US Senate passes bill that lets the government destroy private drones
- Thread starter gwhuntoon
- Start date
We're getting the same BS here in the UK next year. We had a chance to give some input with an on-line survey. But to be honest, by the way that it was worded, you could tell that they've already made up their minds under the guise of 'Counter Drone Technology'. Also, the police here are to be given special powers to confiscate a persons drone and any recording equipment, tablet/computer/SD cards/thumb drives, if they believe you've been flying illegally.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2018
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 61
when are people going wake up and figure out that congressmen and senators care nothing about the american people or there rights. all they care about and vote in favor of are the people that pay them the most money, how on earth can someone read and understand a 3200 page bill and make a decision on it in a few days time
So I need to start carrying anti drone missiles, RF jamming equipment along with shielding to prevents emp attacks.
San Diego Police department is the first agency to use drones. 500miles north Sacramento and San Francisco citizens voted against the PD of the use of drones.
In my opinion first responders should use it. PD is not too popular, some abusive their authority and not so popular in the public eye. Since one of DJI’s owner lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, they’ve donated drones to first responders, excluding PD.
And it’s a good thing, it helped a lot during the recent years.
The Orange orangutan and the monkey orgy called congress are beyond criminal.... they are truly attempting to destroy everything.
The real problem with this bill (and most others) is that they are written in such a way that you need to lay out each section, subsection, reference to another document, and all its attachments on a massive table or wall then create links between all the convoluted references so that you can then make sense of it. NO CONGRESSPERSON OR SENATOR WILL TAKE THE TIME TO DO THAT. WHAT'S EVEN MORE APAULING IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO INTERPRET OR UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE THEY VOTE ON IT AND SEND IT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SIGNATURE. I don't blame the president for that. If the 535 persons in the legislative branch who are charged to create the laws would do their job and do it effectively, they would only send bills to the president that are well thought out, well reviewed and voted upon with the full knowledge of the content of the bill. They only work 3 days per week and half that time is spent fundraising & campaigning. They spend the other 4 days leaving for home or returning to the congress or enjoying the weekends.
In my own state, when there is a bill proposed (referred to as a question for a vote on the ballot) I try like the dickens to look up the actual text of the bill and understand what I am voting for or against. That takes time and is generally hard to even find the actual language of the bill. I have time for that since I finally retired. My point is that very few people, let alone our elected officials take the time to even know what they are voting for or against. I look forward to legislation that furthers knowledge and safety in the use of UAV's but we don't need more regulations that are not well thought out, difficult to apply, enforce, or comply with and passed without even being read by the legislators who vote on it.
UAV's have a place in professional use, hobby use, military, and public services and I am very happy with my Typhoon H (hobby use). Each of these uses needs their own set of rules applied to them. Yes there is some overlap but experts should write the regulations and agree upon them rather than folks who have no understanding of them or real interest in them other than what they hear about in social media.
In my own state, when there is a bill proposed (referred to as a question for a vote on the ballot) I try like the dickens to look up the actual text of the bill and understand what I am voting for or against. That takes time and is generally hard to even find the actual language of the bill. I have time for that since I finally retired. My point is that very few people, let alone our elected officials take the time to even know what they are voting for or against. I look forward to legislation that furthers knowledge and safety in the use of UAV's but we don't need more regulations that are not well thought out, difficult to apply, enforce, or comply with and passed without even being read by the legislators who vote on it.
UAV's have a place in professional use, hobby use, military, and public services and I am very happy with my Typhoon H (hobby use). Each of these uses needs their own set of rules applied to them. Yes there is some overlap but experts should write the regulations and agree upon them rather than folks who have no understanding of them or real interest in them other than what they hear about in social media.
Last edited:
If I am not mistaken this not only effects us but all of model aviation, not just multi-rotor aircraft.
That's the way I understand it after reading the legislation.
By the way, if I heard one of our senators correctly, they already approved the bill & it is now law.
By the way, if I heard one of our senators correctly, they already approved the bill & it is now law.
How many years will it take before this "authorization to intercept/destroy/monitor" thing actually makes it down to local law enforcement level? My bet is, we will never see it, and it is doubtful that the FAA has a roaming team of former duck hunters on standby to shoot down quadcopters.
That's just it. The FAA don't have to have a roaming team of duck hunters to shoot down your drone. This about giving authority to certain organizations to be able to use counter drone technology to take your drone out. For instance, if a drone were flying near an airport. The airport would have the authority to use counter drone technology to take the drone down. Many would say in a situation like that, it'd be fair enough. Trouble is, who else is going to be able to use and have the authority to use this counter drone technology? It sounds like it would be open to abuse......?
Agreed. Example: The POTUS gave a speech here in Topeka on Saturday. I was along the motorcade route, in about the only rural area of the route. I wasn't there for traffic control or route security, but rather to take photos of the motorcade as it passed by. I had a Secret Service agent stop to check on who I was ( I was driving an unmarked Ford Taurus)....while chit chatting with him, he specifically asked me to keep an eye out for UAV's, and if any were seen to get photos of them.
The area within about 20 miles of Topeka had been declared a Temporary No Fly Zone from 2 hrs before to 2 hrs after the event. Now imagine if somebody at Forbes Field or Billard Airport could just flip a switch, and electronically deactivate any UAV flying within the NFZ? We could see people otherwise flying lawfully, seeing a fairly pricey investment just drop from the sky. 107 guys shooting video for a Realty company......dad, taking video of a birthday gathering.......folks shooting video of their property....people who weren't even aware of the Presidential visit seeing their hard earned money just fall out of the sky, for no good reason.
Do I think there needs to be a way to stop UAVs that appear to be involved in criminal or subversive activity? Of course......but they better be able to articulate why they felt that the UAV in question presented an immediate danger to safety or security.
The area within about 20 miles of Topeka had been declared a Temporary No Fly Zone from 2 hrs before to 2 hrs after the event. Now imagine if somebody at Forbes Field or Billard Airport could just flip a switch, and electronically deactivate any UAV flying within the NFZ? We could see people otherwise flying lawfully, seeing a fairly pricey investment just drop from the sky. 107 guys shooting video for a Realty company......dad, taking video of a birthday gathering.......folks shooting video of their property....people who weren't even aware of the Presidential visit seeing their hard earned money just fall out of the sky, for no good reason.
Do I think there needs to be a way to stop UAVs that appear to be involved in criminal or subversive activity? Of course......but they better be able to articulate why they felt that the UAV in question presented an immediate danger to safety or security.
Similar threads
