment implies. But I refuse to twist the meaning of this sentence to accord with my personal belief.)