Colorado Town Considers Drone-Hunting Licenses 341
New submitter ciotog writes "The town of Deer Trail, Colorado (population approximately 550) will be voting next month on whether to offer licenses for drone hunting. Furthermore, a bounty of $100 for each drone shot down will be offered (upon offering proof that the drone was potentially owned by the U.S. government). Is this just a fun gimmick, or a serious commentary on an increasingly surveillance based society?"
Inciting rebellion (Score:2, Insightful)
We're going to suggest you attempt to damage or destroy property of the US federal government. This is in no way a serious crime that removes all free speech ambiguity by offering to pay people to do it.
We promise we're not brain-dead morons.
I read it wrong.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's done right (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously, there is no need to buy a license, either.
Drones aren't deer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Visit the West once or twice and you won't need to ask. Individualists were driven West by the crowds of "help me, I'm being picked on". Three are still a lot of them out there and when it comes to stopping illegal government actions, they don't joke around a lot. AC though "a completely illegal destruction of government property?" would result, but that's OK, see the illegal activities of the government have always been fair game:-). You do need a license though, the town has to know who's shooting up the sky.
Re:I hope it happens. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you honestly believe that once establish such surveillance would not be abused? If so I have an NSA to sell you...
Re:I hope it happens. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I hope it happens. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're absolutely right that there's legitimate uses for this technology, however as Beadydog says above, the federal government has completely broken trust with the American people, so as far as I'm concerned, there's NO legitimate uses as long as they're the ones operating the drones. They simply can't be trusted.
All joking aside (Score:4, Insightful)
.
Re:Not sure if it's a gimmick, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just am getting tired of seeing libertarian drivel on Slashdot. I'm seriously sensing infiltration by the Koch brothers here or something. I mean are you seriously a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist that honestly believes "they" are 'out to get you'?
Yes, your "sensing the infiltration by the Koch brothers" makes you a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Funny how you folk always seem to attribute to others what you are actually the guilty party of.
Re:or could it be ... (Score:4, Insightful)
That depends on the DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED representatives of the People of Deer.
If the People say they don`t want drones over their heads, and the People`s Representatives truly "represent" vox populi,
THE DRONE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.
Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (Score:5, Insightful)
Encouraging destruction of government property...
With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.
At which point the government will have made those crazy ass militia types some of the most sane people in the country.
Re:I hope it happens. (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess they never should have given billy clubs to police because they could be used to beat an innocent person. I guess they should never have allowed police forces to use helicopters or aircraft because they could be used to spy one innocent people. Any technology can be abused. Does that mean the government is not allowed to use technology?
Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they will have another town to go after because where I am from, we will take up the cause if Deer Trail goes down.
There's a story from Desert Storm about an Iraqi commander who, when asked why he surrendered his unit so quickly, said it was because of the B-52 strikes.
"But your position wasn't hit by B-52's," the puzzled interrogator said.
"No," he replied, "but I saw one that was."
It's easy to talk big about what you would do. Once you saw the results if the US government decided to go all-out on Deer Trail, you might not be quite so inclined toward chest-thumping.
Re:or could it be ... (Score:2, Insightful)
My friends in the local high-altitude balloon group currently launch out of Deer Trail. If this passes, they'll have to steer far away from that area.
I'm also a private pilot, and I'm certainly not risking my life on whether some random redneck with a gun knows the difference between a DA40 and a drone.
Re:or could it be ... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not an "anti-USA" stance,
Indeed. It is actually a pro USA stance, though it is also an anti-US Government stance. Something both sides should do well to remember: the US Government is not the United States of America. When the government starts committing acts in the name of its citizens that those very citizens disagree with, this is when people get voted out in our happy democracy.
Re:or could it be ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the People say they don`t want drones over their heads, and the People`s Representatives truly "represent" vox populi,
So if the majority of the city council decided to condemn your home, tear it down, and sell the land to McDonalds, you'd be fine with that because it was "vox populi"?
The ordinance doesn't say that the drone has to belong to the US government or even be flying at the time. All it has to have is "markings similar to" the markings on a kind of UAV known to be owned by the US. That means if you put a US flag decal on your private UAV, well, that's a marking that meets that definition. If your neighbor sees you holding it and shoots it out of your hand, he gets a bounty. Destruction of private property now nets anyone who does it not jail time but a bonus.
Oh, but nobody owns their own UAV, right? I got one for Christmas, and I've seen them in the stores for about $30.
THE DRONE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.
What utter and complete nonsense. You may have the opinion that the use of a UAV in a certain manner may violate the constitution using your own interpretation of same, but claiming that "the drone itself is illegal" is just pathetic. In fact, your claim to "vox populi" shoots you in the foot on this one, since there is no "vox populi" laws making them illegal.
Re:or could it be ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't fly it over other people's private property without their permission. If I did, I would have little right to complain if they shot it down.
So a gust of wind comes up and your drone is blown over your next door neighbors property, and he pulls out a shotgun and blows it away. And then takes the parts down to city hall and gets a bounty for it. How cool is that?
If I don't have full control over my drone, then I shouldn't be flying it. I get along fine with my neighbors, but in principle, I think they have a right to defend their privacy.
Or he sees it flying at the park and shoots it down.
Park land belongs to the government, and if they say "no drones", then I have no right to fly it there. I don't live in Deer Trail. I live in San Jose, California, and here flying drones in a park is fine. While flying my drone, I was only once approached by a police officer. He watched for a while, and then chatted with me about buying one as a birthday present for his son. Then he got on his bike and left.
You like that law? You think your drone is illegal just by itself?
My drone is not, and should not be, illegal. But flying it over other people's property without their permission, should be illegal.
Re:I hope it happens. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason they do not use the heli to spy on people, is because it is cost prohibitive. The claim is removing that cost, will allow them to abuse the tool. Much like tasers are often abused by police officers.