
I'll Register My Drone When You Have to Register Your Gun - signa11
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ill-register-my-drone-when-you-have-to-register-your-gun
======
Nadya
I'll register my gun when it enters heavily regulated NAS and impacts
emergency procedures and grounds firefighting efforts. See Page 13-16 of the
FAA ruling.

The registration of drones is quite literally only because of how heavily
regulated NAS is and it allows the government to grab a little more power and
a little more metadata about its population.

Note: I am not pro-drone registration either.

[0]
[http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf](http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf)

------
lloyd-christmas
20 years from now, we might have countless drones of varying sizes and
lobbyists arguing to put more of them into the hands of children to protect
themselves from other drones. Best to nip it in the bud while we still can.

------
20151216
I don't believe that we should have to register these drones, but at least in
the U.S.A, owning a gun is a defined right where as owning and operating a
drone is not.

~~~
WorldMaker
Technically, the right is not gun ownership, but the right to use guns in a
well regulated militia. Gun ownership is a privilege and it amazes me that as
a country we entirely seem to have collective amnesia on the "well regulated"
parts of the Second Amendment.

Not to mention that at the time of the Second Amendment's writing gun
technology was primarily limited to muzzle loaders. If you want to argue that
modern cartridge loading guns get grandfathered into an "ownership right"
implied by the Second Amendment, then lets argue that drone technology is also
a new technology development that is equally likely to fit within some
auspices of the right to bear arms (or the right to a free press in view of
camera drones) and thus is equally a so-called "defined right".

~~~
Armisael16
I'm afraid that you're the one who doesn't understand what the second
amendment does - scotus ruled (in DC v. Heller) that militias really have
nothing to do with it, well-regulated or otherwise.

~~~
WorldMaker
My attempted point was that modern interpretations of the Second Amendment
vary greatly from the actual wording of the Second Amendment and that the
supposed "defined rights" people think they have is an interesting modern
twist in the story, and thus could be used to argue for "drone rights".
Pointing to a 2008 SCOTUS decision in which handguns were explicitly redefined
to fall under "arms" and that several clauses of the amendment were seen as
"superfluous" seems to only amplify that point I was trying to make. Thanks
for the help.

