|
Post by avordvet on Mar 13, 2012 4:36:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aronatbc on Mar 13, 2012 7:49:51 GMT -5
Hey wait a minute....
Didn't the police uber alles folks tell us not to worry about those drones? That they'd NEVER carry weapons and were for surveillance only? That our tinfoil was on too tight?
This just gets worse every day....
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Mar 13, 2012 8:25:29 GMT -5
Add the Drones to all the other niffty toys DHS is providing police forces and then look at the increasing number of "isolated incidents" and it looks like it could be, "Welcome to battle ground USA. The next police state."
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Mar 13, 2012 13:46:49 GMT -5
TPTB had better remember that there are plenty of citizens around the country that are well versed in the strategic and tactical use of all the "military hardware" they are sending into the urban areas.
Unlike the LEO's, these people have lived and bled next to this "Hardware", its use is pretty much second nature. For TPTB to bring these peoples ire down on them would be a great mistake.
Although I don't like the proliferation of what is clearly Military Specific Hardware being used by Civilian Law Enforcement agencies and departments, I don't mind having such hardware in close proximity... and without the Battalions of soldiers guarding it.
Should the need arise for some "field upgrades", one will not have to infiltrate Ft. Polk... Well I take that back, why one would even considering infiltrating that god forsaken swamp is beyond me, but you get my drift.
|
|
|
Post by Sedition on Mar 13, 2012 17:12:11 GMT -5
Look! A new flying target to shoot at!
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Mar 13, 2012 19:40:07 GMT -5
Sedition Before you even suggest doing that read the new law called "HR 3801. This bill adds the requirement for the Dept of Defense to hand over these vehicles. It also adds their description to the term "Aircraft" in definitions. This means that to interfere with one is to interfere with an Aircraft in flight. Same crime as shooting at an airliner or a Military aircraft. I don't doubt they will fly them real low to temp folks with another tracking the rounds to 8 digit coordinates. Speak and be very careful how you discuss them. I heard on TV last year here in NC a guy was arrested for aiming a Green laser at an aircraft that caused the pilot to abort his landing and the guy got arrested. (nope Brock I didn't get the link)
|
|
|
Post by Sedition on Mar 13, 2012 20:48:45 GMT -5
In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which stated that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was similar to a public highway, open to all users. Navigable air space was defined as the sky above "the minimum safe altitudes of flight" as determined by federal regulators — typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground.
Sec. 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
So if you fly lower than 500 feet over my airspace, you have committed the tort of trespass.
|
|