Skip to comments.Going On a Drone Hunt
Posted on 04/14/2014 4:25:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
Going on a drone hunt. Got me a gun. I'm not afraid. Look, whats up ahead?
Phil Steel is a law-abiding American citizen who is fed up with drones. In a bold move to call attention to the Obama administrations unethical drone policy, he recently championed drone hunting.
Steel resides in the bucolic Colorado town of Deer Trail. Earlier this month, Steel brought a proposal before the Deer Trails Board of Trustees: locals should be able to apply for and obtain hunting licenses to shoot down drones. Steels idea received traction and went to ballot before the towns 350 registered voters. The proposed ordinance stated, in part:
Whereas, many Western communities in rural America provide monetary incentives (bounties) for the killing of predators that are injurious to Man and his interests, the Town of Deer Trail likewise establishes hunting licenses and bounties for the killing of unmanned aerial vehicles, in keeping with the Western traditions of sovereignty and freedom. [sic]
Steels ordinance was ultimately voted down, however his idea caught the national medias attention. For example, TIME Magazine picked up the story, pointing out that Steels ordinance: highlighted [growing civilian] displeasure with government surveillance
The Federal Aviation Association (FAA) even responded to Steels ordinance by releasing a statement: Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane.
This is absurd. The current administrationas I expose in my forthcoming book, Let Me Be Clear, has used a drones to target and kill an innocent young American citizen and has yet to be held accountable for this murder. Last week, federal judge Rosemary M. Collyer disappointingly and inexplicably threw out the young mans familys lawsuit against the Obama administration for murdering their sonalong with six additional innocent civiliansthree years ago in Yemen.
It is shocking to realize that we have a former lawyer and self-described constitutional law professor representing us in the White House and yet our constitutional rights have never been in greater jeopardy. Obama acts like the law of the land and the laws of nature are suggestions. Some lawyer!
Whether youre grilling hamburgers in your backyard this summeror enjoying a glass of wine and a bowl of gnocchi in a rustic Italian restaurantyou face the threat of unjust lethal drone force. As Ive written here and here, Americas international and domestic drone policies are silently threatening the natural and constitutional rights of all American citizens. Despite assurances from Attorney General Eric Holder, Judge Collyers recent decision raises new doubts on whether American citizens are safe from lethal drone force abroad and at home.
As humans, we have a natural, God-given right to our private propertyand our first piece of private property is our own body. The Fourth Amendment acknowledges this natural right. Furthermore, we also have a right to due process. The right to due process is protected by the Fifth Amendment which states that no American citizen may be: deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Hunters and gun owners of America: I encourage you to speak up. Take a cue from Phil Steel and propose drone hunting legislation in your town and state. Even if it is voted down (the first time), you will make an important point: the federal government may not deprive us of our natural and constitutional rights to private property and due process.
Im going drone hunting. Gonna catch a big one. Im not afraid.
This is a great idea.Is it really possible though?
If you want to take out a drone, learn directional radio tech. Jam and burn.
Federal Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, a George W. Bush appointee to the federal bench.
This legislation will likely never pass, because if you miss... that round has got to come down somewhere.
Maybe we are nearing a time where permission is optional...on many fronts.
Unless it explodes.
I don't think it's realistic to think one can take out a UAV with a bullet.
Read post 4.
There likely won’t be a “round.”
Go back to your old physics textbook.
Or I guess fireworks can do in a pinch. Saturate the sky with exploding shells.
Lest anyone think this is unlikely.
Seems that way, doesn’t it?
“This legislation will likely never pass, because if you miss... that round has got to come down somewhere.”
This is what scares me. It’s absolutely unacceptable and downright dangerous in an urban area, and still a odds game with a bad prize for the “loser”.
But, due to the very nature of a drone, most are extremely fragile.
As a waterfowl hunter, I can tell you that I never shoot high-flying birds for a reason. I will miss! I have decoys for a reason... To lure the birds in close so I can make the shot.
Most drones fly higher than most birds. IF you even can see them, no way will you be able to shoot one that high.
The idea that anyone will be able to shoot down a military drone is preposterous! If it was that easy, the Taliban would be doing it daily.
Reminds of this radio bit called, “Hunting Feral Afghanis.”
That’s cute. Thanks for posting it.
What would be extra useful would be a computerized gun sight that would rapidly calculate direction, speed and distance of a drone, then give the rifleman an aiming point ahead of it.
But there is all kind of potential here for anti-drone drones. For the higher altitude drones even boosting the anti-drone with a model rocket.
The anti-drones could proximity jam the drones guidance system, forcing it into a programmed flight mode. It could drop chaff to foul its propeller, or fire a small incendiary bullet into its fuel tank.
Just what would you use to shoot down a UAV?
'Worthy' MORMONs may do this; but they will NOT be allowed to actually EAT the fruits of their labor...
Maybe not "A" bullet, but...
Now THERE is a concept!
How do we 'know' they're not?
Another RC model; dragging a swath of deer fencing?
Ummm....no. We use drones for crop research.
No; the one that postulates that a bullet, fired straight up, will, upon it’s return to earth, will be traveling the same speed at impact as when it left the barrel.
A lot of volume and pressure from a water hose would work if the little beasty dares venturing to close!
Earth has a layer of breathable gasses, the bullet will land at a substantially reduced velocity.
Those things leave a mess, they pile brass by the bushel.
Hey maybe we can get nominated for a recycling award!
I don’t think that makes sense. The bullet should only reach terminal velocity on the way back down.
You are correct; although 'terminal' for a hunk of lead would be a bit different than a falling human's body.
There is NO way for it to be the same as when fired, unless it was done in a complete vacuum.