Yay lets shoot down government drones because we have nothing better to do. *Facepalm*… Derp ahead:
This story could be summed up as “Our town sucks, and we just want to get on the news”. What a waste of everyone’s time.
If I worked for DHS I would dispatch drones there just out of shotgun range to hover around taking pictures just to piss those people off. Although I think drones are possibly the most awesome thing to happen war-technology-wise in the last 10 years, I don’t like the idea of them being used to spy on average Americans one bit. You just can’t go all Buck Yeager on them and start killing them though… there are rules to this shit.
Thoughts?
Comments
22 responses to “Shitty Colorado Town Wants To Issue Drone Hunting Licences”
LOL! Shooting down drones with a shotgun?
Day by day, I’m convinced 4chan has disseminated so widely that they’re involved in stuff like this – it’s so farfetched that it has to be an elaborate troll.
I smell a new ENDO shirt coming out of this one!!
that license will look good framed on my wall.
But Tom Cruise did it…Like a G36. Like a G36. Li-li-li-li-like a G36. *bass thumps*
ROFL
that laid me out
Yeah that town is pretty shitty. I don’t even stop there to take a dump.
There are a few times I find that I totally disagree with you and this is one.
We live in a world where a lot of people like you are trying to play the game by the rules … But the rules have change and the game is crooked yet the other side wants us to think one of 2 things (1.) The rules haven’t changed OR (2.) We can get back to playing fair. Both ideas are delusional because the conspiracies against the American people are clear and the powers that are running this nation was more surveillance, more license plate tracking, more personal information, and to lie and divide us because that is the way we will fall.
I applaud the idea of being able to shoot down a drone flying over your property and prevent aerial trespassing and unauthorized spying.
I have worked with unmanned systems while I was in the military. There are a wide and growing variety of unmanned vehicles. A fair portion are relatively cost effective for small agencies and police forces to pay for. However, most of these unmanned systems work in urban areas and I think that it would be incredibly irresponsible thing to be discharging fire arms in such areas. Weapons discharges in areas like Los Angeles do have casualty rates on file of people (some children) being hit by rounds. It is possible to get the small ones, since it would be no more difficult than shooting trap or skeet. But the larger ones that bigger agencies can afford, will be a little more difficult. Considering that they operate at altitudes that will be ineffective to most firearm owners. The ordinance is kinda bullsh*t and was probably made on a bet at the local bar amongst some serious conservative types. Not to mention, destroying state or federal govt. property will likely supersede your rinky dink local ordinance.
You know damn well that the good ol’ boys in the South/South-west are going to make sure that drones lead a very short and exciting life bfore they’re brought down in flames faster than a duck during rabbit season.
Just get that dude who is a pimp with the bow and arrow a few post backs and he would make quick work of those drones. But it boils down to this. Expectation of privacy. If you don’t want drones to see you sunbathing in the nude or watering your Chia Pet garden in your backyard, put up mesh or some type of screen. The courts have already set a precedent on this. Just like if you don’t want your license plate to be seen in public (by the authorities) don’t drive your car outside.
All drones will be “fair game” once high powered lasers make it into the hands of enthusiasts.
Honest, I didn’t know that was a Cessna, looked like a drone to me in the evening light.
Well, if anything at least they get themselves on the news, but I really see some firearms mishap in the making here. Not to mention all that shot raining back down on your house, possible your family and into your yard because your neighbor decided to shoot at a suspected drone.
Not the brightest move for town publicity, there may be just a few Darwin Awards handed out in the near future in this little town.
There was a vidoe posted a few weeks back showing Turkish Police shooting down a small drone. It was less then $1k for the drone, lets see how shooting down a multi-million $ drone is going to work for them.
Reminded me of this. http://gizmodo.com/5886013/hunters-shoot-animal-rights-drone-out-of-the-sky
Hey, its obviously a symbolic ordinance. But just maybe some one will get that class 3 40mm Bofors canon and blow one of those damn things out of the sky.
How is it illegal to shoot down a government drone surveilling your property with “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?” [Fourth Amendment]
That is in regards to when authorities are “searching” for a particular person or thing. It would be no different than if a civilian pilot flew over your house and saw someone breaking into someone’s home or assaulting someone in their backyard. So as long as you are not intended as the surveillance subject, the Fourth doesn’t apply unless it was intended intrusion for the purpose of collecting information. It is defined under “Intrusion of solitude or seclusion.
No it isn’t. If you are LEO you have a plain sight or imminent destruction standard not the same as a private individual.
So a government owned drone that sees my pot plants in my cornfield can’t use it as evidence because they were searching the neighbor’s field for coca plants. And an affidavit for the search warrant of “we were searching the neighbor’s field from the air and saw his pot plants means it is fruit of a poisoned tree.” The pot in the middle of my cornfield was not normally in plain sight.
In addition do you know why the founding fathers wrote the specificity clause (but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized) in?
It was because the king’s judges would write a warrant that said “You can search all the houses south of 5th avenue to 11th avenue between 6th and 14th streets.” If you want to go back to that standard, please feel free. I’d rather have the stricter standard.
In the case of your cornfield you would not be protected under the fourth due to the “Open Fields” Doctrine, in which any agriculturist couldn’t expect reasonable privacy from aerial viewing. You are afforded the right to privacy and reasonable expectation to privacy, but “Plain View” and “Open Fields” doctrine if properly applied could circumvent your defense of what you classify as a search. Not to mention that surveillance is a word that is defined as “supervising over or close watch kept over someone or something.” To me implies that there has to be a specific subject to keep watch over. You would have to state what is considered “close watch”; how long or often would repeated flights be considered surveillance? Additionally, why would this method stop at aerial surveillance? Patrolling police officers do the same thing driving on the roads, it’s not considered surveillance at all; until there is a subject/suspect.
I want one of these licenses. I’d frame that shit…
I would never shoot at a damn drone, however!
It’s symbolic and shit.
It sounds more like a license to shoot your shotgun up in the air in your back yard.
After reading this site: http://www.deertrailcolorado.com/ I’m not sure these guys are joking. It looks like a few years back they decided to close down their courts and sort of let things work out themselves. Since they are a small town, only 546 at the 2010 census, they could just be doing an in-your-face to Denver.