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: 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