HB 5726 drones with guns

[Tallbear]

HB 5726 of 2016 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2016-HB-5726)
Crimes; weapons; manufacture, sale, possession, or use of an unmanned aerial vehicle equipped with a weapon; prohibit. Amends sec. 224 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224).
Last Action: 6/8/2016 bill electronically reproduced 06/07/2016

[H.C.T. Dowding]

What fun is a drone unless you can equip it with an underslung, pintle-mounted, select-fire weapon?

[MP Miller]

Sounds like another useless law

[ATA Works]

Has there been an incident with an armed drone in the state? Otherwise just legislators spinning their wheels.

[Roundballer]

At the very least, they are duplicating a law. And that would hinge on how the "drone" is controlled.

At the most, this is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist yet. I looks like a knee jerk reaction to some one watching too many youtube vids.

Existing laws:

MCL 750-236a (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-236a) - MCL 750-236b (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-236b)

I wonder how these people:
Adam Zemke, D
Amanda Price, R
Brian Banks, D
Erika Geiss, D
Frank Liberati, D
Gary Howell, R <-- This idiot is going to hear about a bunch of things, what a moron, I am thinking keeping Courser might have been better.
Jeff Irwin, D
Jeremy Moss, D
Jim Townsend, D
Jon Hoadley - (primary) D
Julie Plawecki, D
Kathy Crawford, R
Kurt Heise, R
Larry Inman, R
LaTanya Garrett, D
Marcia Hovey-Wright, D
Martin Howrylak R
Peter Lucido, R
Robert Wittenberg, D
Sam Singh, R
Sarah Roberts, R
Sherry Gay-Dagnogo, D
Stephanie Chang, D
Vanessa Guerra, D
feel on the issue of dihydrogen monoxide?

[luckless]

I'm sure every one of them think dihydrogen monoxide should be strictly regulated by the state of Michigan. People can die from that stuff!

[Coctailer]

I'm sure every one of them think dihydrogen monoxide should be strictly regulated by the state of Michigan. People can die from that stuff!

Everyone that has come in to contact with dihydrogen monoxide has died, so ya, the government should restrict its use.

It shouldn't be allowed in government buildings at the very least.

[VIGILANT]

HB 5726 of 2016 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2016-HB-5726)
Crimes; weapons; manufacture, sale, possession, or use of an unmanned aerial vehicle equipped with a weapon; prohibit. Amends sec. 224 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224).
Last Action: 6/8/2016 bill electronically reproduced 06/07/2016


I don't like government control, anymore than the rest of you. But a drone has an aerial advantage, a degree of anonymity, and less than 100% control. Something you should be concerned about, if you ever have one taking shots at you!

[luckless]

I don't like government control, anymore than the rest of you. But a drone has an aerial advantage, a degree of anonymity, and less than 100% control. Something you should be concerned about, if you ever have one taking shots at you!
Maybe we could use existing laws against shooting people and our legislators could use their energy passing the stuff we actually ask them to pass.

[VIGILANT]

Maybe we could use existing laws against shooting people and our legislators could use their energy passing the stuff we actually ask them to pass.


If the idiots were not flying drones with chainsaws, flamethrowers, and hunting game with firearm equipped drones, our legislators wouldn't have been compelled to feel the need to regulate them.

[Roundballer]

May if the idiots were not flying drones with chainsaws, flamethrowers, and hunting game with firearm equipped drones, our legislators wouldn't have been compelled to feel the need to regulate them.
Please, PLEASE, show us ONE documented incident of this happening in Michigan, and someone getting hurt or breaking any current law.

Just because there are idiots that like to make stupid videos for youtube, doesn't mean that we need a law against it here in Michigan.

[fr3db3ar]

They have to protect us from our possible selves. Think of the children.

Sent from my SM-T817V using Tapatalk

[AxlMyk]

Has there been an incident with an armed drone in the state? Otherwise just legislators spinning their wheels.
Or they're looking ahead. You think nobody has thought of doing it?

[Roundballer]

Or they're looking ahead. You think nobody has thought of doing it?
What, now we are going to police peoples' thoughts?

I could think about hijacking the electronic of a self driving car and running it into a bridge. And I have a computer and several forms of wireless communication. Do we need a law to cover that too?

How about a law that prohibits defeating any "chipped" gun technology? They should be looking forward for that one too.

[Coctailer]

I could take a 42" plasma TV and use a drone to fly it in front of a grade school and play porn on it.

They should make a law against that.

[AxlMyk]

So, you're ok with some yokel strapping a gun to a drone and flying it around your house? I'm not.

[Coctailer]

So, you're ok with some yokel strapping a gun to a drone and flying it around your house? I'm not.

Has anyone ever done that in MI?

[AxlMyk]

Has it NOT been done?
I, for one, don't like the isea of someone doing it. Nip it in the bud before someone does.

[Roundballer]

It is improper to make laws prohibiting MAKING THINGS, POSSESSION OF THINGS or SELLING THINGS.

If they need to make a law pertaining to improper USE of a thing then go for it. But they already have laws against "unlawful or negligent" discharge or even the attempt of hurting someone, much less killing some one.

And as I pointed out above, use of any form of a computer for this is already illegal. How are they going to have any form of a targeting/aiming system WITHOUT a digital (computer) transmitter/receiver?

Stupid bill!

[H.C.T. Dowding]

Has anyone ever done that in MI?

IDK, but it has been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gQE--6DGJc

[SADAacp]

Has it NOT been done?
I, for one, don't like the isea of someone doing it. Nip it in the bud before someone does.

Folks have been attaching guns to stuff that flies around in the air for over 100 years, why worry about it now?

[luckless]

So, you're ok with some yokel strapping a gun to a drone and flying it around your house? I'm not.
Maybe not, but I would be fine with it flying on their own property. It would be a hoot at the range!

[DP425]

So, you're ok with some yokel strapping a gun to a drone and flying it around your house? I'm not.

Drones equipped with guns do not sound like the prevue of a "yokel". At this point, it seems relatively safe to say, if you possess the cash flow to buy a drone capable of carrying a firearm, and dealing with the free-recoil, plus the intelligence to be able to attach a gun to a drone, set-up a servo to remotely fire it, and control the damned thing... You're also going to be a relatively intelligent individual of reasonable means. Or, not a "yokel".


That aside, there hasn't been one case of anyone being shot at by a drone in MI, let alone killed. I don't think there are even any verifiable cases of firearms being fired from a drone in MI at all. In the mean time, you go to the shooting range, where people are killed with some degree of regularity. If you're a hunter, you take to the field where people are regularly shot by ACTUAL "yokels".


You've got a lot more to be worried about through your interactions in conventional firearms uses. Might be worth getting worried about when large, heavy lift drones are available for $50 at walmart, complete with a controller having a spare channel or two and extra servos. We aren't there yet, and it's doubtful if we'll EVER be there.

[45 acp]

But just think of the possibilities, A guy could take out his ex-wife in the Walmart parking lot and then ditch the drone in the middle of lake Huron all from his cell phone. All While eating dinner in Logans Steak house 20 miles away with his parents and kids as his alibi!

[VIGILANT]

What, now we are going to police peoples' thoughts?

I could think about hijacking the electronic of a self driving car and running it into a bridge. And I have a computer and several forms of wireless communication. Do we need a law to cover that too?


Yes indeed we do need a law to cover that too! Why? You just said; "I could think about hijacking the electronic of a self driving car and running it into a bridge." They're being proactive, due to all the physco's out there today, that actually do this kind of thing, or are planning to do so!

Hack a car in Michigan, go to prison for life if new bill becomes law
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3064381/security/hack-a-car-in-michigan-go-to-prison-for-life-if-new-bill-becomes-law.html

[VIGILANT]

Or they're looking ahead. You think nobody has thought of doing it?


Exactly! Otherwise, I'm certain many will be complaining why they didn't prepare for something like this! Not to mention the realistic risk of innocent people being injured, or killed.

[VIGILANT]

Folks have been attaching guns to stuff that flies around in the air for over 100 years, why worry about it now?

Because the technology is now commonly available to total idiots, that can't be trusted to act responsible! Not to mention terrorist!

[45 acp]

Because the technology is now commonly available to total idiots, that can't be trusted to act responsible! Not to mention terrorist!
Because of total idiots, that can't be trusted to act responsible I can assume that you think this would be a good law also to be enacted in all 50 States?

The New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law, also known as Assembly Bill No. 700, is a law that makes the sale of handguns "illegal" unless it is a smart gun that "can only be fired by an authorized or recognized user"

[DP425]

Because the technology is now commonly available to total idiots, that can't be trusted to act responsible! Not to mention terrorist!

And what exactly do you think about this law will stop either idiots, OR terrorists from doing it anyway? I'm pretty sure that hijacking a plane and flying it into buildings was illegal. Also fairly certain that flying an ultra-lite through white house airspace and landing on the front lawn was illegal as well.

Laws don't stop idiots and terrorists. Fortunately, most people who are stupid enough to put a gun on a drone and use it in an unsafe manner, are also too stupid to make it happen in the first place.

You're using the anti-gun crowd's argument here- except it's worse since doing this would actually require some degree of intelligence and a moderate amount of disposable income.

[Roundballer]

Because the technology is now commonly available to total idiots, that can't be trusted to act responsible! Not to mention terrorist!
So, we should have background checks or even make it illegal to own a computer?

Someone COULD THINK of doing damage by crashing other computer controlled infrastructure!

Or they could even start spouting nonsense on an internet forum!

[Coctailer]

I bet if they made heroin illegal, that would end all people getting addicted to it.

[AxlMyk]

So, we should have background checks or even make it illegal to own a computer?

Someone COULD THINK of doing damage by crashing other computer controlled infrastructure!

Or they could even start spouting nonsense on an internet forum!
Where did that come from? Your statement has nothing to do with the OP.

Tapatalk on SGS3

[Roundballer]

Where did that come from? Your statement has nothing to do with the OP.

Sure it does, and the arguments that I was commenting upon. Create laws against things that there is any remote possibility of someone doing, or even THINK of doing.
Hence, we will have to go back and create a lot of laws, banning all sorts of THINGS because someone may THINK of a way to misuse them.


Because the technology is now commonly available to total idiots, that can't be trusted to act responsible! Not to mention terrorist!


Yes indeed we do need a law to cover that too! Why? You just said; "I could think about hijacking the electronic of a self driving car and running it into a bridge." They're being proactive, due to all the physco's out there today, that actually do this kind of thing, or are planning to do so!

[AxlMyk]

Now you got it, finally.

Tapatalk on SGS3

[bernokarl]

I dont know about all yous guys but I would pay an extra tax starting now to lobby and pass a bill to shut this whole drone gun thing down. I swear no sarcasm at all guys :straf: ...

JK KILL THEM ALL LET GOD SORT THEM OUT !

[luckless]

This bill has a gaping, dangerous loophole in it! We'll have to go back and fix this thing with a law to make it illegal to drop bombs from drones! I can't believe some fool would propose a law to make illegal to kill someone with a gun strapped to a drone but leave it legal to bomb someone with a drone!

[Roundballer]

Now you got it, finally.

If you are talking to me, you are misreading something. I have not changed my stance.

This bill is stupid.
Writing laws prohibiting what someone MAY think up is stupid.
Writing laws prohibiting an item or combination of items is stupid.

We already have laws against hurting people, reckless use of a firearm or destruction of property. How someone may do it is of no consequence.

What is next, we can't build an RC all terrain tracked vehicle with an arm that has a gun? We can't mount a gun on anything?

[Roundballer]

This bill has a gaping, dangerous loophole in it! We'll have to go back and fix this thing with a law to make it illegal to drop bombs from drones! I can't believe some fool would propose a law to make illegal to kill someone with a gun strapped to a drone but leave it legal to bomb someone with a drone!

Write to them and tell them just how dangerous something as simple as a balloon filled with dihydrogen monoxide could be. Bombing groups of people with that dangerous chemical could have catastrophic results.

[MP Miller]

But just think of the possibilities, A guy could take out his ex-wife in the Walmart parking lot and then ditch the drone in the middle of lake Huron all from his cell phone. All While eating dinner in Logans Steak house 20 miles away with his parents and kids as his alibi!
He could do the exact same thing with this law in place and nothing would happen differently.

[Jared1981]

So this technology may be abused and morons may do something stupid, so it should be banned?

Well, not for nothing, but shall-issue has brought a bunch of idiots to the world of gun ownership whereas may-issue kept many of these "law abiding" morons away from gun ownership. So from that narrow perspective regarding may-issue...

Was it a good idea? yes.
Was it moral or constitutional? no.

Who are these idiot gun owners who are a side effect of shall-issue? Here's an example, the guy who used a bucket of sand as a backstop for his indoor shooting range in his trailer in a trailer park who used to frequent this forum for those that remember.

[oldmann1967]

I think this really boils down to the fact that a drone is considered an aircraft by the FAA. I'll bet your Cessna cannot have a mounted firearm either.

[Roundballer]

I think this really boils down to the fact that a drone is considered an aircraft by the FAA. I'll bet your Cessna cannot have a mounted firearm either.
You have narrowed it down to a definition of a word that doesn't appear in the text of the bill. This will have nothing to do with what the FAA "considers" on anything.


They use the term "Unmanned aerial vehicle" and then they define it:

2016-HIB-5726 text (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/House/htm/2016-HIB-5726.htm)


(b) "Unmanned aerial vehicle" means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

As they have written this, it will include ANY form of a model plane, helicopter, quadcopter, anything. Note that they don't even specify if has the lift to get off the ground with the extra weight attached. They are simply making the possession of "THINGS" illegal. Once you "equip" this "Unmanned aerial vehicle" in a certain way, it is illegal.

And the punishment for playing around is:


(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.