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."
I think part of the problem with justice is it doesn't fit neatly in people's ideas on how things should work politically.
Guns are bad, however his privacy and property was threatened and the causality was not a life.
He used a gun as a tool to solve a problem.
Now if there was a person who got shot the justice system may have tilted the other direction.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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!
I have been hit many, many times by birdshot that somebody fired 'up'. Duck tower, Metro Gun Club, Blaine Minnesota. When the shooters shoot at the clay targets (up) the shot is often sprinkled across the parking lot when it comes down. Now, this is usually 7-9 birdshot, so very small projectiles. I can see buck shot hurting, but not being very damaging.
Yeah, birdshot is safe to fire into the air, so there goes *that* argument)
Ever caught some birdshot in the face, after someone fired it up (above a treeline)? No? I have, from over 100 yards away. If I hadn't been wearing eye protection, I'd be blind right now. This is not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Not even close.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.)