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.
If the SCADA systems are freaking ON THE INTERNET then the executives need to be put in jail and all their family assets taken and treated as terrorists.
I find your thoughts about the constitution to be very compelling, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Also, would you agree that people on the no-fly list, no matter how they got on it, should be deprived of their constitutionally protected rights without any sort of due process? I thought you would! Please feature your praise of that scenario in your next newsletter, and be sure I get a copy in my new subscription.
You might want to try and actually research that from a non-NRA site and include things like private and guns how sales
Please link to your research sources, citing the number of crimes committed with guns that were purchased at gun shows where background checks aren't already legally required. Be specific.
So, you think that criminals will hop on a web site like the one the FAA will be setting up, and will register themselves at BATF so you can look them up? Are you even listening to yourself?
As for how this list will be useful. I'd like to know if the person living next to me is likely to shoot a hole through their house and into mine, which happens all the damn time.
Really? You have neighbors that regularly shoot holes in your house? And you live in a place where that happens all the damn time but the police won't come to help? You might want to consider getting a gun, living in a place that rough.
Also, we could do some research with these numbers to determine things like whether gun ownership increases or decreases robbery or violent crime in a neighborhood...
All of the evidence is that areas with the most draconian gun laws (see, for example, Chicago) have the most rampant violent crime. Most other places around the country have been seeing a steady decline in violent crime for decades, even as millions more people have legally purchased guns during that period.
Now if we could only do the same thing for firearms.
Do what? Make a list of known firearm owners? The FAA isn't registering individual toys and models. It's registering owners, and telling them to write their information on the outside of their half-pound plastic toy model airplanes. People who don't want to be registered will simply ignore this. The new registration system has no bearing on who can buy what, it's simply a new regulatory/bureaucratic burden for those who choose to obey the law, and will set those people up for out-of-context random fishing expeditions by trolls, reporters, cops, and anyone else who feels like going on a witch hunt without any facts.
Are you wishing that the government got a list of who owns guns, to be used the same way? If you like this, then you're saying you like the idea of a list of names, but without any factual connection to the ownership of any particular firearm. How do you see that being useful? Be specific. And explain how your idea is different than the sales records already kept, down to the serial number, when people buy guns now.
And there's the thing. Do you really think a 13 year old girl flying a half-pound pink plastic model helicopter below tree-top level in her back yard is "an aircraft pilot?"
So you're ignoring the record numbers of background checks, record number of carry permits applied for and issued, record number of transfers through FFLs, and relying on a survey of 2000 people in a country of over 300,000,000 that - according to the article you referenced can vary in its results from 35% to 52% based just on the wording (love that question... "do you happen to have... in your garage". Hilarious.
Meanwhile, the FBI says they continue to process record numbers of gun purchase background checks, and have done 222 million of them (many for the purchase of multiple guns) since they changed their system in the 1990's to include betters statistics. They've denied about 1% of those for various reasons.
This year, they've broken the record again, with the recent "black friday" shopping peak creating an all-time record for one day's gun purchases of over 185,000 - up 5% from the year before.
The USA's gun death rate is far far far higher than places like Canada, France, UK, etc.
Because (1) more of their suicides use other methods, and (2) four urban gang violence hotspots account for the overwhelming majority of the rest of it. Something you'd really like to avoid discussing, it seems.
And how would that have stopped last week's shooting?
How would what have stopped it? Having less gang violence? Right: murderous jihaddis really don't care about "normal" crimes or the laws that are generally aimed at such situations. We should really consider ourselves lucky that the two jihaddis that attacked in California didn't opt for the Boston method. If they'd tossed one cheap backpack pressure cooker bomb into that same room, they'd have killed WAY more people. Obviously they had an appreciation for explosives, but didn't have the time to put them to work as planned. What sort of pre-emptive laws are you really anticipating that would stop people like that from killing if they want to?
In other words: "Nah that's your problem, not mine, so long as I can keep my guns."
We don't have Chicago's murder problem where I live. That problem is highly localized. So yes, it actually IS their problem. Or are you saying that we should have the federal government take over law enforcement in that liberal paradise, and that making that city's highly concentrated gang murder problem a federal responsibility would make it go away?
Because throwing more guns into the mix hasn't solved the problem.
What do you mean? Millions more people own guns now than they did 30 years ago, and violence crimes of all kinds, including those involving guns, have been going steadily down, and are down 46% since the 1990's. So, more honest people own legal guns, and we have much, much less violent crime.
Still waiting for a better answer.
Better answer to what? The problem in just a handful of urban areas where almost all of the non-suicide gun deaths occur? That is a problem. Those are areas with the most draconian gun laws, but they still seem to have a problem. Why? Because they have a rampant violent gang crime problem in those small parts of those four cities. Other areas have much high rates of gun ownership, and only a tiny fraction of that sort of violence. Trying to figure out what to do with those specific urban areas? Ask the liberals who have run the city councils and executive offices in those cities for the last several decades straight. Maybe they have some insight into why their approach to inner-city crime and gang activity doesn't work as well as it does everywhere else. Take away the crime in those four spots, and the US's murder rate is 17th down the list, well behind other countries that have far, far stricter gun laws.
You want a "better answer?" Address the culture problems in that handful of urban areas, and ask your favorite media outlets to report this stuff in some sort of honest context.
The odds are much higher that you will use that weapon against your own family than that you will ever use it in any way that actually protects them from harm.
Nice way to include suicides (which are two-thirds of all "gun deaths") in your assertion. The people who trot out that canard consider someone who kills himself to have used the gun "on his family." By that measure, owning a car is crazy because it hugely increases the odds of you and/or your family dying in it.
Your anecdote about your dad suggests that he was a lucid, brave person. Was he really worried that he was going to decide to kill his family? Was he actually worried that only a WWII pistol would have the power to make him want to kill his family, but long, deadly knives in the kitchen wouldn't have that magical power over his decision making process? If, as you say, everyone has a crazy day, then why aren't the dozens of things lying around the house that could be used to quickly kill someone on your list of things that should be disabled?
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
So, you would have even MORE freedom if knives were taken away, right? And pipes and baseball bats? More people are killed every year with club-like objects (bats, pipes, etc) than with all rifles and shotguns combined (and that INCLUDES suicides using those guns). So surely you'd be in favor of even more extra-big helpings of freedom by taking away those objects, right? Right? No?
Guns are pretty reliable. Your brain isn't.
I think the unreliable brain, here, is in your skull. You're completely mangling any sort of proportion in your observations, citing anecdotes that mysteriously leave out options like owning a simple gun safe (for your dad's war relic... or explaining why a safe wouldn't stop him from using the gun to kill his family, but a kitchen drawer would stop him from using a knife to murder, as happens thousands of times every year).
Using NRA's logic: If you don't have a gun to protect your family, you'd just use a knife or a baseball bat.
No, the NRA's logic is that a 250-pound guy with a baseball bat is less of a threat to a 100-pound woman with a gun. How are you confused about the difference between criminals causing violence, and non-criminals who want to be able to defend against it? Is it really that complex to you?
If he needs more than a handful of examples (actually, people with guns stop many thousands of crimes every year - far more incidents than include people being murdered with guns, in case you're curious), then why does the political left insist that the handful of incidents involving terrorists is grounds to deny law abiding people constitutionally protected rights? You don't think that a small number of incidents should be used to make you wrong, but you're happy to let a small number of incidents (none of which would have been prevented by the proposed rights stripping, of course) is fine to show that you're right?
So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?
Of course it's possible. Just like it's possible that a person who runs a bakery could mistakenly think that somebody is the person who's been stealing their cookies, and tell the guy in the store next door to keep an eye on that person because he's now being seen walking into that other shop. Are you saying that because people don't always have 100% perfect knowledge of what other people are doing, they shouldn't be allowed to share information with each other? If you were in a store, as a customer, and thought you saw someone steal something, but couldn't be absolutely sure, would you just hold your tongue, or would you mention it to the shop keeper that you believe has just had part of their income stolen?
I hope you will be the first one on the shop lifting list accidentally, so you won't be able to get food anymore, not even online because they online stores also check the list. They know who you are because not only did they take a look at your face, they also linked it to all the credit card in your wallet as you passed a scanner, as well as the identity of any blutooth device you own.
Where will you go to buy new tinfoil for your hat making, now that the owners of the local tinfoil retailers have bugged your dog's water dish in order to better follow you with their black retail drones at night?
Because of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent modifications, a shop does have to jump through some hoops before refusing service without a risk of a lawsuit that they will probably lose.
They only have to jump through hoops if the person they're turning away is in a protected class. In which case all they have to do is keep a record of previously telling that person why they're not welcome in the store. Throwing someone out because they're an evangelical: not allowed. Throwing an evangelical out of your store because they're proselytizing your customers? Perfectly OK. Likewise with skin color, sexual orientation, etc.
When someone who's a known disruptive jerk or petty thief has been told to stay out of the stores in a shopping mall, it's perfectly reasonable to use technology to spot them as they head back in anyway. Some retailer's newly hired staff shouldn't have to memorize mug shots in order to head that sort of thing off.
And again, I'll ask: how is this any different than one retailer calling another on the phone to tell another retailer that a known shoplifter is walking into his store? Be specific.
And comparing this to a no-fly list? That's not "extra scrutiny," that's the government denying freedom of movement without due process.
A coffee shop owner doesn't owe a disruptive jackass or a regular thief any sort of due process. She can simply say, "You're not welcome in my store." You don't have a constitutional right to occupy a seat in someone's coffee shop, nor a constitutional right to know the the shop owner's thinking when asked to leave.
So now you're confusing a government-run list that bars people from traveling with an advisory between two retailers who want to know when a business-damaging person walks into their business?
Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.
Why? How is that any different than a retailer seeing someone that's a known pickpocket or shoplifter passing his window and headed into a colleague's store, and calling that colleague on the phone to say, "Hey, Bob, that guy, Sticky-Fingered Lou, is just walking into your store - heads up!"
Specifically, why is that creepy? It's creeps that these people have to deal with every day, and this is an approach to dealing with it. I can tell you've never been involved in retail trade with walk-in public customers.
Whether it is or not, why would anyone that pretends to be familiar with the constitution consider ANY "list" to be the equivalent of the due process required to deny someone their constitutionally protected rights? He knows better, he's just hoping that his low-information supporters won't know better.
I credit him with trying to close the illegal Gitmo prison, but Congress didn't allow it.
What's illegal about it? Are you confusing the physical location of a very necessary facility with the legal challenges surrounding what to do with violent killers who are working for a religious movement instead of a uniformed military overseas? His biggest mistake with respect to Guantanamo is releasing people from custody there so that so many of them can return to killing more people. They were captured in the context of an ongoing conflict. These aren't petty thieves or bank robbers - they're in most cases people who've operated as a group to try to kill people in our military as well as thousands of civilians. "Closing Gitmo" has ZERO impact on their status, legally. It's a place, not a status. Actually his biggest mistake was promising, for purely pandering political reasons, to close it in the first place - because that promise was aimed solely at prospective voters who don't understand the situation well enough to have an informed opinion.
Congress, by the way, didn't "not allow it," they refused to spend a bunch of new money to go through a change in that facility's use before the administration had set up a new Gitmo somewhere else. The problem was that the administration couldn't talk any states into being that new place. Nobody wants to house these guys, or should want to. That's exactly with Gitmo is such a good facility for exactly those detainees.
He isn't some random dude. He is a law professor. And one of the most cited in the country. Come on. He should be fired immediately.
Just like the president, you mean? I guy who (theoretically, since we'll never see his actual college records) was an expert in constitutional law, lectured on it, and served as a professor at the University of Chicago. And yet he proposes all sorts of completely counter-constitutional things (most recently, like taking away people's constitutionally protected rights without due process... you're on the no fly list, the constitution no longer applies to you!). Yes, he should have been fired a long time ago, too, on exactly such grounds. Not because he proposes or talks about such things, but because he actively practices such things.
It's required to invade another's privacy a normal drone might be annoying to neighbors but should be perfectly legal same as playing bad music. Throw a camera on it and now it's looking over their fence or treeline is a problem.
As the FAA and DoT have said many times, privacy is not part of their concern. It's not in their charter. They are only interested, theoretically, in flight safety. What someone does with a camera is a matter for traditional law enforcement. In most cases, state laws regarding privacy are where such issues are contested. The presence or absence of a camera has nothing to do with flight safety, and so has no bearing on the new registration requirement or on any other matter before the FAA/DoT.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
If the SCADA systems are freaking ON THE INTERNET then the executives need to be put in jail and all their family assets taken and treated as terrorists.
I find your thoughts about the constitution to be very compelling, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Also, would you agree that people on the no-fly list, no matter how they got on it, should be deprived of their constitutionally protected rights without any sort of due process? I thought you would! Please feature your praise of that scenario in your next newsletter, and be sure I get a copy in my new subscription.
You might want to try and actually research that from a non-NRA site and include things like private and guns how sales
Please link to your research sources, citing the number of crimes committed with guns that were purchased at gun shows where background checks aren't already legally required. Be specific.
As for how this list will be useful. I'd like to know if the person living next to me is likely to shoot a hole through their house and into mine, which happens all the damn time.
Really? You have neighbors that regularly shoot holes in your house? And you live in a place where that happens all the damn time but the police won't come to help? You might want to consider getting a gun, living in a place that rough.
Also, we could do some research with these numbers to determine things like whether gun ownership increases or decreases robbery or violent crime in a neighborhood...
All of the evidence is that areas with the most draconian gun laws (see, for example, Chicago) have the most rampant violent crime. Most other places around the country have been seeing a steady decline in violent crime for decades, even as millions more people have legally purchased guns during that period.
Now if we could only do the same thing for firearms.
Do what? Make a list of known firearm owners? The FAA isn't registering individual toys and models. It's registering owners, and telling them to write their information on the outside of their half-pound plastic toy model airplanes. People who don't want to be registered will simply ignore this. The new registration system has no bearing on who can buy what, it's simply a new regulatory/bureaucratic burden for those who choose to obey the law, and will set those people up for out-of-context random fishing expeditions by trolls, reporters, cops, and anyone else who feels like going on a witch hunt without any facts.
Are you wishing that the government got a list of who owns guns, to be used the same way? If you like this, then you're saying you like the idea of a list of names, but without any factual connection to the ownership of any particular firearm. How do you see that being useful? Be specific. And explain how your idea is different than the sales records already kept, down to the serial number, when people buy guns now.
You're taking the "navigable airspace" comment in that article completely out of context.
And aircraft pilots?
And there's the thing. Do you really think a 13 year old girl flying a half-pound pink plastic model helicopter below tree-top level in her back yard is "an aircraft pilot?"
So you're ignoring the record numbers of background checks, record number of carry permits applied for and issued, record number of transfers through FFLs, and relying on a survey of 2000 people in a country of over 300,000,000 that - according to the article you referenced can vary in its results from 35% to 52% based just on the wording (love that question ... "do you happen to have ... in your garage". Hilarious.
Meanwhile, the FBI says they continue to process record numbers of gun purchase background checks, and have done 222 million of them (many for the purchase of multiple guns) since they changed their system in the 1990's to include betters statistics. They've denied about 1% of those for various reasons.
This year, they've broken the record again, with the recent "black friday" shopping peak creating an all-time record for one day's gun purchases of over 185,000 - up 5% from the year before.
Meanwhile, violent crime continues to go down.
You're (deliberately, of course) confusing "guns" with what I actually said: rifles and shotguns.
The USA's gun death rate is far far far higher than places like Canada, France, UK, etc.
Because (1) more of their suicides use other methods, and (2) four urban gang violence hotspots account for the overwhelming majority of the rest of it. Something you'd really like to avoid discussing, it seems.
And how would that have stopped last week's shooting?
How would what have stopped it? Having less gang violence? Right: murderous jihaddis really don't care about "normal" crimes or the laws that are generally aimed at such situations. We should really consider ourselves lucky that the two jihaddis that attacked in California didn't opt for the Boston method. If they'd tossed one cheap backpack pressure cooker bomb into that same room, they'd have killed WAY more people. Obviously they had an appreciation for explosives, but didn't have the time to put them to work as planned. What sort of pre-emptive laws are you really anticipating that would stop people like that from killing if they want to?
In other words: "Nah that's your problem, not mine, so long as I can keep my guns."
We don't have Chicago's murder problem where I live. That problem is highly localized. So yes, it actually IS their problem. Or are you saying that we should have the federal government take over law enforcement in that liberal paradise, and that making that city's highly concentrated gang murder problem a federal responsibility would make it go away?
Because throwing more guns into the mix hasn't solved the problem.
What do you mean? Millions more people own guns now than they did 30 years ago, and violence crimes of all kinds, including those involving guns, have been going steadily down, and are down 46% since the 1990's. So, more honest people own legal guns, and we have much, much less violent crime.
Still waiting for a better answer.
Better answer to what? The problem in just a handful of urban areas where almost all of the non-suicide gun deaths occur? That is a problem. Those are areas with the most draconian gun laws, but they still seem to have a problem. Why? Because they have a rampant violent gang crime problem in those small parts of those four cities. Other areas have much high rates of gun ownership, and only a tiny fraction of that sort of violence. Trying to figure out what to do with those specific urban areas? Ask the liberals who have run the city councils and executive offices in those cities for the last several decades straight. Maybe they have some insight into why their approach to inner-city crime and gang activity doesn't work as well as it does everywhere else. Take away the crime in those four spots, and the US's murder rate is 17th down the list, well behind other countries that have far, far stricter gun laws.
You want a "better answer?" Address the culture problems in that handful of urban areas, and ask your favorite media outlets to report this stuff in some sort of honest context.
The odds are much higher that you will use that weapon against your own family than that you will ever use it in any way that actually protects them from harm.
Nice way to include suicides (which are two-thirds of all "gun deaths") in your assertion. The people who trot out that canard consider someone who kills himself to have used the gun "on his family." By that measure, owning a car is crazy because it hugely increases the odds of you and/or your family dying in it.
Your anecdote about your dad suggests that he was a lucid, brave person. Was he really worried that he was going to decide to kill his family? Was he actually worried that only a WWII pistol would have the power to make him want to kill his family, but long, deadly knives in the kitchen wouldn't have that magical power over his decision making process? If, as you say, everyone has a crazy day, then why aren't the dozens of things lying around the house that could be used to quickly kill someone on your list of things that should be disabled?
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
So, you would have even MORE freedom if knives were taken away, right? And pipes and baseball bats? More people are killed every year with club-like objects (bats, pipes, etc) than with all rifles and shotguns combined (and that INCLUDES suicides using those guns). So surely you'd be in favor of even more extra-big helpings of freedom by taking away those objects, right? Right? No?
Guns are pretty reliable. Your brain isn't.
I think the unreliable brain, here, is in your skull. You're completely mangling any sort of proportion in your observations, citing anecdotes that mysteriously leave out options like owning a simple gun safe (for your dad's war relic ... or explaining why a safe wouldn't stop him from using the gun to kill his family, but a kitchen drawer would stop him from using a knife to murder, as happens thousands of times every year).
Using NRA's logic: If you don't have a gun to protect your family, you'd just use a knife or a baseball bat.
No, the NRA's logic is that a 250-pound guy with a baseball bat is less of a threat to a 100-pound woman with a gun. How are you confused about the difference between criminals causing violence, and non-criminals who want to be able to defend against it? Is it really that complex to you?
I notice you're cleverly using suicides in both directions to suit your point.
If he needs more than a handful of examples (actually, people with guns stop many thousands of crimes every year - far more incidents than include people being murdered with guns, in case you're curious), then why does the political left insist that the handful of incidents involving terrorists is grounds to deny law abiding people constitutionally protected rights? You don't think that a small number of incidents should be used to make you wrong, but you're happy to let a small number of incidents (none of which would have been prevented by the proposed rights stripping, of course) is fine to show that you're right?
So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?
Of course it's possible. Just like it's possible that a person who runs a bakery could mistakenly think that somebody is the person who's been stealing their cookies, and tell the guy in the store next door to keep an eye on that person because he's now being seen walking into that other shop. Are you saying that because people don't always have 100% perfect knowledge of what other people are doing, they shouldn't be allowed to share information with each other? If you were in a store, as a customer, and thought you saw someone steal something, but couldn't be absolutely sure, would you just hold your tongue, or would you mention it to the shop keeper that you believe has just had part of their income stolen?
I hope you will be the first one on the shop lifting list accidentally, so you won't be able to get food anymore, not even online because they online stores also check the list. They know who you are because not only did they take a look at your face, they also linked it to all the credit card in your wallet as you passed a scanner, as well as the identity of any blutooth device you own.
Where will you go to buy new tinfoil for your hat making, now that the owners of the local tinfoil retailers have bugged your dog's water dish in order to better follow you with their black retail drones at night?
What's that? That sounds crazy? Oh.
Because of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent modifications, a shop does have to jump through some hoops before refusing service without a risk of a lawsuit that they will probably lose.
They only have to jump through hoops if the person they're turning away is in a protected class. In which case all they have to do is keep a record of previously telling that person why they're not welcome in the store. Throwing someone out because they're an evangelical: not allowed. Throwing an evangelical out of your store because they're proselytizing your customers? Perfectly OK. Likewise with skin color, sexual orientation, etc.
When someone who's a known disruptive jerk or petty thief has been told to stay out of the stores in a shopping mall, it's perfectly reasonable to use technology to spot them as they head back in anyway. Some retailer's newly hired staff shouldn't have to memorize mug shots in order to head that sort of thing off.
And again, I'll ask: how is this any different than one retailer calling another on the phone to tell another retailer that a known shoplifter is walking into his store? Be specific.
And comparing this to a no-fly list? That's not "extra scrutiny," that's the government denying freedom of movement without due process.
A coffee shop owner doesn't owe a disruptive jackass or a regular thief any sort of due process. She can simply say, "You're not welcome in my store." You don't have a constitutional right to occupy a seat in someone's coffee shop, nor a constitutional right to know the the shop owner's thinking when asked to leave.
I can tell you've never worked retail.
So now you're confusing a government-run list that bars people from traveling with an advisory between two retailers who want to know when a business-damaging person walks into their business?
This sort of thing is a cancer on civilization and needs to be stamped out, firmly and completely.
I think you're confusing people who regularly steal things from retailers with the people who want to stop them. Give it some more thought.
Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.
Why? How is that any different than a retailer seeing someone that's a known pickpocket or shoplifter passing his window and headed into a colleague's store, and calling that colleague on the phone to say, "Hey, Bob, that guy, Sticky-Fingered Lou, is just walking into your store - heads up!"
Specifically, why is that creepy? It's creeps that these people have to deal with every day, and this is an approach to dealing with it. I can tell you've never been involved in retail trade with walk-in public customers.
The no-fly list predates Obama's presidency.
Whether it is or not, why would anyone that pretends to be familiar with the constitution consider ANY "list" to be the equivalent of the due process required to deny someone their constitutionally protected rights? He knows better, he's just hoping that his low-information supporters won't know better.
I credit him with trying to close the illegal Gitmo prison, but Congress didn't allow it.
What's illegal about it? Are you confusing the physical location of a very necessary facility with the legal challenges surrounding what to do with violent killers who are working for a religious movement instead of a uniformed military overseas? His biggest mistake with respect to Guantanamo is releasing people from custody there so that so many of them can return to killing more people. They were captured in the context of an ongoing conflict. These aren't petty thieves or bank robbers - they're in most cases people who've operated as a group to try to kill people in our military as well as thousands of civilians. "Closing Gitmo" has ZERO impact on their status, legally. It's a place, not a status. Actually his biggest mistake was promising, for purely pandering political reasons, to close it in the first place - because that promise was aimed solely at prospective voters who don't understand the situation well enough to have an informed opinion.
Congress, by the way, didn't "not allow it," they refused to spend a bunch of new money to go through a change in that facility's use before the administration had set up a new Gitmo somewhere else. The problem was that the administration couldn't talk any states into being that new place. Nobody wants to house these guys, or should want to. That's exactly with Gitmo is such a good facility for exactly those detainees.
He isn't some random dude. He is a law professor. And one of the most cited in the country. Come on. He should be fired immediately.
Just like the president, you mean? I guy who (theoretically, since we'll never see his actual college records) was an expert in constitutional law, lectured on it, and served as a professor at the University of Chicago. And yet he proposes all sorts of completely counter-constitutional things (most recently, like taking away people's constitutionally protected rights without due process ... you're on the no fly list, the constitution no longer applies to you!). Yes, he should have been fired a long time ago, too, on exactly such grounds. Not because he proposes or talks about such things, but because he actively practices such things.
It's required to invade another's privacy a normal drone might be annoying to neighbors but should be perfectly legal same as playing bad music. Throw a camera on it and now it's looking over their fence or treeline is a problem.
As the FAA and DoT have said many times, privacy is not part of their concern. It's not in their charter. They are only interested, theoretically, in flight safety. What someone does with a camera is a matter for traditional law enforcement. In most cases, state laws regarding privacy are where such issues are contested. The presence or absence of a camera has nothing to do with flight safety, and so has no bearing on the new registration requirement or on any other matter before the FAA/DoT.