Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday October 20 2015, @11:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the department-of-droneland-security dept.

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.


Original Submission

Related Stories

FAA Registration Requirement for Drone Hobbyists Struck Down by Appeals Court 9 comments

Like a drone falling out of the sky:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/drone-pilots-dont-have-to-register-under-faas-controversial-rule-court-rules-2017-05-19

The Federal Aviation Administration's requirement that hobby drone users register their devices was struck down in an appeals court Friday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of John Taylor, a drone hobbyist who had challenged the legality of the FAA's drone-registration program.

The program, which was instituted in December 2015, required hobby drone owners to register through an FAA website for a $5 fee. Drone hobbyists were then issued a unique identification, which they were required to mark on their drones. Within the first month, nearly 300,000 drone owners had registered.

Previously:
All Drones in U.S. to Require Federal Registration
FAA Drone Registry to be Publicly Searchable
Drones and RC Models Must be Registered by February 16[, 2016]
Nearly 300,000 Recreational Drone Owners in U.S. Database


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @11:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @11:46AM (#252249)

    This is what happens when a few fuck it up for the majority.

    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @02:22PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @02:22PM (#252304) Journal
      A few regulators, that is. The solution here is not to expect a large group of people to not have idiots, but rather to fix the regulations so that they aren't onerous.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:45PM

        by Francis (5544) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:45PM (#252338)

        No, it's not the regulators that are the problem here. It's the folks that failed to act responsibly. Right now it isn't yet a huge problem, but waiting as these things get less expensive, more powerful and more common before acting is foolish. It's already going to be hard enough to set up the rules without having to fight with the status quo.

        But, I'm sure it's always the regulators fault...

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:55PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:55PM (#252369) Journal
          There's always idiots. But we don't always let regulators walk all over us just because there are idiots.
          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:09PM

            by frojack (1554) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:09PM (#252449) Journal

            Chuckle... khollow acts like we have some control over regulators... how very quaint.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @10:05PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @10:05PM (#252498) Journal
              And frojack acts like we don't have some control over regulators... though I would consider that more foolish than quaint.
    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday October 20 2015, @06:07PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @06:07PM (#252401)
      Are you okay with the police using these machines?
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday October 21 2015, @07:16AM

        by tftp (806) on Wednesday October 21 2015, @07:16AM (#252624) Homepage

        Are you okay with the police using these machines?

        Personally, I'd be OK with anyone using these machines safely and without interference with other people's business. In reality it means certification of owners - and, perhaps, mandatory training and licensing. Otherwise, as the number of drones and users grows, more and more idiots are going to cause trouble in every possible way.

        By extension, the police should be using these drones in a professional way, and for specific law enforcement purposes that are defined by courts, with protection of privacy of innocents. However my opinion on this subject hardly matters because the police does not ask people what the officers may do. Only the courts may constrain the police; however judges and the police are working together, have common goals, and are unlikely to be each other's checks and balances.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @12:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @12:06PM (#252251)

    So you only need to register it when you buy it? Not when you build it yourself?

    Well, then the way to get a legal unregistered drone should be clear! ;-)

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday October 20 2015, @07:37PM

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @07:37PM (#252430)

      Same thing goes for some guns I believe. You can buy a mostly finished gun kit with no registration worries whatsoever. As long as you have the tools and metal working skills, you can finish the gun. I seem to recall the ATF being very nervous about the maker community and their ability to finally make a worthy gun. This isn't quite there, but close.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 20 2015, @12:20PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 20 2015, @12:20PM (#252255) Homepage
    Clearly there are a few people who are fucking things up by invading a shared common resource (the space above our heads) with their modern, point-and-shoot flyable, remote control helicopters? (Why was the term "drone" needed, we've had a term to describe these devices for decades?) There's a long precedent for needing to register things capable of performing such invasions (such as cars, dogs, and radio transmitters), so I have a strong feeling they'll go ahead with this and there's nothing that can be done about it. However, if the hobbyists of yore were capable of being sensible, and they're flying traditional hard-to-fly remote control planes and copters, then perhaps the hobbyist can be separated from the new-flyer-on-the-block nob by how hard it is to fly their vehicle. The remote control helicopters I know of have no automatic gyroscopic self righting, if you're not a skillful flyer, you will not get anywhere. So perhaps only require the registration of craft with autonomous flight controls? Old-schoolers can continue as they were.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @02:26PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @02:26PM (#252305) Journal

      Clearly there are a few people who are fucking things up by invading a shared common resource (the space above our heads) with their modern, point-and-shoot flyable, remote control helicopters? (Why was the term "drone" needed, we've had a term to describe these devices for decades?)

      The answer to your question is obvious. Your label, "point-and-shoot flyable, remote control helicopter" has 48 characters while "drone" has 5.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:33PM (#252336)

        The answer to your question is obvious. Your label, "point-and-shoot flyable, remote control helicopter" has 48 characters while "drone" has 5.

        Then drones haven't been used by hobbyists for decades have they? And that means there has not been decades of drone use to base decisions off of.

        Words mean things. Even with the metric you have given to base the word off of it isn't consistent with this single web page or even the article summary. The public is even less clueful.

        I hate the word drone. And get off my lawn!

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:53PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:53PM (#252394) Journal

          Words mean things.

          And often you can find a shorter or simpler word or phrase that means what you need. Where's the evidence that "drone" isn't good enough?

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:36PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:36PM (#252458)

            Right in the part where it is stated the poster and the professional quoted in the summary can't even agree. Mostly.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:30PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:30PM (#252359) Homepage
        No, because "drone" also means the honking great expensive things the government has which are planes rather than helicopters, and which do not require direct human control to navigate. Therefore lots of extra words are needed to distinguish the two. And clearly you end up with something at least as long as "RC copter" before you've become even vaguely precise.

        The "point-and-shoot flyable" adjectival construct does not specify a whole new type of thing, it is merely a modifier. There are "point-and-shoot flyable RC copters" (modern ones), which one could moniker "smart RC copters" for brevity, and there are "oh-shit-I've-crashed-again RC copters" (traditional ones), but they are both "RC copters". Because they are copters (hence the "copter" part of the name), which are remotely controllable (hence the "RC" part of the name).
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:57PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:57PM (#252371) Journal

          No, because "drone" also means the honking great expensive things the government has which are planes rather than helicopters, and which do not require direct human control to navigate. Therefore lots of extra words are needed to distinguish the two. And clearly you end up with something at least as long as "RC copter" before you've become even vaguely precise.

          People fly RC planes and airships too. Hell, you can even create a remote controlled kite. "copter" doesn't even begin to cover the necessary ground.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 21 2015, @12:57PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday October 21 2015, @12:57PM (#252701) Homepage
            Given that you've not defined the "necessary ground", no number of words can cover it accurately.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 21 2015, @06:14PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 21 2015, @06:14PM (#252856) Journal

              Given that you've not defined the "necessary ground"

              "Drone" it is, since I acquired the semantic initiative here.

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:47PM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:47PM (#252390) Journal

          Are you aware that consumer-drones include options for autonomous flight? Set some GPS waypoints and it'll fly the route without any human intervention. Why is something like that not worthy of being called a drone? It certainly isn't a remote control device in the way usually think of them.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:24PM

            by frojack (1554) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:24PM (#252454) Journal

            Exactly.

            And that programmed route capability kicks in at about $1500 the last time I checked. Probably less now.
            You can program them to fly to a certain spot and altitude, hover and take the video or stills, then return when battery gets to a certain level. You don't even have to maintain contact with them from your controller. (Its tricky to maintain manual control once they are out of clear line of sight anyway. Even live video down-link is).

            That is totally different than the guy standing on the lawn with a hand held controller. The hand held controller devices probably need not be regulated, they usually crash harmlessly when they get out of range (or are radio jammed). Its the true autonomous drones that need licensing.

            However, in the spirit of governmental over-reach, I suspect even RC airplanes will require licenses, and maybe even kites.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:48PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:48PM (#252488)

              And that programmed route capability kicks in at about $1500 the last time I checked. Probably less now.
              You can program them to fly to a certain spot and altitude, hover and take the video or stills, then return when battery gets to a certain level. You don't even have to maintain contact with them from your controller. (Its tricky to maintain manual control once they are out of clear line of sight anyway. Even live video down-link is).

              You seem to care, I hope my words go to good use. I'm an r/c flight hobbyist and take it pretty seriously, I have a number of craft in fixed and rotating wing configuration (airplane and helicopter) including the modern fully stabilized and autonomous multirotor (what most people call a quadcopter). The whole thread has been thinking along the right lines but there is some practical information that is missing that would come only from some experience in this domain.

              First off you are right, turnkey quadcopter autonomous flight systems can be had for probably $999 and a trip to a hobby or photography store, right now. In 2 hours out of box the things will be flying around, and if you are stupid, crashing into things and causing problems for those around you. They are a big problem in the hands of a dumb individual - it does not mater if the thing is operated in an autonomous mode or not. The real designation is the stabilization of the craft itself. If it can perform wing leveling (return to a stable position with out any operator input) the barrier to entry to operate the thing is reduced to very little; it goes down even more if a GPS hold function is provided, which will exist in the autonomous capable variants. In the hands of people with a brain this is a great way to learn to fly with less hassle and money spent on parts. In the hands of idiots this results in people having to run away from a crashing piece of plastic being operated by an operator who has no understanding of the limits of their skill.

              It is the understanding of the limits of their skill, appropriate use of the machine, and barrier to entry that make the problem. This doesn't have anything to do with autonomous operating modes. In fact in the same way that a newbie with one of these things is far more of a threat to their quadcopter and people around them than a useful spy machine, so is the autonomous flight modes. These units have no navigation sensors and very little, if any, emergency handling logic. They will fly straight paths as programed between the way points and don't take into account things like structures, mission flight time and total stored energy, payload, wind, etc. While the platform itself may be turnkey operating an autonomous vehicle is not!

              In fact, out of all the times these things have been in the news, what is the observed ratio of remote control to autonomous flight? I have never heard of any report of a high profile crash involving autonomous flight. All the reports I hear are from operators who claim the device either malfunctioned or was hacked. It is a total dismissal of responsibility because even if it malfunctioned or was hacked it shouldn't be in a position where any fault that occurs can risk people!

              tl;dr: Autonomous mission planning is really hard. Morons will fly their crafts into trees and the ground because of insufficient planning more than anything else.

              Look at the barrier of entry as the solution! If it takes thousands of dollars of parts to learn how to do something or it takes being smart and thinking about stuff up front, either way it does at least limit the damage done by people who wont invest effort. And that handles almost all of the public.

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 21 2015, @01:10PM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday October 21 2015, @01:10PM (#252707) Homepage
                > I'm an r/c flight hobbyist ... Look at the barrier of entry as the solution!

                After all the nay-sayers who have no skin in the game, it's nice to see support from someone who does have skin in the game.
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:15PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:15PM (#252744)

                  After all the nay-sayers who have no skin in the game, it's nice to see support from someone who does have skin in the game.

                  I see a lot of stuff being argued about that is obviously a bad idea. It doesn't take very long to realize that operating r/c aircraft of any kind in public isn't something that should really be done with only one person around or with out the consent of others who are not involved at all. It gets down to stuff as basic as every time an r/c helicopter lands if any toddlers are around they are guaranteed to run at it as fast as they can, with their heads leading, and aiming themselves right at the helicopter blades. The dangers go up from there.

                  I don't want to see blanket registration requirements but I would like for everyone to understand what it is really like being a competent r/c pilot because we are about to get caught up in a lot of muck.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 21 2015, @01:05PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday October 21 2015, @01:05PM (#252704) Homepage
            Nope, I am not aware of them, at least at consumer-level prices, they haven't reached here yet. A quick google shows that they might be available from our richer neighbours in the west for about the 3000e level, which I don't consider a mass-market price at all, but google translate makes certainty an impossibility.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:24AM

              by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:24AM (#253026) Journal

              You can probably get Amazon to ship to you:

              This one is $400 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VVWEI8G [amazon.com] but it also needs a "telemetry module" to do waypoints and I didn't easily see what that costs. I doubt it would double the price though.

              This one is $740 and definitely sounds drone like: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00S0DXU74 [amazon.com]

              Multifunctional set together:Apps Control, Map Navigation, Vibration-free Shooting, Out-of-sight Flight, Auto-follow Mode, One-Tap Routing.

              Of course, like boats, it seems that you can spend as much as you want on a drone -- this one is $36,500: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VW0LD08 [amazon.com]

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:46AM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:46AM (#253119) Homepage
                Yikes, technology moves on. The nearest country I can find mention of those in is my neighbour's neighbour. I guess they'll get here eventually at about 150-200% of the price. (Not seen anything that can carry and control a decent camera for less than about 3000e, and that was still interactively controlled.)
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:07PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:07PM (#252347)

      "I'll just buy a regular legal RC helicopter, mount a camera the old way, and go legally hover over people's bathroom windows until they make everything illegal"

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:39PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:39PM (#252363) Homepage
        However, the ones with the skills to do that have had the skills to do that for decades and managed to live their lives not doing it, so have no reason to start now. Cameras small enough to be carried by RC copters have existed for well over a decades too, it's not really the camera tech that has changed. I stand by my assertion that it's the kind of people who are now buying the (now usable-by-idiots) tech that has changed - moving towards the idiot demogaphic.

        My goodness, is it the 8085th of September already?
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:17PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:17PM (#252472) Homepage

      Old-schoolers flew their traditional remote-controlled mini-airplanes and copters at large parks, in the boonies, or miniature landing-strips put there for that purpose. Cameras on that equipment were also lot more rare back in the day.

      And most importantly, the old-skool operators had manners and accountability and respected airspace and privacy, and had lots of practice or actual training not only with the craft itself but with its inner-workings -- not only for reasons of public safety but because those aircraft were significant investments even to the serious hobbyist.

      People caught flying quadcopters within 2 miles of an airport should be subject to 15-year prison-sentences; and it should be legal for property owners or residents to shoot down all unauthorized quadcopters hovering over their property lines, with the operator being charged with prowling. In fact, any person flying a quadcopter within a quarter mile of any residental property (even in urban areas)should be charged with voyeurism regardless.

      I'll soften that stance a bit when the Shit Hits the Fan, but it's retarded morons who give the government excuses to fuck it up for everybody else, as some here have already stated.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 20 2015, @12:26PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @12:26PM (#252262)

    Its a classic NIH example, will they basically add "drone" to existing RC airplane and FAA and AMA insurance rules or will they have to go all "maker" and pretend the past doesn't exist and NIH some crazy new system?

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @12:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @12:30PM (#252264)

    When this story showed up on slashdot, I started researching drone components to see what the current model du jour was for 250 class multirotors.

    It seems the best bet for software is cleanflight or betaflight (a fork of cleanflight with reworked equations) running on a naze32 board. These are only 20 bucks and probably the part that's going to be regulated if DIY drones end up regulated.

    You need motors (you can have anywhere from 2 to 8 motors on a naze32 board) and electronic speed control modules for each motor.

    You need a radio transmitter (TX) to control the quad (look for a Turnigy 9xr or the equivalent) and a radio receiver (RX) board that connects to the naze board. 2.4 GHz is the usual control band.

    For FPV flying you need a camera and transmitter. FPV video usually runs on the 5.8GHz band. Quanum makes a cheap set of goggles and boards that have everything you need for FPV flying for $75. They do look stupid as shit but whatever. FatShark has slightly less ridiculous looking models for a good deal more money.

    Uhm, otherwise you need a battery and a frame.

    Altogether you can get everything you need for around $300 and it's not that bad to use the naze boards in a project, you can just solder headers to the board and use plugs for ease of maintenance.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by slash2phar on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:32PM

    by slash2phar (623) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:32PM (#252334)
    It's hardly even worth pointing out at this stage.
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Francis on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:51PM

      by Francis (5544) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:51PM (#252342)

      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

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:11PM (#252378) Journal

        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

          by Francis (5544) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:02PM (#252464)

          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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:44PM (#252485) Journal

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:52PM (#252491) Journal
              As an on-topic aside, I believe unarmed remote control vehicles (and perhaps some of the armed versions too!) would be one of the arms protected by the Second Amendment as it gets incorporated into infantry warfare doctrine in the US. How is an impromptu militia going to use a battlefield unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) without training? At least, if people are routinely flying such vehicles privately as hobbies or whatever, then they'll be partly trained for flying and maintaining them in a time of war.
          • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday October 20 2015, @10:41PM

            by Spook brat (775) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @10:41PM (#252507) Journal

            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:

            Held:
            1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
            firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
            traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
            Pp. 2–53.
            (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
            does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
            clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
            connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
            (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
            of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
            capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
            feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
            order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
            army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
            power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
            arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
            Pp. 22–28.
            (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
            rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
            followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
            (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
            interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
            that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
            Pp. 30–32.

            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

        by SecurityGuy (1453) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:26PM (#252383)

        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

          by Snow (1601) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:12PM (#252467) Journal

          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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:54PM (#252492) Journal
            That is non-binding. It is a justification for why the Second Amendment exists.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @10:03PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 20 2015, @10:03PM (#252497) Journal
            Seriously, just read that first phrase

            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

        by Lagg (105) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:40PM (#252387) Homepage Journal

        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

          by frojack (1554) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:47PM (#252459) Journal

          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.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:43PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @03:43PM (#252337) Homepage Journal

    A federal license for, basically, a toy. A tool, if you prefer. This is another typical example of "pre-crime" [wikipedia.org] regulation: because someone, somewhere might commit a crime with a drone (you know, like actually injuring someone), we have to have laws and regulations that prohibit the behavior that might even lead to that crime. And more regulations that prohibit behavior that might lead to behavior that might lead to a crime.

    Somewhere I recently read that, in the US, regulations are created at a rate of 18,000 pages per...I think it was per year. The Department of Transportation has just made it's modest contribution. What's crazy is that these bureaucracies can attach criminal penalties to their regulations, without any review by an elected legislature. The old book, Three Felonies a Day, is surely outdated by now. How many felonies have you unknowingly committed today, by violating regulations you didn't know existed? Have you filed your federally mandated disaster plan for your rabbit [washingtonpost.com]?

    Big government lets petty bureaucrats build their little empires. It surely doesn't serve the actual purposes of government.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:24PM (#252353)

      Why do you point at the "petty bureaucrats"? What empires can they build? They are not law makers, they are the ones who are tasked with carrying out the laws. The reason you need to fill out a form 27B/6 is because of some yet new wrinkle in the law that gets passed down. An onerous Byzantine system gets put in place because of the lawmakers.

      Why are you so gullible that you let the lawmakers grandstand about red tape when they are the ones who put it in place? They serve you up a nice cliché scapegoat and you fall for it every time.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:04PM

        by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:04PM (#252376) Homepage Journal

        That's the point: they are not lawmakers. But Congress has given their agencies the authority to write regulations, so they do.

        What empires can they build? You clearly haven't worked for the government. You want your position to be upgraded? Then you need to justify more people and a bigger budget. One way to do that is to expand the programs that you are in charge of. It's hard to steal programs from other people, so the best way is to create a new program. For example, create an entirely new licensing regime. That will require a new IT infrastructure, thousands of pages of regulations, and a whole raft of additional employees to run it - jackpot!

        This is what Pournelle's Iron Law [wikipedia.org] is all about: in any bureaucracy, ambitious people want to enhance their personal positions. If that happens to involve doing something useful for the public, that's a happy coincidence, but it's not a priority. Consider: what penalty does the IRS, the TSA, or any other government agency suffer, if it mistreats the public? On the other hand, new programs and regulations increase an agency's reach and power. It's obvious where you want to invest your time...

        I used to work for the US federal government. I've seen it in action.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:55PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @05:55PM (#252396) Journal

      someone, somewhere might commit a crime with a drone (you know, like actually injuring someone)
       
      The injuries are already happening. This example being particularly amusing. [theblaze.com]

    • (Score: 2) by Translation Error on Tuesday October 20 2015, @06:45PM

      by Translation Error (718) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @06:45PM (#252414)
      It's about accountability. People are already showing that they'll blithely interfere with firefighting operations and fly drones over crowded areas, and in many cases, you simply can't determine who's responsible. Requiring registration would make it possible to hold people accountable for their actions, and it would make people much likelier to consider the consequences of actions if they know they can be tracked back to them.
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:07PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:07PM (#252465) Journal

        Requiring registration would make it possible to hold people accountable for their actions,

        Really? How do you foresee that having any effect at all?

        The authorities could jam or shoot down or follow a drone to its source, and then take the registration number and look up the owner and arrest them?

        The problem was solved by jamming or shooting down or following to the source. Registration adds NOTHING.

        Guns are registered. Look how much that has helped!!

        You are buying into an enforcement capability that will be ineffectual, but will still leave drones unfettered in the hands of police.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday October 21 2015, @12:01AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 21 2015, @12:01AM (#252529) Journal

        People are already showing that they'll blithely interfere with firefighting operations and fly drones over crowded areas, and in many cases, you simply can't determine who's responsible.

        Can you even tell me if one requires two hands to count these "many cases"? Just because law enforcement is often too incompetent to catch people who do illegal things with drones, doesn't justify regulating drones.

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday October 20 2015, @07:46PM

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @07:46PM (#252436)

      Have you filed your federally mandated disaster plan for your rabbit?

      Yes. However, I cross-filed it on the Internet under the heading, "Rabbit Stew". Unless it's fire, in which case, BBQ rabbit.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @07:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @07:49PM (#252438)

      > ...basically, a toy. A tool, if you prefer.

      So just like the gun I keep on my farm.

  • (Score: 2) by Username on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:23PM

    by Username (4557) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:23PM (#252352)

    https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-anthony-foxx-announces-unmanned-aircraft-registration [transportation.gov]

    Not sure why you would link to any other site.

    I’ll be surprised if they don’t force them to use transponders like every other aircraft, since idjits will fly them into controlled airspace anyway.

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:03PM

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:03PM (#252446)

      I'll be surprised if they have 5% of the budget required to police people. It's easy to police airplanes, even down to the hobbyist stuff, when the hobby is priced well outside of the reach of your standard non-living slave wage.

      I sincerely fail to see how they will be able to regulate something when software has removed nearly all requirements for skill, and the costs are pushed low enough for use by the unwashed masses. Who will be watching this new low airspace, and with what equipment, and with what personnel? There seems to be this idea that we can just do anything, and that we are all powerful. We're not, and I really don't think we're prepared for the additional regulatory burden of mass policing three dimensional airspace when we have budgetary issues policing the two dimensional ground with vehicles.

      I can already see how to build a drone with spare parts, a software repository, and a throw-away smart phone. It's easily foreseeable that a good percentage of drone flights, when they become the new normal, will be unregistered illegal smuggling of contraband. The government does such a swell job each day of completely stopping all contraband with it's multi-billion dollar War On Drugs, I can only imagine the hilarity of their impotent and futile War On Drones.

      I'm actually far more interested in the government agreeing that I can shoot down any trespassing drone over my property. That's the new regulations in the future. Your $1,000 toy being ripped to shreds by a somebody's anti-air tech they built from a Ted Talk. All I need to do is watch out for Amazon's drones if I ever order anything for Amazon, otherwise I'll just start shooting them down. That will be far more effective than a pathetic phone call to the police, waiting a few hours for the police to show, and then watching them go through their training on triangulating a drone's control signals.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:43PM

      by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:43PM (#252484) Journal

      Federally mandated transponders will then be like this: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/prod201.html [garmin.com]
      Drones will have to be 2kg plus, just to carry the transponder.

      Then"hobbyist" flyers will likely go back to "ordinary" looking rc planes (better flight time as a trade off to lack of hover).

      Small drones go away.

      Problem solved!

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 21 2015, @12:05AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 21 2015, @12:05AM (#252530) Journal
        You live up to your nick. I'm confident the registration fees will adequately cover the necessary blame-redirection bureaucracy whenever a federally mandated transponder gets sucked into a jet engine.
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:15AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:15AM (#252568) Journal

      When I submitted the story, the announcement hadn't been made yet.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2) by WillAdams on Tuesday October 20 2015, @11:37PM

    by WillAdams (1424) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @11:37PM (#252521)

    Okay, they can maybe force registration going forward, but existing drones should be grandfathered to be free and clear of such obnoxious, overbearing rule making.