Slashdot Mirror
FAA Drone Rules May Already Be Outlawed By Congress (hackaday.com)
szczys writes: New FAA rules about drone registration and operation are now in effect. So far the talk has centered around registering your aircraft, and about the weight restriction. But all of this may be moot since the US Congress made a law in 2012 prohibiting these types of rules: "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." Even if the rules hold up under this law, it is not all doom and gloom for drones. The FAA rules could have been much more stringent, and in general they do make sense. Brian Benchoff walks through the regulation, comparing the new rules to the FAA's existing pilot rules, and juxtaposing the threat drones make to full-size aircraft in flight with those risks associated with bird strikes.
Waiting for the FAA to ban birds from flying around helos and airplanes...
I can remember when the Feds wanted everyone with a CB radio to have a license, too.
If the FAA model aircraft database is public, then what's to stop someone local from looking up your name, address and registration number and sticking that on their model aircraft instead of their own name ?
That way, they can fly in a reckless manner and if their aircraft crashes, it's an innocent person the authorities are going to be looking for.
So, it is only about model aircraft, you know, scaled models of actual aircraft that essentially operate the same. The most prominent quadricopter design is not a model aircraft, but a real aircraft in a class of its own. All the DJIs, and similar sized quads have a well defined purpose and are pretty fit for that purpose - a self-propelled airborne camera platform. If you get a 1:10 working replica of the Phantom, then the replica is the model aircraft.
Many of the people against one are also against the other. How is it hypocritical to oppose both registries?
That 2002 law saying they can't create regulations on model aircraft also have this stipulation:
Considering the whole reason these new regs were passed were because idiots weren't following safety guidelines, makes it a moot point. If the aircraft aren't being operated in accordance w/ safety guidelines the FAA is free to regulate the hell out of model aircraft.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Do you have to register a model dirigible? A dirigible could weigh nothing. Weight is not the same as mass.
I already got a letter from my flying club saying to hold off on registration. Here's the AMA website report: http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...
Really? You're going to get in the way of emergency responders, then complain that something is being put in place to dissuade that?
Woah there hold up, *I* never got in the way of any emergency responders. But *I* am now expected to register and pay of fee, so yea I am going to complain. Also the registration process does not collect any serial numbers or any other details so there is still no way to actually tie a drone to a responsible owner. Which means that people who do register are really just being added to another special government list.
As the TFA states this action by the FAA is probably not even legal, like so much of the other stuff this Administration does. So if they in fact breaking the law themselves that is another VERY VALID reason to complain.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
A short while ago a drone backed out a few city blocks in California after touching power lines. Unlike fixed wing remote controlled aircraft, drones can take off anywhere including street corners. This, of course means they can come down nearby
-- Into traffic
-- Powerlines
-- Descend vertically into telephony/power equipment, thus bypassing fences.
No one is saying that these are deliberate but accidents do happen and like your driver's licence helps pay for public education regarding the rules of the road, the potential for error, mistakes and oversight means that there's a public good in ensuring safe navigation of the skies. Someone above said that people could therefore could fake your ID at an accident -- well I think the odds of that happening are small relative to the amount of regular accidents that will happen.
Of course people will stomp and yell about 'muh freedumbs' but these things will eventually -- by accident -- cause traffic accidents by uncontrolled descents and so having the infrastructure ready to ensure that people get a modicum of training is hardly the end of the world.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
How is the FAA registration scheme supposed to prevent flying over a fire? They would have to capture the drone to ever have any chance of finding who's flying it, that's assuming the pilot is registered and the drone properly marked.
Maybe if all of these idiotic drone owners didn't ruin it for everyone, we wouldn't need these at all.
This is it in a nutshell.
Quadcopters are a disruptive technology in the sense that the old paradigm, of expensive, difficult-to-fly, easy-to-destroy RC aircraft has shifted to cheap, somewhat-easy-to-fly "drone" RC aircraft. Additionally, the scale-model-of-real mentality has been replaced with a whatever-works mentality. This shift is helped by the reduction in weight of batteries and the reduction in size of high quality video camera and storage technology.
When one couldn't take high quality video for extended periods of time, when one had a lot of money tied up in an RC aircraft, and when that aircraft was difficult to fly, people who engaged in the hobby generally had a bit of etiquette, even if pragmatically due to flying over someone else's property was a good way to lose the expensive toy. It appears that quadcopter enthusiasts are less inhibited by this.
As to the language of the law as described in the article summary, the word "model" was used. The implication in the past has meant "scale model", ie, a reduced-size version approximating a real machine. Since quadcopters don't have full-scale human-pilotable equivalents, these are not "model aircraft" by the strictest definition of the terminology. They are a new thing, and even if the new laws do not apply to scale-model fixed-wing or scale-model helicopters, the argument can be made they apply perfectly well to quadcopters and other small RC aircraft.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So if you put a fly by wire camera on it, you should still have to register it.
Because, guns only operate on line of sight, but drones can be operated remotely?
Because the danger of drones is a superset of the danger of guns as one could mount a gun on a sufficiently advanced drone?
Because the right to own guns is protected in the Constitution but the right to own (non weaponized) drones isn't?
Agreed. No rule, regulation, order or policy with the same teeth as a law should be enforceable unless passed in the same way as a law - elected officials should be required to put their names on the record, for or against.
Those treasonous cocksuckers just sold us out again on the SOPA - who gives a flying fuck what they think?
Please show me your legal basis for saying:
in the same way that the president doesn't have the authority to create executive orders
Of course the president has the authority to create executive orders, who else would you expect to create them? Now, he doesn't necessarily have the authority to write certain EOs, such as the most recent immigration one that tried to counteract federal law, but he most definitely has the authority to write EOs as that is how he lets executive agencies know how he wants them to run.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I'm honestly glad that they're putting these rules into effect. Just after seeing the recent wildfire fighting efforts impeded by drone owners, and even structural firefighting efforts held up, all because drone owners wanted to get video of the destruction. Really? You're going to get in the way of emergency responders, then complain that something is being put in place to dissuade that? Maybe if all of these idiotic drone owners didn't ruin it for everyone, we wouldn't need these at all. But I'm not only glad to see that these rules are being put in place, I hope that emergency response is authorized to SHOOT DOWN drones that get in the way and fine the hell out of the owners of them.
You realize that unregistered drones will still fly, right? Unlike the responsible owners that will register their aircraft and follow common sense (and legal) rules, the idiots that get in the way of firefighting efforts are not likely to register their craft.
Registered owners are required to put their registration number on any drone they fly, and it's per-operator instead of per-drone. So if you have 1 unit or 10, it's still the same 5$ fee and all of your drones fly under the same number. It's no different than registering your car. You personally aren't a moron with your car, but enough have to the point that all cars are required to be registered now. I'm sure there was a lot of resistance when that started too, but now it's just part of car ownership. It's all the same, except you're not having to register each drone individually and if I recall, it's good for 3 years. Unlike the annual required car registration, which is per-car.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
There's plenty of people saying it's not OK to have a national database of drone users.
> Woah there hold up, *I* never got in the way of any emergency responders. But *I* am now expected to register and pay of fee, so yea I am going to complain.
Hey there, I dont drive stupidly, so why should I have to pay for a license?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
So when I write somebody else's number on my drone and then go crash it into the White House, who gets in trouble?
And they should lose their hardware all the same. Shoot it down and let emergency response do their jobs. If it's unregistered, then the owner is probably gonna be pretty pissed off and learn where not to fly as they buy their next one. Drones are cheaper, but not to the point of disposable technology yet.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
The Nationwide Not Car Insurance Company By The Same Name Community Safety Guidelines:
1) Don't be a dick
2) Do not through inaction allow your remote craft to be a dick.
3) Make sure there is nothing on your craft that can be linked back to you in case of accident.
Oh, did you mean safety for OTHERS and not your own legal safety? Should have said so explicitly then!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Drones have cameras, models do not.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
To certify you're competent enough to drive safely to begin with.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
It's no different than registering your car.
Actually, it is quite different. For started, car registrations are at the state level, these FAA registrations are at a federal level. Second, car registrations are per-vehicle, the FAA drone registration is registering a person.
You personally aren't a moron with your car, but enough have to the point that all cars are required to be registered now.
That is hardly the reason why cars are registered and required to display license plates. The requirement is to show that you have paid the taxes for having a car. If identification of the vehicle was the intent, then the VIN laws would not exist. You do realize, I hope, that there is a unique identification for each vehicle, and this identification can be found in several places in a car, not just the the front window.
Unlike the annual required car registration, which is per-car.
You admit at least one difference, but make the mistake of assuming the car registrations are all for one year.
Guns are an ENUMERATED RIGHT. What part of 'shall not infringe' is unclear to you?
Good-bye
"all because drone owners wanted to get video of the destruction."
In the past we called this sort of thing LIBERTY, and handled it like adults, not name calling like petty children. You make curiosity out to be a vice. Yes people do stupid stuff, that doesnt mean you should go around shitting on everyone's Liberty because its an activity you dont like.
Good-bye
Driving a car on private property does not require registration......What other gems of crappy logic do you have?
Good-bye
Since when does a one time test certify your competency a decade or century later? Don't forget that said test is often taken when one is in their teens and the passing of which usually automatically transfers when you move to another state?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
How do you go about doing that?
So you want law enforcement (or civilians) firing their service weapons into the air? You realize that that high speed lead will land somewhere... right?
And registration does that how exactly? Even if registered, nothing stops a person from flying it where/how they shouldn't.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
While I am generally a supporter of free speech, your eloquent words have changed my mind... seeing no purpose for what you have said here I think your own comments should be regulated to only those cases where you need to speak (in any form)... the fines for violating will be stiff.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
You have the right to bear arms - during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government.
So, you're only allowed to own guns when you're a member of an organized revolt fighting against a tyrannical government. You're literally saying that it's only legal to own a gun during an insurrection. And that makes perfect sense to you? You're honestly sitting here trying to get us to believe that WE'RE the ones incapable of understanding English?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Sounds like a perfect time to register all birds.
Because of course, making broad-based laws because of incredibly rare events is always a good idea! /sarc off
It says guns exactly 0 times. What it says is Arms.
Yes, you are correct.
during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
And then you say all this other stuff that is not in the document at all.
You know what else was under "arms"? Cannons. Lots of shippers owned them, too. Make no mistake, any pro-gun-control interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is, no matter how well-meaning, historical revisionism and rationalization.
Not my liberties!
"Shall not be infringed" is a big part of no national gun database...
Drones will be redefined as anything but model aircraft.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
More literally it says we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. ie guns to shoot at an overzealous government/military.
And not for any other reason.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The official definition of weight is that it excludes buoyancy- the weight of an object does not change when the tide comes in. So while weight and mass are slightly different concepts, they are defined such that on earth at msl, an object of 1 gram mass is also 1 gram weight. Obviously on the moon the weight would be lower.
We evil drone operators have known about Section 336 for a long time. It's not actually the only thing wrong with the current rules, but its a major one. The FAA asserts that "model aircraft" are included in the category of "aircraft" covered by pre-2012 regulations, and therefore they can regulate according to them and 336 doesn't apply. This is dubious already. But it's even more dubious when you find that
1) All "aircraft" must be registered, by statute and by regulation, already.
2) All "aircraft" require a airman's certificate to operate or to repair, again by statute and regulation.
3) All "aircraft" except helicopters, by regulation, are required to stay above 500 feet except on takeoff and landing.
Which means that model aircraft have been flown completely illegally for the entire time the FAA has been in existence. This interpretation seems absurd, hence the FAAs claim about "model aircraft" being covered under "aircraft" must be wrong. Either that or it's time to paint a little Jolly Roger on all the models.
That's an interesting definition. Here's the definition in the law, of what the FAA may not regulate:
A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition
Newer legislation required the FAA to create these rules. But then, this isn't the first time that Slashtards read a lie and get up in arms.
That's funny, because you're actually lying. Funny! Hah. Funny.
Unless you'd like to link to a new law from congress that supersedes the 2012 FMRA? Be specific. Which you won't, because you can't. Because you're a liar. Funny! Hah. Funny.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
wrong! this is what it says.
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.
Any ideas how FAA's own interpretation of the "special rule" for model aircraft would allow them to continue with drone registration?
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...
The only out they seem to grant to themselves is general regulation non specific to model aircraft.
It's a real aircraft with a real utility and purpose. I don't see how the rules would apply in most situations.
which is what I said.
Perhaps the 'ie' part threw you off. I used one case as an example of why you would need a militia, and thus a constitutional reason to have weapons.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
But they are by the actual definition of the terminology. Because the meaning of the terminology was specifically defined for the purposes of this exclusion:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED. -- In this section, the term "model
aircraft" means an unmanned aircraft that is --
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
This is even mentioned in the article. This "disruptive technology" could be a helium-filled model of the battleship Yamamoto decked out to look like the original Star Blazers wave-motion-gun bearing "spaceship" and it would still be a "model aircraft" for the purposes of the exclusion.
No idea what you're trying to say here. Whether the rules apply to these devices is irrelevant if the FAA lacks authority to make the rule in the first place.
More literally it says we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. ie guns to shoot at an overzealous government/military.
No IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!
The founders used the Second Amendment to say that despite their grudging recognition that a standing army (at least at the militia level) was going to be necessary, nobody should use the fact of the existence of that standing military to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms. They just went through that with the British, and they didn't want to see it happen again.
They knew that some people would say, "Why should the local inn keeper or livery owner or farmer need to keep or bear arms if we're going to have a well regulated militia anyway?" It was EXACTLY to head off those people that they put the Second Amendment in place, just like they put the First Amendment in place to prevent the inevitable attempt to use the power of government to influence the dominance of a particular religion, prevent people from assembling into like-minded groups, etc.
Those amendments don't establish ANYTHING. They prevent the government from interfering with things.
Yes, they were concerned about tyranny. But they weren't proposing a "well regulated militia" as a counter to tyrrany. They were concerned that the well-regulated militia might end up being part OF tyranny, and insisted that the existence of such had no bearing on an individual's right to their own arms.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You have the right to bear arms - during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
It says no such thing. Your reading comprehension and understanding of the constitution is completely childish.
Those are the terms that must be met according to the documents.
No, they're not. The point is that THERE ARE NO TERMS. The government shall not infringe - as in, not place conditions on, not interfere with, not limit - on that basic right. The Second Amendment is saying that despite the inevitable need for a standing military (even at the militia level), the existence of such is not an excuse for the government to prevent individual citizens from keeping and bearing their own arms.
I guess I am the only sane person capable of correctly parsing the english language?
No, you're just making stuff up. You are parsing it exactly 100% backwards.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Or to put it in a more entertaining way, it's only legal when you're attempting to overthrow the very document that makes it legal.
You don't understand what the militia was at the time of writing was , do you? Based on that alone, you should re-think your argument.
It doesn't MATTER what a militia was at the time. Because the amendment isn't ABOUT the militia, other than indirectly. What the amendment does is recognize that there's likely always going to BE something like a militia (a standing army of some scale), but that fact doesn't give the government the authority to deny individuals their own keeping and bearing of arms. It's that simple. Essentially, "Just because we'll have an army doesn't mean that the government has a monopoly on the ownership of arms." Period.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No matter. The gun grabbers have shifted gears.
They lost the Constitutional argument and now they are trying to work the Terrorist angle. Gun owners = terrorists, etc.
Just witness that effort to restrict rights based on the No Flty List
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'll go with the people with the law degrees and huge research staffs....the Supreme Court.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Memory error: confusing the admiral's name with a similar ship name. It was Yamato. Now I will have to hide from military enthusiasts and anime fans alike until the apocalypse obliterates the internet.
wrong! this is what it says.
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.
Say that with a Yoda voice and it sort of makes sense
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It means "come and take it". Good luck gripping those star systems tighter, dumbasses.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
When guns are "accidentally" left on the Whitehouse lawn, or find their way into airplane engines (i.e. are the cause of numerous "near miss" reports), we can discuss it.
Nor does operation of your toys completely within the airspace of your property.
(And for the record, in many places, cars still have to be "registered" for tax purposes even if they don't have a tag.)
Because they assume you are regularly driving. (which most certainly ISN'T true.) And across the US, the driving test is an absolute joke.
Sure. Congress made a new mandate, but didn't remove their previous LAW preventing the FAA from registering "model aircraft".
EXACTLY. If I'm going to do something I know is illegal -- or I suspect will get me "detained" -- I'm not going to put my f'ing name all over it!
Also, I don't see how flying a quadcopter over a house fire can in any way impede the firefighters. They show up in big red trucks -- ON THE GROUND. They run around dragging hoses ON THE GROUND. And occasionally climb up ladders to the height of windows and roofs. A "drone" hovering 200-400 ft ABOVE the action isn't in the way at all. They don't shit a brick over all the news choppers hovering around, what the f*** do they care about a 2lb "drone".
> It's no different than registering your car.
Car registrations are publicly available? Car registrations are required to operate a vehicle on private property?
It's a hell of a lot of difference, especially in light of existing law and SCOTUS decisions.
Car registration provides for services of which the owner who registered may avail themselves to. This is just a half heated attempt to assign liability.
Actually, there are plenty of cheap (sub-100$) trash quads out there. I won't call them "drones" since they absolutely won't fly themselves, at all. But they are big enough to carry a crappy camera, fly hundreds of feet (plenty far enough to be out of sight), and get sucked into a (very low flying) jet. And they weigh more than .55lbs so they have to legally be registered now.
Yes, real it-can-fly-itself drones are expensive ($500+, the really good ones into a grand), so people will want to tag them so they can possibly get them back. With a transmitter range of ~1km, and flight range several times that, they can very easily be lost.
So this guy I knew, rolled up to Canadian Customs on the way to a Civil War Re-enactment in New York, the Customs agent asked him if he was bringing any firearms into Canada. He Answered,"well I have a canon, with canon balls, black powder and fuse on the trailer I'm towing (which was in plain sight), the Agent ask "but no pistols, shotguns or rifles?" "No just the canon", "Okay Sir, Welcome to Canada"
Most violent crime committed with a weapon in the US is committed with a baseball bat.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
How's about some full text for reference? FAA can still legally regulate quadcopters in certain situations, i.e. you are within 5 miles of an airport (I am) and don't notify the controller (who would?)
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...
Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the
following statutory requirements are met:
the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;
the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and
operational safety program administered by a community-based
organization;
the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and
gives way to any manned aircraft; and
when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft
provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control
tower with prior notice of the operation.
This is even mentioned in the article. This "disruptive technology" could be a helium-filled model of the battleship Yamamoto decked out to look like the original Star Blazers wave-motion-gun bearing "spaceship" and it would still be a "model aircraft" for the purposes of the exclusion.
Just saying this is an awesome idea if no one has done this.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Not a reasonable part, since your right to own a gun isn't affected by said ownership being documented.
The Second Amendment doesn't just say you must be allowed to "keep and bear" arms, but that that specific inalienable right "shall not be infringed." Not "shall not be prohibited", but "shall not be infringed." As in "shall not be encroached upon". Yes, keeping a national database of gun owners is infringing upon that right because it has an affect upon those who wish to exercise it. It would be a special hoop that you must jump through before being able to use a right that the government didn't grant you but has documented as something that existed and exists outside the scope of the government.
Imagine if you were required to register your encryption keys with the government before you were allowed to use encryption as a way of exercising your fourth amendment rights. Or you had to register your printer before you could use the first. How about a government requirement that you provide a documented real name on every published exercise of your right to free speech? My goodness, that's not a prohibition on the speech, it's a simple registration requirement! How could that be a problem? (Hint: it's only a problem if you are saying something that might be unpopular. Oh, wait, that is the reason the first amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.)
Given that the workforce is shrinking because birth rates didn't match the retiring population numbers, any profession which keeps its numbers is increasing in percentage of the workforce.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
You shouldn't have to. The law should be accessible to every man who is expected to abide it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Since their aircraft are technically "unmanned"...
if we only extend the concept of man to refer to being flown by someone or something that is considered intelligent, then we only end up having to further refine the issue when we make a computer that is at least as smart as a person.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So I just need to put a gun on my quadcopter?
Yes, remember the time when you could get a tank and drive over all those silly pedestrians. Ahh... good days...
You're just going to have to repeat it a week from now. It will probably be the same exact poster. They've had it explained, they know better, and they repeat it. If they repeat the lie often enough it becomes the truth - they hope. I guess I don't blame them too much. Humans do irrational things when they're scared. It's why we shouldn't let cowards write and enact legislation.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Hmm... So, yeah... You have me thinking...
Exactly what aircraft are these quad-copters a model of? Model has multiple meanings - I wonder how it's defined for this? It's not like they're models of real aircraft. (The ones in question - reading above indicates that the scale models that are traditionally flown might actually be exempt.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It's okay, it's an easy mistake to make unless you're a WWII history buff. The Yamato's final journey was a one way trip to Okinawa where it would, effectively, kamikaze itself by beaching itself and using it's giant guns from there. It only had enough fuel for a one way trip.
However, it was spotted before it reached Okinawa and was summarily sunk by Naval aviators. Okinawa was a pretty costly fight, something like 25,000 dead and wounded Marines and Army and something like 110,000 Japanese and 75% of the civilian population *killed.* Had the Yamato (a very large ship) managed to beach itself as intended, it would not have changed the outcome but probably meant more Japanese deaths and a few more deaths on the US side.
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (spelling?) was assassinated by way of P-38 lead poisoning or a sudden impact after the plane he was on crashed. Interestingly, he was a Harvard man. He was also aware that attacking Pearl Harbor would give the Japanese only about six months of free time to gather and secure the resources they wanted.
The Yamato-class battleships were the heaviest battleships ever and also fielded the largest naval artillery ever used. The gun and turret weighed about what the average destroyer of the time weighed. They could launch a 1.5 ton missile somewhere close to 25 miles.
So, no, you're not really expected to know that. I'm a bit of a fan of history and documentaries so I know that but it's entertainment and not scholarly pursuits in my case. I'm surprised you even knew about the Yamato.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Wait, if I put a gun on a drone, do I still have to register it, or can I claim my second amendment rights?
Just another day in Paradise
Or to put it in a more entertaining way, it's only legal when you're attempting to overthrow the people who subverted the very document that makes it legal.
Fixed that for you.
Just another day in Paradise
Driving a car on private property does not require registration......What other gems of crappy logic do you have?
Incorrect. My own vehicle was ticketed for expired registration while parked on private property. I happened to be on an extended overseas business trip, and came home to find a $25 ticket on my window.
Just another day in Paradise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Case law would seem to indicate they're stepping outside of their jurisdiction then.
Just another day in Paradise
Maybe you should call out George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. for having made executive orders. They probably didn't understand the Constitution.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/dat...
Just another day in Paradise
Aren't we already there? We've got birth certificates and the NSA.
Yep. Vital Records offices note birth and death information. I'm a little surprised that there haven't been greater pushes to integrate those records with means to reduce identity theft, but given the information security problems that are rampant it probably wouldn't make things any better at the moment.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Weapon Use and Violent Crime
Firearms w/serious injury 13%, w/minor injury 4%;
Blunt Object w/serious injury 20%, w/minor injury 14%;
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Yet according to the Constitution, it's PERFECTLY OK for individual states to ban weapons.
Uhhh, no. Those rights enumerated in the Constitution are limits on the government at all levels.
That's the part about the "well organized militia".
Uhhh, no, again. The part about the "well regulated militia" has nothing to do with the states, and it is not a proscriptive statement of any kind. It does not define the only reason the right exists, nor can it do so. Otherwise, the right would not be inalienable.
Moreover, states are entirely within their rights to impose a death penalty for even transporting a gun across their territory.
Now I know you are clueless.
You have missed the words "well regulated militia". This part is also in the Constitution, you know. And it's not just a couple of random words.
The modern interpretation would restrict guns only to the US Army. But if you _insist_ on interpreting Constitution in its contemporary context, then you should know that the authors of the Second Amendment all agreed that individual states should have the right to regulate the militia.
Moreover, the Second Amendment protects the use of guns only for armed resistance against external or internal threats. The use of weapons for personal defense or hunting is NOT in any way protected. Indeed, a Supreme Court decision upholds bans of weapons that are not useful in military combat ( https://www.oyez.org/cases/190... ).
You are aware that there are some departments that use helicopters as spotters, right? Using FLIR to identify and map out hotspots within a building so teams can take care of or avoid them if it's too hot.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
You do know that falling bullets are pretty much harmless, right? The moment they reach the apex of their trajectory, they begin to tumble and lose all of their penetration power. The terminal velocity of a bullet, even larger calibur rounds, is far far far less than their original muzzle velocity. Without stable flight and the immense burst of speed from being fired, they're about as harmless as the average BB gun.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
Even if you were right (which you aren't), I don't know about you but 'pretty much' isn't good enough for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Help Brendan pay off his student loans