Rather irritated

[Fisherboy0301 0]

Considering the fact that paintball and BB and also pellet rifles use compressed air rather than gunpowder, and there's no "fire" it wouldn't be considered a "firearm" the way I see it.

[Fisherboy0301 0]

One could argue that it was in fact a discharge on defense though. Of person. Since he was defending his family's right to privacy.

[Fisherboy0301 0]

http://www.airgundepot.com/gamo-viper-express-air-shotgun.html

[artimus001 0]

EMP cannon.....

 

[mikechell 0]

If only they could make that in a hand held version. I suppose it's coming. I doubt they'll ever get clearance to use that on cars in traffic, though, since complete loss of power means reduced steering and braking. Every accident would be blamed on the police, instead of the law breaker who was running from them. Just like now, when chases end in an accident, and it's the police who face the criticism, not the ass that was fleeing.

 

But in a hand held version that could bring down a drone ... mmmmmm ... I'D buy one !!!

[Swamp Fly 0]

RE: What is a firearm?

 

Most municipalities classify many more things as firearms on a legal basis than just weapons that use a combustible propellant (such as gunpowder). I have personally lived in areas where air powered weapons (compressed gas rifles/pistols), spring powered weapons (many BB rifles/pistols), slingshots, archery equipment, spud guns etc were distinctly cited as firearms. It doesn't matter if I/you/we agree whether they are firearms, if you used one and were caught at it you were prosecuted as having discharged a firearm. Boom, done, conviction on your record. Read you local and state firearms ordinances/laws very carefully. I have no doubt whatsoever that somewhere in this country someone has been prosecuted for "discharging" a toy Nerf gun. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying that is the way it is. Here in FL warning shots are illegal, missing your target is not... "Well officer I tried to shoot him since he was a clear and present threat, but I missed. He stopped and put his hands up in surrender before I could shoot again" Go figure. The truth of the matter is that any and all advice you want to rely on should come from licensed legal professionals. Even that is not a guarantee that a judge will side with you that day.

 

Back to a drone looking into your window, if you have to "do" something then beat the snot out of it with a club while not in front of the camera. You could still be on the hook for destruction of private property, but no firearms involved.

 

I can see a national "Do not fly drones over property" list similar to the "Do not call phone" list. Going to take some serious court cases to force it though.

[kennebec12 0]

kennebec12

 

Brewer City Ordinances Chap. 35 - Art. 1 Sec. 100 ARTICLE #1- DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS ORDINANCE (#1) SECTION 100. DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS PROHIBITED. No person shall discharge any rifle, pistol, or other firearm in the city limits of the City of Brewer within an area that is bounded as follows:

 

 

Portland Maine

14A.60.020 Discharge of a Firearm.

(Amended by Ordinance No. 178428, effective May 26, 2004.)

A. It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm in the City or upon its boundaries.

B. This Section does not apply to:

 

1. A person discharging a firearm in the lawful defense of person or property;

2. A person discharging a firearm on a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery, or other area designed, built, and lawfully operating for the purpose of target shooting;

3. A person conducting an athletic contest who fires blank ammunition toward the sky;

4. A person authorized to fire blank ammunition as part of military or police ceremonies;

5. A person authorized by permit of the Chief of Police to discharge blank ammunition for a lawful purpose;

6. Hunter safety instructors of the Oregon State Game Commission or their pupils who are engaged in hunter safety training classes sponsored by the Commission;

7. A police officer in the performance of official duty;

8. Employees or contractors of the Port of Portland engaged in flight safety hazard abatement at and around Portland International Airport to comply with FAR Part 139.337.

 

I hate to be the killjoy on this thread. I can assure you I would be one of the first to step out with a firearm and dispatch the drone. However, This is one of many "Discharge of Firearms Ordinance" that I found specific to Maine. There has been many discussions about paintball and BB guns being included in the ordinance.

 

I would be very interested in the outcome of you meeting. I'd be curious what the town officials and specifically the town lawyer say can and should be done.

 

Michael

 

"Esse Quam Videri"

 

 

I spoke with my state government representatives. I was given copies of the committee hearing for a law that recently failed that would have controlled drones, and I offered up some of my personal opinions which hopefully would be passed on. And then I was told that when a new bill comes in (probably the next session), I may be asked to testify by the 'Anti-drone group' of representatives. Actually for the most part I agreed with the reasoning behind that bill failing, it was probably far to vague and all-encompassing (and conflicted with federal law). I did recommend that an altitude limit be set so that the drones can't get low enough to see inside windows and such.

[Swamp Fly 0]

Good for you Kennebec. I hope your efforts are fruitful.

[Fisherboy0301 0]

Getcha a load of this yall!

 

 

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/idaho-company-selling-drone-specific-ammunition?src=SOC&dom=fb

 

 

 

Yes, yes that pun was in fact intended.

[mikechell 0]

Great product, Fisher. Unfortunately, it doesn't circumvent the problem of city limits. Still can't fire a projectile weapon within city limits ... unless they fly the drone into the house. (in most States)

[JSzymczyk 0]

not saying I agree with any invasion of "privacy" but nobody seems to care when a helicopter or a manned fixed wing aircraft flies overhead, and you might as well ASSume someone is in it taking pictures. I work on a secure Department of Defense installation which happens to border a small commercial airport. The flight path for the main runway is directly over the installation. Helicopters and fixed wing civil and military air traffic are overhead ALL DAY long at very low altitudes. Any one could be doing surveillance. No issue. The subject of UAVs comes up, and everyone loses their F'ing mind about it. Take a look at Google Earth and zoom in on your house. Take a look at Google Street View after you do that.

 

In my yard? yeah, it's coming down. Luckily I live in a jurisdiction which does not (yet) prohibit discharge of firearms. Thankfully, it is ridiculously unlikely that it will happen. I can be out the door with a shotgun loaded with #4 shot in 12.5 seconds from anywhere in my house.

 

Somebody wants to have a video of me walking out in my back yard and having a pee? More power to 'em. They better have a dam' good telephoto lens to see anything! LOL I grew up learning to pull the shades closed if I'm in a room doing something I wouldn't want anyone to see.... whatever that might be. If someone does see "it", they probably will wish they didn't !!!

[mikechell 0]

Not really arguing with your point, J ... but I've never had a civilian helicopter hover over my head.

I have called the Sheriff's office a couple of times. Every once in a while, there will be one of their choppers over head, and the noise gets to me. I'll call the office, and if there's no "chase" or other reason for them to be up there ... then I demand they do their training elsewhere.

 

I know there are cameras everywhere, and I have NO problem with it. I approve of red light cameras ... even if it stops one accident, they're worth it. (Especially if it's my car that gets hit.)

But I do have a problem with some of my neighbors flying a camera over my house.

Maybe it's more a problem with the neighbor than the camera, but I'm still bringing that toy down, given the chance.

[Rocco 0]

The discussion here so far is far too one-sided and simplistic. It also appears rampantly ignorant of the inevitablity inherent in increasingly sophiticated drone technology applications.

 

You all seem to be in a defauilt mode of automatic high dudgeon at drones' invasions of your privacy. But drones also are filling other uses many of which are legitimate, benign, and even helpful. ( I am retired and have no stake in the industry so forget about any ulterior motives on my part.)

 

Drones are already capable of doing such jobs as land surveys, looking for lost kids, locating early sources of forest fires, gas leaks, meth lab effluents, waterpollution sources,and, yes, surveillance of criminals like child molesters and terrorist suspects in your area ....

 

I hunt, collect guns, and have them ready for personal defense too but going trigger happy over every drone you see IMO is flat nutty, dangerous, and hurtful to the fight by responsible gun owners to hold back the antics of gun grabbers.

 

There ultimately will be rigid licensing of private drone use and punishments for abuses but there is no way in hell that the technology will not be put to more extensive use. Shooting them all out of the sky is a neandrethal response to a very complex problem.

 

Rocco

[mikechell 0]

You all seem to be in a defauilt mode of automatic high dudgeon at drones' invasions of your privacy. But drones also are filling other uses many of which are legitimate, benign, and even helpful.

 

Drones are already capable of doing such jobs as land surveys, looking for lost kids, locating early sources of forest fires, gas leaks, meth lab effluents, waterpollution sources,and, yes, surveillance of criminals like child molesters and terrorist suspects in your area ....

 

There ultimately will be rigid licensing of private drone use and punishments for abuses but there is no way in hell that the technology will not be put to more extensive use. Shooting them all out of the sky is a neandrethal response to a very complex problem.

 

Rocco

I, for one, am not in any "default mode". I fully approve of the use of drones for all the uses you described above ... controlled by military, government, law enforcement, etc. I think a few hundred deployed along the southern border would be an excellent use of the technology.

However

When those "... rigid licensing of private drone use and punishments for abuses ..." statutes come into effect, I'll drop my guard a little. Until then, if a drone is hovering over my home, I'll be aiming for it.

 

I won't be using a gun powder weapon. And I am not aiming to "shoot them all out of the sky".

It's not the reason I've trained in "wrist-rocket" and boleros use ... but they'll come in very handy, I think.

[flytire 0]

drones being flown by private citizens have already hindered and grounded fire fighting aircraft in the western states

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/western-wildfires/drones-flying-over-huge-california-fire-hindered-firefighters-officials-n382501

 

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/07/10/firefighters-warn-drones-could-hinder-battle-against-california-wildfires/

 

drones and airplanes

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/14/faa-close-call-reports-with-drones-soar-in-2015.html