SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. Department of Transportation is set to announce plans to require registration for every drone sold:
Have a drone? You're going to have to register it with the U.S. Department of Transportation, according to NBC News.
The federal government will announce a plan within days that will require anyone who buys a drone to register it with the Department of Transportation, NBC reported Friday evening.
A Department of Transportation spokesperson told MarketWatch that U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and Administrator Michael Huerta of the Federal Aviation Administration will release more details on Monday at 12:30 p.m. Eastern time.
"The hobbyist drone community has self-regulated itself for decades," said Lisa Ellman, co-chair of the unmanned aircraft systems practice at Hogan Lovells, a New York–based law firm. "But with the technology getting so cheap and improving so much, we have more and more drones."
FAA official Rich Swayze said last month that the agency expects that a million drones could be sold this holiday season.
"A lot of people are buying them and thinking they are toys," Ellman said. "They are not toys."
Florida lawyer Jonathan Rupprecht, author of a book on drone law, said he believes any plan centered around drone registration is a necessary first step toward regulating drones but is curious how the regulation will play out and whether the rule will apply to hobbyists with small drones.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by slash2phar on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:32PM
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Francis on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:51PM
Drones aren't convenient penis extenders for cowards is why. The people you see fighting against regulations on firearms are mostly people using them as penis extenders rather than people with legitimate reasons for owning firearms. People hunting, shooting targets and/or with legitimate need for self-defense aren't usually the loud mouths you see trying to legalize every possible firearm under the 2nd amendment. You don't see them doing it much because they don't need or want it. And for folks that need protection, regulations would help a great deal.
The whole situation is rather ridiculous because the 2nd amendment doesn't even apply to firearms owned by private citizens. It applies to arms in general that are used in conjunction with the national guard. Hence why they're able to have just about anything that the military is allowed to have. But, I don't hear many folks complaining about their right now own cruise missiles and tanks being infringed upon.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:11PM
The whole situation is rather ridiculous because the 2nd amendment doesn't even apply to firearms owned by private citizens. It applies to arms in general that are used in conjunction with the national guard.
There's not much to the Second Amendment. You are, of course, referring to the non-binding preamble phrase ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") as if it were binding. The obvious rebuttal is that wide-spread and non-infringed gun ownership means a large population of people who are familiar with firearms and thus, need less training for a militia. This explains the first phrase in its entirety without requiring us to blatantly ignore the second, binding phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" which is obviously meant to apply to firearms owned and used by private citizens.
We have enough threats to our freedom without us creating more by ignoring our own laws whenever it is convenient.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:02PM
You don't get to read the text as convenient and then bitch about other people disagreeing. It is a binding phrase and it wouldn't be in there at all if it weren't. Hence why the national guard gets to have all sorts of weapons that you and I aren't able to own.
And no, having wide-spread gun ownership does not mean that there's less training involved. It means that you've got more training involved as you have to first de-train the people from all their bad habits and then retrain them on how to do it correctly. It's just like riding a motorcycle or playing golf, the worst people to train are the ones that already know something about it. Much of the time what they know isn't correct or causes problems later on.
As far as owning goes, the whole purpose of the amendment was to keep the militia stocked with firearms because there was no standing army at the time and police were likewise heavily dependent upon rounding up a posse for anything non-trivial.
And BTW, the 2nd amendment was never ratified. The text that was ratified was not the same as the text that passed the Senate and as such the amendment isn't even in the constitution at this point. I'm not really sure why people give it a level of credence that it doesn't deserve.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:44PM
You don't get to read the text as convenient and then bitch about other people disagreeing. It is a binding phrase and it wouldn't be in there at all if it weren't. Hence why the national guard gets to have all sorts of weapons that you and I aren't able to own.
Nonsense. There are other non-binding phrases in the US Constitution such as the Preamble [constitutionus.com].
The amendment is also quite clear on what it means and allows. First, of all what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you not get? "The people" clearly doesn't refer just to people capable of serving in a militia, much less people actively serving in a militia. "The people" is used elsewhere and it's clearly a broader class of people than even US citizens.
"Arms" is a loose phrase and we could choose to interpret it as meaning any thing from the most minimal conditions such as a small caliber rifle or BB gun to nuclear weapons. But it makes sense to consider "arms" as meaning the sort of light weapons available to an infantry platoon, such as man-portable weapons like assault rifles (with large magazines I might add) or various sorts of rocketry and mortar ordinance.
"keep and bear" is pretty clear, delineating a personal right to have whatever is considered "arms" on one's property and to use them in a responsible manner up to and including killing people with them in a lawful manner.
And "infringed" clearly includes trying to ban firearm ownership and usage among people who are not in the National Guard.
And BTW, the 2nd amendment was never ratified. The text that was ratified was not the same as the text that passed the Senate and as such the amendment isn't even in the constitution at this point. I'm not really sure why people give it a level of credence that it doesn't deserve.
Bullshit. There are two things to observe. First, the Second Amendment did go through the ratification process as required and was properly ratified. Second, the ratification process does not preclude whatever you claim to have happened. A similar thing has happened with other amendments (16th Amendment [wikipedia.org], for example) and that hasn't been found to be relevant either.
There is a proper process for changing or eliminating the Second Amendment. It involves passing both branches of Congress and being approved by a supermajority of the states. It doesn't involve reinterpreting the English language in a laughable way or claiming, 220 years after the fact, that the legal process wasn't properly followed (especially since that assertion wasn't true). Instead of presenting compelling reasons for amending the Constitution in a legal way, we find embarrassing and lazy sophistry.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:52PM
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday October 20 2015, @10:41PM
You don't get to read the text as convenient and then bitch about other people disagreeing. It is a binding phrase and it wouldn't be in there at all if it weren't. . . And BTW, the 2nd amendment was never ratified. The text that was ratified was not the same as the text that passed the Senate and as such the amendment isn't even in the constitution at this point. I'm not really sure why people give it a level of credence that it doesn't deserve.
You don't get to decide that, the Supreme Court does. Next December 15th will mark the 225th anniversary of the Bill of Rights' ratification, and in all that time it's been upheld as the law of the land and recognized as a valid part of the Constitution by the Department of Justice and the nation's highest court. Even if there were irregularities in the method by which the 2nd amendment was passed, 200+ years of precedence says that it's accepted by the Nation.
The High Court also disagrees with your interpretation of the meaning of the amendment, in a clear and fundamental manner. When ruling on the recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller [scotusblog.com] [PDF warning] the Court decided that the 2nd amendment does indeed guarantee an individual right to bear arms. The ruling is a pretty long document, but a good amount of meat is available right up front:
TL;DR version: the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to gun ownership. The first phrase doesn't limit the right to organized military forces.
As much as you may agree with the four dissenting Justices (who echoed some of your arguments in their dissents), agreeing with current jurisprudence and legal precedent doesn't make someone bitchy, nor does it make their reading of the Constitution arbitrary or convenient.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:26PM
Oh, right, this is the argument that the second amendment is that one oddball amendment in the bill of rights that actually grants rights to the government rather than to the people.
Keep in mind that the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment had just overthrown their government. It's fairly comical to think they'd set up a legal structure that would disarm the general populace.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:12PM
What about the part about a "well regulated Militia"? How does that fit into your view of the 2nd amendment?
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:54PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @10:03PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
and then answer the question, what did it tell us to do? Does US Congress have a constitutional obligation to set up nation-wide militia now? Does the Supreme Court then have to rule on whether those militia meet some completely unspecified condition labeled "well regulated"? Of course not. It's just telling us that the writers of the amendment thought being able to create a "well regulated militia" was important to a democracy.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:40PM
Even though you went way off topic I still have to agree. I love guns, half because I like shooting and half because I respect the extreme engineering feats that go into them. I wouldn't mind carrying one because I like shoulder and concealment holsters (no particular reason, I just like them for the same reason I do my jacket). But these types of people just like to intimidate others and make themselves feel more secure. I stopped trying to make any kind of objective defense of guns because it's too hard to do so when the very first argument that comes up isn't "can't I just have fun target shooting?" but "WHAT IF I NEED TO KILL A THIEF OMG". People tend to start assuming you'll do that too after a while. Kind of seeing something similar with drones. It's never people just wanting to play with a cool quadcopter. It's always "NSA AND AMAZON CAN SEND THESE AFTER ME, WHY CAN'T I SEND IT AFTER PEOPLE TOO". The article really shows what happens when that mindset takes over too. So do the posts in this thread. People are equating gun regulation (not toys) to that of quadcopters and other RC vehicles (are toys, unless you bought the mobile missile platforms the MIC seem to have no qualms about pumping out).
I mean yeah, you could hurt someone if you fly it into their face. You can spy on people too. But both have been true since long range piloting started becoming feasible. It seems to me like this is partly hysteria and partly oversaturation brought on by media coverage of aforementioned MIC jackasses bombing people. How screwed up do things have to be to see this person - someone who should be qualified, an FAA guy for fucks sake - say “A lot of people are buying them and thinking they are toys,” Ellman said. “They are not toys.” and not take a second glance at it? Yeah, those people buying their friend a microcopter are surely planning some devious shit.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:47PM
You can spy on people too.
I don't even think that is an issue the FAA is trying to address.
Its more about the over blown fear of mid-air collisions or engine ingestion of a drone by an airliner, or other plane.
Never mind that commercial airliners can ingest a whole flock of sparrows or a couple geese and spit feathers out the back without a hiccup. It takes a large flock of large birds (Canadian geese in Sully's case) to take down an Airbus 320.
Landings have had to be aborted, fire retardant air-drops have been aborted due to small drones in the area. Probably over reaction in most cases.
Cops have arrested people (with no legal right to do so) for using "drones" to video their operations from a block away.
(I've heard police (on my scanner) ask the FAA for air space closures of 10 mile radius to 10000 feet due to an operation to arrest someone barricaded in their home. The FAA granted them 1 mile, and 3000 feet, thereby assuring news choppers with long lenses could capture the event. I guess they aren't total idiots after all).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.