Connecticut May Become First State to Allow Deadly Police Drones

[Lith1um]

Or if you give a man,

• Raid (February 28): 75 federal agents (ATF and FBI); 3 helicopters manned by 10 Texas National Guard counter-drug personnel as distraction during the raid and filming.[91][100] Ballistic protection equipment, fire retardant clothing, regular flashlights, regular cameras (i.e. flash photography), pump-action shotguns and flashbang grenades,[101] 9 mm handguns, 9 mm MP5 submachine guns, .223 AR-15 rifles, a .308 bolt-action sniper rifle.[102]

• Siege (March 1 through April 18): Hundreds of federal agents; 2 Bell UH-1 Iroquois helicopters.[103]

• Assault (April 19): Hundreds of federal agents; military vehicles (with their normal weapon systems removed): 9–10 M3 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, 4–5 M728 Combat Engineering Vehicles (CEVs) armed with CS gas, 2 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, 1 M88 tank retriever.[100][103]

• Support:[100] 1 Britten-Norman Defender surveillance aircraft;[104] a number of Texas National Guard personnel for maintenance of military vehicles and training on the use of the vehicles and their support vehicles (Humvees and flatbed trucks); surveillance from Texas National Guard counter-drug UC-26 surveillance aircraft and from Alabama National Guard; 10 active-duty U.S. Army Special Forces (Delta Force) soldiers as observers and trainers (also present during assault); 2 senior U.S. Army officers as advisers, 2 members of the British Army's 22nd Special Air Service (SAS) Regiment as observers;[105] 50+ men in total.[106]

You end up with this,



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

In short, any tool or power given to the government will be misused.

 

[Ducman69]

I think a lot of people are just picturing these things swarming about the neighborhoods but in reality it would be for special encounters likely needing authorization to deploy. I think it could be a very useful tool, could also be very handy in high speed chases where it becomes dangerous to persue, deploy drone to follow or tag the car.

I agree, I think precedent would have this used the same as existing land RC vehicles, which are brought in with SWAT. This is just an airborne equivalent.

 

[otherweeb]

It has begun.

IN before Skynet deletes this thread. (WTH you guys slow today?)

The physics associated with recoil ought to make for some interesting viewing (drones bouncing off the walls?).

Then, there's always the drone-mounted railgun.

OTOH, if we start talking "rayguns," one equipped with something like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-Japan-just-fired-world-s-powerful-laser.html

probably would require a very large drone; not to mention a very large SWAT Team van to haul it around in, if it's not launched from some major airfield.

Purchasing stock in 'Gryojet ammunition'....

 

[Flogger23m]

There wasn't a necessity to "throw together some hastily configured device to end the situation quickly".

The guy was injured, cornered, and surrounded.

The only possible out comes would have been:

1) Starve him out, or let him bleed out. With luck he will peacefully surrender or die without harming anyone else.
2) He charges out from cover, possibly injuring/killing another person.

Considering his mindset (he initiated the attack, specifically targetting police) and training (better than that of a typical officer) he certainly was much more of a threat than say, two gangsters who got into a shootout and didn't escape the scene before the police arrived.

 

[WorldExclusive]

 

[lcpiper]

Meanwhile citizens can't own guns worth a damn or anything with a magazine size larger than 10, but sure let's allow law enforcement to have drones with guns.

Dude, you can own a machinegun if you want, as long as your State is OK with it.

Silencers, Short Barreled Rifles, Sawed-Off Shotguns, all OK as long as you get the Tax Stamp for it.

 

[lcpiper]

As if using drones to kill people in the middle east wasn't ethically gray enough.

Wait a second. You think using drones to conduct warfare is unethical?

Do you also have a problem with 2,000 lb bombs that will crush your noodle from half a kilometer away
Incendiaries like White Phosphorus grenades that will keep burning even under water
Land Mines that pop up into the air 3 feet and burst sending out ball bearings in a radius of death and dismemberment
Missiles that can deliver nuclear or conventional payloads over hundred of miles capable of leveling entire cities
Artillery that can blast you from 50 miles away
Machineguns that fire bullets the size of your thumb and can penetrate armor plating


Is there any of these you find somehow more ethical cause I really want to hear how you logically justify a Hellfire Missile fired from a drone as being any worse than any of the other ways in which we kill those we call our enemies. We being the entire world, not just the USA.

 

[lcpiper]

Texas already killed someone with a non-flying version.
http://www.livescience.com/55331-dallas-shooting-bomb-robot.html

Damn smart use of tax payer dollars. Why risk a cop getting hurt or killed and spending all that money when a robot can do the job even better?

 

[Darunion]

Wait a second. You think using drones to conduct warfare is unethical?

Do you also have a problem with 2,000 lb bombs that will crush your noodle from half a kilometer away
Incendiaries like White Phosphorus grenades that will keep burning even under water
Land Mines that pop up into the air 3 feet and burst sending out ball bearings in a radius of death and dismemberment
Missiles that can deliver nuclear or conventional payloads over hundred of miles capable of leveling entire cities
Artillery that can blast you from 50 miles away
Machineguns that fire bullets the size of your thumb and can penetrate armor plating


Is there any of these you find somehow more ethical cause I really want to hear how you logically justify a Hellfire Missile fired from a drone as being any worse than any of the other ways in which we kill those we call our enemies. We being the entire world, not just the USA.

I myself like my bombs loaded with peace symbol medallions for shrapnel

 

[lcpiper]

When drones can carry weapons inside US borders and fly over the US population with said weapons targeting the US population itself that's when it's time to start mass producing drone killing devices of any and all kinds writ large.

Or revolt.

Your choice.

You've seen this or someone reported it and it wasn't just a training mission? I mean they do do live fire training on the ranges so seeing an armed drone inside the US is no different than seeing an armed fighter or a tank or a soldier at the range if that was the case.

 

[lcpiper]

It was a bit of a gray area, but he was armed and dangerous, having just killed a number of officers. And he was still armed and did not seem willing to surrender. Tear gas/flash bangs/tasers do not always incapacitate someone. Given the situation, they had to throw together some hastily configured device to end the situation quickly. Although robots with CS dispensers and flash bang launchers may be something sought after now.

Yea well, you have to go with what you have at the time, not what someone can dream up after the fact, because a situation ended in a way they didn't like.

I can see a robot with a flash-bang launcher and just keep rocking the guy's skull until he cries for mercy. It might work, until the day it doesn't. I mean every new technique works all the way up until the day it doesn't.

For me, I do not care that they blew this asshole apart. He was killing people and it wasn't a question of guilt or if he would stop or even how it would end. A man doing what he did wasn't going to suddenly give up so I have no problem with the cops deciding to kill him without risk. Shit that's just smart.

 

[lcpiper]

There wasn't a necessity to "throw together some hastily configured device to end the situation quickly".

The guy was injured, cornered, and surrounded.

And when told to give up he refused. He consciously "chose to die". If he thought it would end differently that's his fuck up.

So am I correct, you think the cops should be asked to go out there and do the job and even when some guy starts killing cops, they can't kill him if there is any chance he might give up later?

Cause I can really see the applications for Polce Officers overflowing the mail rooms on this one.

I think your not the sort of person that ever really considered becoming a cop yourself, and signing up to serve your community.

 

[lcpiper]

What's the possible real justification for this?

You go become Chief of Police or Mayor of some city, and then you'll be able to tell us.

 

[lcpiper]

I myself like my bombs loaded with peace symbol medallions for shrapnel

I just don't get someone who somehow thinks that there are ethical ways to burn, dismember, and perforate human bodies.

War is hell, it should be avoided.

I think someone who imagines that there are ethical and humane ways to conduct war, that's who needs their head examined.

Just saying.

 

[Darunion]

I just don't get someone who somehow thinks that there are ethical ways to burn, dismember, and perforate human bodies.

War is hell, it should be avoided.

I think someone who imagines that there are ethical and humane ways to conduct war, that's who needs their head examined.

Just saying.

Agreed, it is ugly and gruesome and always will be. The point of any new weapon is to kill your enemy in accordance with regulations in a way that lessens your own risk of getting killed back.

If robots save soldiers or police officer lives, i am for it. Eventually both sides will use robots and maybe one day we can go back to deciding conflicts with a game of chess instead.

I think for many people they can't imagine the scenario and how they would feel in that place, knowing that with a drone sent to kill the bad guy, they now have a good chance of going home to their family.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

You've seen this or someone reported it and it wasn't just a training mission? I mean they do do live fire training on the ranges so seeing an armed drone inside the US is no different than seeing an armed fighter or a tank or a soldier at the range if that was the case.

The important and relevant aspects of your post are "training mission," "live fire training on the ranges," and "armed fighter or a tank or a soldier at the range" - those are military aspects you're speaking of primarily (yes I realize civilian law enforcement does utilize training ranges as well) but my point I made in my post holds steady and true:

Such situations as you mentioned do not involve armed/weaponized drones flying over US civilian populations (read: not military training ranges) and involving those drones targeting US civilian populations for law enforcement purposes or any purpose whatsoever.

There is no justification for this, period, and any Chief of Police or Mayor of any city that actively considers using such kind of technology on their own citizens should be removed from their positions and damned fast.

There is the rule of law in the US known as the Posse Comitatus Act which makes it illegal for the US Army and Air Force branches of the US military to be used for any actions in the attempt to enforce Federal domestic policy on its own civilian population - the fact that we're talking about militarized hardware such as armed drones of any kinds, shapes, and sizes being utilized in this exact same manner or anything of the sort by domestic law enforcement agencies doesn't really skirt the issue at hand just because said agencies aren't Federalized. The Act doesn't apply to the Army or Air National Guard, of course, since those can be called into action on the state and even city levels of government, but even so, there's a point of contention with all this overall that cannot be denied.

"It's ok, we're not Federal, no worries, we're local, we can legally do this..." is not going to be an acceptable defense of such actions and technologies when things really take a major turn for the worse.

This situation is like so many others: getting blown out of proportion (literally) way too fast for the laws and the population to grasp with any serious levels of discussion and that's another problem in and of itself to begin with.

I just watched the movie "Oblivion" last night, and I regularly watch a TV series called "Colony" as well and in both of these futuristic situations as represented in both works automated weaponized drones patrol the cities and streets and wastelands of the world and basically blow civilians and any creature that crosses their paths without a second digital thought about it. I know it's all science fiction and everything and it shouldn't be taken as anything of fact about what might come of us as time passes, but how often in the past has actual science fiction on the printed page turned into a real world technology that eventually ended up being utilized in some negative manner against the very people that created it?

I for one have a pretty long view on the future and it's not nearly as bright and happy as I might wish it to be, and it's getting darker with each passing second.

 

[lcpiper]

Agreed, it is ugly and gruesome and always will be. The point of any new weapon is to kill your enemy in accordance with regulations in a way that lessens your own risk of getting killed back.

If robots save soldiers or police officer lives, i am for it. Eventually both sides will use robots and maybe one day we can go back to deciding conflicts with a game of chess instead.

I think for many people they can't imagine the scenario and how they would feel in that place, knowing that with a drone sent to kill the bad guy, they now have a good chance of going home to their family.

Topics like this always bring back this old Star Trek episode, "A Taste of Armageddon"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon

In this episode, the crew of the USS Enterprise visits a planet whose people fight a computer-simulated war against a neighboring planet. Although the war is fought via computer simulation, the citizens of each planet have to submit to real executions inside "disintegration booths" to meet the casualty counts of the simulated attacks.

The "heroes" break the disintegration devices so that the one planet will be reported as not having killed their "casualties", it forces them to risk real war and the ugliness and total destruction with all it's horrors. Once faced with the real thing, they find they have a real reason to go to the peace table and try to resolve the conflict instead of fighting a "clean war" as a game with no end.

This story has always been a lesson for me that it's dangerous to look for a "clean war". As long as war remains brutal and ugly, maybe people won't be so quick to pursue it.

 

[lcpiper]

The important and relevant aspects of your post are "training mission," ........

There is the rule of law in the US known as the Posse Concomitants Act which makes it illegal for the US Army and Air Force branches of the US military to be used for any actions in the attempt to enforce Federal domestic policy on its own civilian population - the fact that we're talking about militarized hardware such as armed drones of any kinds, shapes, and sizes being utilized in this exact same manner or anything of the sort by d................
I for one have a pretty long view on the future and it's not nearly as bright and happy as I might wish it to be, and it's getting darker with each passing second.

I am addressing all of this.

First, there is a world of difference in a Military Drone armed with a Hellfire Missile and a Police Drone with a rifle type weapon that is designed to stop a single target. I don't understand how you jump from a weapon or warfare to this, there is no correlation.

There is also no correlation between your attempt to tie this into Posse Comitatus because of the use of similar technology, (drones). You say Federalization is immaterial to the subject when Federalization IS the entire subject when it comes to this act. Hell it's the entire point. Did you know that the FBI adopted the Thompson Submachinegun before the US Military did? I find none of this part of your argument as valid.

Are you one of those people who think the cops today are all militarized and using military tactics and shit? Don't tell me you buy into that horseshit ?

Oh man, I just read this part of your post;

The Act doesn't apply to the Army or Air National Guard, of course, since those can be called into action on the state and even city levels of government, but even so, there's a point of contention with all this overall that cannot be denied.

The Act definitely applies to the use of both the US Army and the State National guards. You need to go back and read it man. First off, you have a simplistic view of what the Act limits.

As an example, during the Waco Branch Davidian standoff with Federal Law Enforcement, the FBI used US Army M728 CEV vehicles and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles. US Soldiers did not operate them, they provided training to the Law Enforcement people because the Military can't be used, Posse Comitatus. Furthermore, the State national Guards are not Federal Troops and specifically can be used pretty much however the Sate Governor wants except when they have been Federalized meaning the Federal government can't use them to police the population.

The Posse Comitatus Act is specific to it's purpose, US Federal Soldiers will not be used to police the nation's population. It has nothing at all to do with how States or Cities police the people, it is not a right of the population but a limit on the Federal government. It has one very notable exception that is in force and actively used every single day of the year.

US Military bases are policed by Military Police. If you enter a military base you are subject to search at any time, your vehicle and your person. The rules change when you enter a base. You should keep that in mind if you ever do enter one.

 

[lcpiper]

When drones can carry weapons inside US borders and fly over the US population with said weapons targeting the US population itself that's when it's time to start mass producing drone killing devices of any and all kinds writ large.

Or revolt.

Your choice.

And one other thing Tiberian.

I would hope you become a little more careful about what you type on the internet. I am serious man. You are close to a very serious line.

I recommend that you go read up on what the law is regarding two things, sedition and treason.

The 1st Amendment offers multiple strong protections on speech but it's not 100%. A person can say things, particularly in a public forum, that can be come judged as illegal.

I have told you guys that my own online activity is subject to Federal monitoring and that means if they are looking at me, they may see you, incidentally.

Don't lose control of yourself, don't go too far. I don't want to read about a guy that goes by the online name Tiberian ......

I enjoy disagreement, argument, discourse, it makes me challenge my views and it helps me clarify exactly why I agree or disagree, and am I right in doing so. My own sanity check.

But I don't want an discussion between us cause any of you trouble and regardless of your views I don't wish any harm on anyone even if we disargee.

I get the argument, I get that you have worries and you see things that are not right. Our entire system is built on the concept that we can correct the course if the ship gets off course. It's not supposed to always be perfect, it's accepted that it never will be perfect, that perfection is a goal we may never reach. So we keep trying, we keep watch, it's good, it's how we endure. That is what is supposed to be the strength of our country, that we don't stop trying to make it better. The media has a way of making things look worse then they truly are. Don't forget that. The story isn't always what it seems.

But while I do not hold any ill will toward you, I can't promise it won't come if you every cross that line between your rights to express yourself, and the illegal acts of actually inciting or provoking others to take actions against the Federal Government. I know that we hold the Patriot part of our heritage dear, that our country was born in the fire of rebellion. I just hope that people don't confuse the potential for tyranny with the acts of tyranny, they are not the same thing. Laws like Posse Comitatus are in place to lessen the risk, a safe guard, a protection put in place so that we don't drift too far way. Keep the ship on course. Don't read more into it than what it is. It's one among many.

When you find the media too disheartening, go take a break. Go to the park, live real live for awhile with other real people. Get your bearings, your own course. Smell the roses again.

Peace brother.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

First, there is a world of difference in a Military Drone armed with a Hellfire Missile and a Police Drone with a rifle type weapon that is designed to stop a single target. I don't understand how you jump from a weapon or warfare to this, there is no correlation.

And thus there is a correlation that you can't see, sadly. We as a society have already crossed the line so far there's no going back so I have nothing to worry about anymore and neither does anyone else, what's coming is coming, there's no stopping it now.

As for the other post and the aspects of me "crossing a line" myself well, I'm as safe and protected (meaning I have none of either to any degree whatsoever) as you are, right?

 

[Extra-Titanian]

Wait a second. You think using drones to conduct warfare is unethical?

Do you also have a problem with 2,000 lb bombs that will crush your noodle from half a kilometer away
Incendiaries like White Phosphorus grenades that will keep burning even under water
Land Mines that pop up into the air 3 feet and burst sending out ball bearings in a radius of death and dismemberment
Missiles that can deliver nuclear or conventional payloads over hundred of miles capable of leveling entire cities
Artillery that can blast you from 50 miles away
Machineguns that fire bullets the size of your thumb and can penetrate armor plating


Is there any of these you find somehow more ethical cause I really want to hear how you logically justify a Hellfire Missile fired from a drone as being any worse than any of the other ways in which we kill those we call our enemies. We being the entire world, not just the USA.

Yes. Dudes sitting in a shelter in the middle of the desert using drones to remotely blow up weddings because the telephone rang and a voice said so is unethical. I was literally going to post a link to "A Taste of Armageddon" but you beat me to it. Warfare shouldn't be that sanitary. Maybe once I get back in a few months, I'll feel different, but until then, someone should be on site and responsible. The pilot, field commander, whoever. Not some anonymous suit in Washington.

As far as the rest, if you really want to get into strawman arguments, I've got better things to do with my time.

 

[swimming pool]

The only possible out comes would have been:

1) Starve him out, or let him bleed out. With luck he will peacefully surrender or die without harming anyone else.
2) He charges out from cover, possibly injuring/killing another person.

Considering his mindset (he initiated the attack, specifically targetting police) and training (better than that of a typical officer) he certainly was much more of a threat than say, two gangsters who got into a shootout and didn't escape the scene before the police arrived.

There are three outcomes there. Wait till he dies, he peacefully surrenders, or he charges out. I'm not going to argue that he would have ever surrendered, that was possible but unlikely.

But which one of those outcomes required a hastily configured device to immediately end the situation?

That mindset plus training (if those were even ascertainable) plus possibly killing another person allows for simply killing a suspect can be applied to hundreds of incidents per year.

Essentially the argument is that anyone suspected of killing an officer can just be executed based on the judgement of those who were attacked.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Dude, you can own a machinegun if you want, as long as your State is OK with it.

Silencers, Short Barreled Rifles, Sawed-Off Shotguns, all OK as long as you get the Tax Stamp for it.

I'm referring to this states specific gun laws not others.

 

[Flapjack]

Maybe Skynet isn't how it all starts after all. Maybe THIS is it.

Robots will kill us all. Truer words have never been spoken.

 

[swimming pool]

And when told to give up he refused. He consciously "chose to die". If he thought it would end differently that's his fuck up.

So am I correct, you think the cops should be asked to go out there and do the job and even when some guy starts killing cops, they can't kill him if there is any chance he might give up later?

Cause I can really see the applications for Polce Officers overflowing the mail rooms on this one.

I think your not the sort of person that ever really considered becoming a cop yourself, and signing up to serve your community.

I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusions but since we're being honest with each other I think you're not the sort of person who is bright enough to see anything beyond what you've been indoctrinated to see.

 

[PNut12345]

Is the drone going to identify itself with a badge and read you your Miranda rights? Because I assure you any apparently armed drone that enters my zone of control is going to find itself.....probably in perfectly good shape because I'm not a very good shot...but dammit if I wouldn't give it a run for it's money.

Exactly when do you think Miranda must be read??

 

[PNut12345]

The important and relevant aspects of your post are "training mission," "live fire training on the ranges," and "armed fighter or a tank or a soldier at the range" - those are military aspects you're speaking of primarily (yes I realize civilian law enforcement does utilize training ranges as well) but my point I made in my post holds steady and true:

Such situations as you mentioned do not involve armed/weaponized drones flying over US civilian populations (read: not military training ranges) and involving those drones targeting US civilian populations for law enforcement purposes or any purpose whatsoever.

There is no justification for this, period, and any Chief of Police or Mayor of any city that actively considers using such kind of technology on their own citizens should be removed from their positions and damned fast.

There is the rule of law in the US known as the Posse Comitatus Act which makes it illegal for the US Army and Air Force branches of the US military to be used for any actions in the attempt to enforce Federal domestic policy on its own civilian population - the fact that we're talking about militarized hardware such as armed drones of any kinds, shapes, and sizes being utilized in this exact same manner or anything of the sort by domestic law enforcement agencies doesn't really skirt the issue at hand just because said agencies aren't Federalized. The Act doesn't apply to the Army or Air National Guard, of course, since those can be called into action on the state and even city levels of government, but even so, there's a point of contention with all this overall that cannot be denied.

"It's ok, we're not Federal, no worries, we're local, we can legally do this..." is not going to be an acceptable defense of such actions and technologies when things really take a major turn for the worse.

This situation is like so many others: getting blown out of proportion (literally) way too fast for the laws and the population to grasp with any serious levels of discussion and that's another problem in and of itself to begin with.

I just watched the movie "Oblivion" last night, and I regularly watch a TV series called "Colony" as well and in both of these futuristic situations as represented in both works automated weaponized drones patrol the cities and streets and wastelands of the world and basically blow civilians and any creature that crosses their paths without a second digital thought about it. I know it's all science fiction and everything and it shouldn't be taken as anything of fact about what might come of us as time passes, but how often in the past has actual science fiction on the printed page turned into a real world technology that eventually ended up being utilized in some negative manner against the very people that created it?

I for one have a pretty long view on the future and it's not nearly as bright and happy as I might wish it to be, and it's getting darker with each passing second.

So you watch some sci-fi and that makes you a subject matter expert? Got it.

 

[tetris42]

What people are forgetting here is that we are not giving autonomous robots that ability to execute someone.

Baby steps.

 

[tetris42]

Exactly when do you think Miranda must be read??

Ha ha, before you question a suspect under arrest IF you want to use what he says in court. Uh oh, some guy's got a hostage at gunpoint, better Mirandize him!

 

[Deleted member 245375]

So you watch some sci-fi and that makes you a subject matter expert? Got it.

Thank you so much for taking things out of context, it's really appreciated.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

Exactly when do you think Miranda must be read??

Frankly it was mostly in jest...but bringing up the ethical quicksand that is over-reliance on drones. The Dallas guy notwithstanding, that was basically open warfare at that point.

 

[c3k]

Connecticut is already a police state. This is the inexorable progression of government under a liberal agenda. The state is supreme, the citizen is tolerated so long as they obey the laws that their moral and intellectual superiors have instituted for the greater good. A few innocent deaths, maimings, injury, and fear is a small price to pay while engineering a utopia.

That's why I left Connecticut. (Oh, the flip side of this progress is the fiscal consequences. )

 

[Ducman69]

Baby steps.

That's all you can ask of Officer Baby Legs.

 

[lcpiper]

I'm referring to this states specific gun laws not others.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0001.htm

Machine guns are legal if duly registered with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and DESPP. It is illegal to use them for offensive or aggressive purposes, as defined in law, or to transfer them to anyone under age 16.

It's probably easier to get a Machinegun then what Connecticut calls an Assault Weapon, stupid, but probably true. States really fuck things up when they deviate from Federal Gun Laws when it comes to classifying guns. The Federal Laws are sort of Byzantine and convoluted and don't always make sense, but adding new State definitions really muddies the water.

I am still waiting to see what the fallout is and the government's (plural), reaction is to weapons like the Fosgates.

Take the following from Connecticut as an example.

The law defines “pistol” and “revolver” as any firearm having a barrel less than 12 inches long

A rifle is a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder using a cartridge to fire a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

A shotgun is a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder using a shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shots or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger

Sawed-Off Shotguns. It is a class D felony to own or possess sawed-off shotguns, defined as a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches (CGS § 53a-211). The ban does not apply to anyone otherwise permitted by state or federal law to own such firearms. (According to the State Police, people may legally possess sawed-off shotguns, under federal law, if they obtain a federal tax stamp to possess them.)

The law defines an “assault weapon” as (1) any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the user's option; (2) any of a list of named firearms; or (3) any unlisted semi-automatic rifle or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of specified features; or (4) a part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon

State law defines a “machine gun” as any weapon, loaded or unloaded, that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one projectile by a single function of the trigger without manual reloading.

So if a firearm does not fire more than one round per a single function of the trigger, it's not a machinegun, if the barrel is longer than 12" it's not a pistol, and if it has no shoulder stock it's not a rifle or a shotgun. Federal Law would classify it as simply a firearm or "AOW" Any other weapon. But I don't see this in a quick look over Connecticut's Laws.


Apply for the Federal Tax Stamp for a "short barreled shotgun" and it will be classified in CT as a "Sawed Off Shotgun.

What if my rifle is smooth-bore and fires a single solid shot? It's not a rifle or a shotgun or an assault weapon.

Do :Belt-fed weapons qualify as a Detachable magazine if they can not also accept a detachable magazine and only take a belt?

Of course you could, quite simply, move to state that isn't insane.

 

[Jagger100]

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0001.htm



It's probably easier to get a Machinegun then what Connecticut calls an Assault Weapon, stupid, but probably true. States really fuck things up when they deviate from Federal Gun Laws when it comes to classifying guns. The Federal Laws are sort of Byzantine and convoluted and don't always make sense, but adding new State definitions really muddies the water.

probably easiest to get one out of the trunk of a car.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

The only inherently difficult thing about owning a machine gun is limited supply since almost exclusively they have to have been manufactured pre-1986 and the prices for legal full auto guns are ludicrously inflated....I mean, a MAC-10 which has about $20 of steel can run you close to $10k. Plus the the transfer stamps and licensing is a nightmare.

Side note to relate this to the actual story.....if the police can do it, there shouldn't be anything that wouldn't allow a citizen to mount a legally purchased and owned firearm on their drone.

 

[lcpiper]

The only inherently difficult thing about owning a machine gun is limited supply since almost exclusively they have to have been manufactured pre-1986 and the prices for legal full auto guns are ludicrously inflated....I mean, a MAC-10 which has about $20 of steel can run you close to $10k. Plus the the transfer stamps and licensing is a nightmare.

Side note to relate this to the actual story.....if the police can do it, there shouldn't be anything that wouldn't allow a citizen to mount a legally purchased and owned firearm on their drone.

Shouldn't as in, right and wrong, or shouldn't as in legally?

The cops can all own machineguns as individuals along with other class 3 weapons even after they leave service and retire, there may be some states that are exceptions.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

Shouldn't as in, right and wrong, or shouldn't as in legally?

The cops can all own machineguns as individuals along with other class 3 weapons even after they leave service and retire, there may be some states that are exceptions.

Shouldn't as in wrong. Police, as non-military normal citizens, shouldn't have access to any hardware that isn't legal for citizens of that state. This should also be the rule of law, but it's been circumvented by this insane concept that police are somehow a protected class of citizen as opposed to, well, citizens. I have nothing against police, but I feel the militarization of police coinciding with the dearming of the citizenry is a road we don't turn back from. So my opinion would be if armed drones are going to be legal for police, well, they should be legal for anyone else as well.

 

[zamardii12]

Seems like every day we just get better and better news.

I also kind of wish this website was mostly about tech news; while I know it relates to drones. I seeing seeing shit like this when I come here to talk about computers and video games.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

Seems like every day we just get better and better news.

I also kind of wish this website was mostly about tech news; while I know it relates to drones. I seeing seeing shit like this when I come here to talk about computers and video games.

It's not just here though, it's every tech site. Reality is tech is everywhere now, and it's important for the people that actually understand it to be informed....even if the news is kind of bleak. The nerds have risen to some degree and it's our time to shape the world