Drones: how much longer will it take...

More guns are the answer to this problem. If we can find owners able to recognize drones.

I don't see an easy or clean solution to this type of problem. Drone swarms are already being created in universities (Drone light show at the Olympics for example) and it only take someone with a lot of money (or a government) to buy a bunch of drones and swarm them into whatever area they choose. And we haven't even started talking about what happens if they put small explosives onto them. Just a swarm itself hovering around over an airport might bring down a plane just by getting sucked into an engine.

Banning drones is not the answer! The answer to a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone.

Once they ban assault drones they'll be coming after the camera drones, and next it will be your kid's radio commanded Star Wars toys.

This debate will drone on forever.

Or they may just let it ride, as with dangerous lasers.

Since drones are not "arms" , ownership is not covered in the Bill of rights , amendments, or articles in the constitution, they are not above the reach of the law.
So, requiring drone pilots to be licensed should be doable.
I have several drone services that I use for LIDAR surveys in sinkhole and lineaments/faults areas, all my drone pilot contractors are state licensed as a requirement from my insurance carrier, with me as additional insured. (Drone flying is a licensed "priviledge" , not a right)

We use the bigass octacopters which can hurt ya if their props hit you, awire, a rare bird.

Payloads arent real high but theyre getting better with newer more powerful batteries linked up in parallel so you can almost fly to the coast with one.

My one drone contractor (most of these guys are like big kids havin fun and gettin payed) drove his octacopter into a barn just like he was aiming for it. Sucker just broke into a gazillion pieces and we lost two weeks time till he could rig up another with the LIDAR unit (after he got it repaired). He had to file a safty incidence report, and was given points

Pa requires contractor who use drones to have a licensed pilot ,Im not sure about hobbyists with these little peeps that you can buy at a TARGET store or Wally Mart. Most of the ones with cameras or the Go Pros have a GPS hookup nd can be trcked pretty easily.

PS, your lme humor did not scape me, I hear it all the time from the pilot who think they are comedians, until I explain their responsibility as a contractor to me and my clients.
They start paying attention when we review their insurance certificates.

I imagine that the drone pilots will gradually take on more of a professional demeanor in a few years. Like any technology (Maybe George OB can remember back when zeppelins were considered new), takes a bit o time to snug into a safety protocol.

theres a study report on just that issue , both accidental and terror. Using just a few W/carbide bee-bees on a drone and getting sucke into a jet engine would tear up the engine 100% of the time.

That can change.
http://able2know.org/topic/431064-1

The solution is to....ARM THE DRONES.

I’ll put my glock on a Mavic and....BOOM, 2nd amendment protection.

The problem with that is, Heller only forbids restrictions that have no justification.

That's a problem for the freedom haters because they can't justify the gun restrictions that they advocate.

But if society wanted to ban armed drones, justification could probably be produced.

Even if we were to set Heller aside and use Miller, armed drones would be covered by the Second Amendment only if the military started using them as regular weapons.

here we go.

Actually, The United States versus Miller (which was cited in Heller) cites the power granted to Congress to provide for arming the militia, and denied that the National Firearms Act violated the second amendment. Specifically, the author of the majority opinion stated: Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. That referred to a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length. So, in fact, the Congress would have to require the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) to be equipped with armed drones, before the unorganized militia (all those clowns out there running around playing soldier) could make a claim that they are entitled to use armed drones.

Oralloy is obviously delusion, and unable to distinguish between his (warped) opinions and fact.

The Miller ruling cites Congress' power to arm the militia only in respect to the fact that the Second Amendment modifies that power, allowing people to be armed even if Congress fails to arm them (or tries to prevent them from being armed).

That is incorrect. The Miller ruling said that the NFA would not violate the Second Amendment if it did not cover military weapons.

Had proceedings resumed against Mr. Miller, he might have claimed that his weapon was in fact a military weapon. Had he done so, there would then have been court proceedings to address that question.

Correct.

Close, but not quite. Any regular military use would establish it as a valid military weapon. At that point the Miller ruling would prevent Congress from outlawing it.

Nope. As usual everything that I said is completely correct, and no one can point out anything that I am wrong about.

arming a drone doesnt make it covered by the 2nd amendment any more than does sticking a machine gun in a helicopter.

Damn. Idea foiled.

Well, I’d probably get to keep my armed drone while the whole thing played out in court.

It does under Miller if the US military uses it as a regular infantry weapon.

you dont understand, the HELICOPTER, by itself isnt protected and to operate one , one needs training and a chopper pilot license. The average citizen cannot just take out a chopper.

ARming a car doesnt automatically bring it under the 2nd amendment. I think you better go back and think a bit more about it.