Personal Armed Drones and the 2nd Amendment

[mistercwood 287]

Came across this yesterday, thought it was a very interesting piece. This may be naive of me, but I'd actually like to avoid the pro/anti-gun rhetoric on this one as much as possible, the legalities and practical applications seem much more interesting to me...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/21/the-next-gun-debate-armed-drones-could-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[quade 4]

Technically possible to fire a single shot. I doubt you could fire multiple rounds effectively within several seconds and stay on target right now. No way in hell is it going to be "protected" by the 2nd.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mistercwood 287]

"Right now" is the key phrase there. I don't actually think the tech is likely to be that far off. While the forces aren't nearly the same, there's already quite a few drone models used for mounting video cameras to where the gimbal arrangement maintains a completely level and stable for the camera regardless of the drones movement. Recoil's really the only obstacle.

Regarding protection - I wouldn't be so sure. It's more that people are only just now asking the question. As the article mentions, legislation could be passed to ban the concept now, and pre-empt that discussion. As the idea of personal drones becomes more mainstream though, I think that line may get a bit blurrier.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

quade

Technically possible to fire a single shot. I doubt you could fire multiple rounds effectively within several seconds and stay on target right now. No way in hell is it going to be "protected" by the 2nd.

You mean because some one changed that while we weren't looking to read "The right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed?"

[quade 4]

How did this turn out?

http://chronicle.augusta.com/sports/outdoors/rob-pavey/2011-01-15/web-controlled-guns-are-illegal

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

DrewEckhardt

***Technically possible to fire a single shot. I doubt you could fire multiple rounds effectively within several seconds and stay on target right now. No way in hell is it going to be "protected" by the 2nd.

You mean because some one changed that while we weren't looking to read "The right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed?"

Can pilots have weapons fitted to their "manned" aircraft?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

How did this turn out?

http://chronicle.augusta.com/...led-guns-are-illegal

Worked out like so:

Quote

As of August 2008, forty U.S. states had enacted laws or regulations to ban internet hunting. Critics say Internet hunting never existed as a viable industry, making much of the legislation curtailing it "a testament to public alarm over Internet threats and the gilded life of legislation that nobody opposes".

Most interesting was this (questionably accurate) legal explanation or why multiple shots will never be allowed in the USA.

Quote

In the United States, Federal gun control laws (specifically the National Firearms Act of 1934) would consider any firearm capable of firing more than a single shot under the control of a computer to be a "machine gun" as it would be extremely easy to modify the controlling software so as to cause more than one shot per manipulation of the system's "trigger." Such an apparatus would require registration and taxation under the NFA of 1934, which would be nearly impossible unless the "machine gun" had been registered as such since changes to the legislation in 1986. This would apply not only to semiautomatic firearms controlled by a computer or remote user, but even to manually operated firearms such as bolt-action or lever-action firearms, since the reloading mechanism would be mechanized and controlled by the computer or remote user.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 3]

DrewEckhardt

***Technically possible to fire a single shot. I doubt you could fire multiple rounds effectively within several seconds and stay on target right now. No way in hell is it going to be "protected" by the 2nd.

You mean because some one changed that while we weren't looking to read "The right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed?"

I agree that a very strict reading of the Second Amendment would, in theory, preclude any infringement whatsoever of otherwise law-abiding people to own any kind of weapon. But, FWIW, even Justice Antonin Scalia, who's about as conservative as they come, signaled in the Heller case that he's not willing to go that far. Just sayin'.

[mistercwood 287]

DrewEckhardt

***Technically possible to fire a single shot. I doubt you could fire multiple rounds effectively within several seconds and stay on target right now. No way in hell is it going to be "protected" by the 2nd.

You mean because some one changed that while we weren't looking to read "The right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed?"

Well that's where it gets interesting for me. If you're flying a drone remotely, are you actually "bearing" the arms? You're controlling the device, but it's not you holding the weapon in this instance.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[quade 4]

Quote

Recoil's really the only obstacle.

That said, it's huge. It's not like you can take a standard quad-copter designed for camera work, replace a GoPro with a gun, take off, fire it and expect the drone to even stay in one piece. The drone would have to be purpose built so the gun's recoil acted through the center of gravity just to have a vague chance of maintaining control. Even at that, I'm not sure what the recoil would do to the flight control surfaces being suddenly unloaded with negative Gs.

Now, is somebody going to do it? Sure. Somebody, in the spirit of the 3D printed Liberator gun is absolutely going to do it. Hell, somebody almost certainly already has tried. I haven't seen a YouTube video other than the incredibly faked computer generated one, but I have no doubt that video inspired somebody to give it a go.

I can nearly guarantee the DHS will swoop down on whoever makes one and makes it public because of its incredibly obvious potential as a terrorist/assassination weapon. Again, no way this would be found as a "protected" weapon.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

mistercwood

******Technically possible to fire a single shot. I doubt you could fire multiple rounds effectively within several seconds and stay on target right now. No way in hell is it going to be "protected" by the 2nd.

You mean because some one changed that while we weren't looking to read "The right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed?"

Well that's where it gets interesting for me. If you're flying a drone remotely, are you actually "bearing" the arms? You're controlling the device, but it's not you holding the weapon in this instance.

Again, look at the two areas you're pushing. The first is armed aircraft. If its not legal for manned craft, why would UAVs be different? Second, look at stationary unmanned firearms like live-fire.com and other remote hunting setups. They're illegal in at least forty states and not considered protected by the second amendment. Why would making it mobile make it more legal?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mistercwood 287]

The grey area I took from the article was some sort of target shooting setup in your own yard. As you say, arming your plane is not legal, but in that instance you're out in public airspace. A drone in your backyard is not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for or against the concept. I just found it's legality debatable enough to be interesting.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[quade 4]

mistercwood

The grey area I took from the article was some sort of target shooting setup in your own yard. As you say, arming your plane is not legal, but in that instance you're out in public airspace. A drone in your backyard is not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for or against the concept. I just found it's legality debatable enough to be interesting.

Well, if you own enough land, you can pretty much do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt anyone and don't get caught. That still doesn't mean it's either legal or protected.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

possession may well be protected, but there aren't too many use cases that would be supportable. How many situations are there where you can operate the drone via your smart phone and still claim to be doing it for self defense? It seems to be more of a first strike device.

[kallend 2,180]

mistercwood

"Right now" is the key phrase there. I don't actually think the tech is likely to be that far off. While the forces aren't nearly the same, there's already quite a few drone models used for mounting video cameras to where the gimbal arrangement maintains a completely level and stable for the camera regardless of the drones movement. Recoil's really the only obstacle.

Regarding protection - I wouldn't be so sure. It's more that people are only just now asking the question. As the article mentions, legislation could be passed to ban the concept now, and pre-empt that discussion. As the idea of personal drones becomes more mainstream though, I think that line may get a bit blurrier.

I have a small drone with a GoPro on a gimbal. I put it together myself for around $1,000.

No way it would ever survive the recoil of even one shot from a small gun. An effectively armed drone would cost something like $100,000 IMO.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,180]

Kennedy

*********Technically possible to fire a single shot. I doubt you could fire multiple rounds effectively within several seconds and stay on target right now. No way in hell is it going to be "protected" by the 2nd.

You mean because some one changed that while we weren't looking to read "The right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed?"

Well that's where it gets interesting for me. If you're flying a drone remotely, are you actually "bearing" the arms? You're controlling the device, but it's not you holding the weapon in this instance.

Again, look at the two areas you're pushing. The first is armed aircraft. If its not legal for manned craft, why would UAVs be different? Second, look at stationary unmanned firearms like live-fire.com and other remote hunting setups. They're illegal in at least forty states and not considered protected by the second amendment. Why would making it mobile make it more legal?

Unless operated under the "model aircraft" exception (FAA AC 91-57), UAVs are currently subject to the same FAA regulations as manned aircraft, which means precious few have been granted CoAs or waivers to be flown in in the NAS, and getting a CoA or waiver is very difficult indeed.

I don't think an armed drone could be argued to be a "model aircraft".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 62]

It is obvious from the video that people are doing R&D and building the personal drone weaponized platform. Therefore, the only question for me is, do you want to be prepared or do you want to be a victim?

My son-in-law has been building and flying drones for several years. His current fascination is the programmed flight software available on Google with his GoPro camera attached.

We have skeet matches now with drone targets.

I think paint ball armed drones would add an exciting parameter to paint ball games.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

I have a small drone with a GoPro on a gimbal. I put it together myself for around $1,000.

No way it would ever survive the recoil of even one shot from a small gun. An effectively armed drone would cost something like $100,000 IMO.

How much mass does this thing have? The recoil of the 22 is so minor I'd expect it to deal with it fine (I can shoot one handed, left handed with considerable accuracy). It's not the scariest round, but it still is responsible for a considerable number of deaths.

[quade 4]

kelpdiver

***
I have a small drone with a GoPro on a gimbal. I put it together myself for around $1,000.

No way it would ever survive the recoil of even one shot from a small gun. An effectively armed drone would cost something like $100,000 IMO.

How much mass does this thing have? The recoil of the 22 is so minor I'd expect it to deal with it fine (I can shoot one handed, left handed with considerable accuracy). It's not the scariest round, but it still is responsible for a considerable number of deaths.

.22 short is going to have something like 70 foot pounds of energy, roughly 95 joules. This is several times the amount of energy of a paint ball as shown in one of the demonstration videos. Sure YOU can hand hold it, your arm alone is considerably heavier than most quadcopters and is physically attached to something in the neighborhood of 150-200 pounds of mass.

The best demo by far supposedly shows a 1911 front mounted on a large RC helicopter and pretty darned well aligned with the CG. Even at that it gets visibly upset by the firing of the gun and you can see it get pushed back at least a rotor length while fighting for control. It takes several seconds before a second shot can be fired. Accuracy? So far, the maker of that is just guessing; he doesn't have a camera for targeting and is simply shooting blind at a hill.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

it would add mass to the mechanism, but mounting the firearm to a mechanism designed to slow the impact of the recoil impact (spread it over more time) would reduce the amount force needed to counter it. Also the added mass would require larger lift and control capacity of the craft thus adding to it's ability to counter the recoil. Yes, it would add to the cost of the project.

Another idea would be to not counter the displacement of the RC craft, but to embrace it. Use the displacement to help dissipate the recoil. It would require mounting the firearm off the line of the CG, and counter balancing it and expecting the spin with each shot. Or mounting it below the craft and expecting a flip with each shot. It would distribute forces differently through the craft, possibly increasing the number of shots it could make before damaging itself. But the tradeoff would be that it's going to likely be tougher on the control mechanisms.

--
Rob

[airtwardo 7]

rhaig

it would add mass to the mechanism, but mounting the firearm to a mechanism designed to slow the impact of the recoil impact (spread it over more time) would reduce the amount force needed to counter it. Also the added mass would require larger lift and control capacity of the craft thus adding to it's ability to counter the recoil. Yes, it would add to the cost of the project.

Another idea would be to not counter the displacement of the RC craft, but to embrace it. Use the displacement to help dissipate the recoil. It would require mounting the firearm off the line of the CG, and counter balancing it and expecting the spin with each shot. Or mounting it below the craft and expecting a flip with each shot. It would distribute forces differently through the craft, possibly increasing the number of shots it could make before damaging itself. But the tradeoff would be that it's going to likely be tougher on the control mechanisms.

On a weapon using a blow back system...simply venting some of the gas straight back would counteract 'some' of the recoil effect - or use it to actuate a spring loaded counterweight, the barrel on one side of the centerline & the counterweight on the other.

I think designing an operational weapon system wouldn't be that hard, the problem is ammunition weight.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Andy9o8 3]

As long as you people keep thinking in terms of primitive kinetic energy projectile weapons, you'll forever be stuck in the Dark Ages.

[champu 1]

The stun setting is for sissies.

[quade 4]

Andy9o8

As long as you people keep thinking in terms of primitive kinetic energy projectile weapons, you'll forever be stuck in the Dark Ages.

It's not like directed-energy weapons are going to be any lighter.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 3]

quade

***As long as you people keep thinking in terms of primitive kinetic energy projectile weapons, you'll forever be stuck in the Dark Ages.

It's not like directed-energy weapons are going to be any lighter.

Oh ye of little vision...