JerryBaumchen 1,046 #1 July 18, 2015 Hi John, QuoteThe Federal Aviation Administration is investigating . . . You been in Connecticut? http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/faa-investigating-video-gun-firing-drone-n394261 One thing about Americans, they are innovative. Jerry Baumchen Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,046 #2 July 18, 2015 Hi folks, Or maybe he has been in Virginia: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/first-faa-approved-drone-delivery-drops-medicine-virginia-n393986 Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BartsDaddy 4 #3 July 18, 2015 Or maybe in California. Where firefighting water drops had to be suspended over a fire that was burning cars on the Cajon pass and 3500 acres of land because of drones flying in the area. Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #4 July 18, 2015 QuoteThe father of an 18-year-old boy who built a drone with a gun attached and posted video of it on YouTube with the title "flying gun" says they broke no laws. Mmmm... Pretty sure it is!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #5 July 18, 2015 I'm going to move this where it's inevitably going to end up anyway. Sorry. Just being proactive.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,049 #6 July 18, 2015 quadeQuoteThe father of an 18-year-old boy who built a drone with a gun attached and posted video of it on YouTube with the title "flying gun" says they broke no laws. Mmmm... Pretty sure it is! Source?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #7 July 18, 2015 Sons of guns did it on national tv. Built a downward firing gun and fired it onto 12x12 flooring tiles on the ground. The FAA never said nothing to them. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #8 July 18, 2015 What I'm looking for is a drone carrying a paintball gun, and equipped with a rabbit-seeking targeting system. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BartsDaddy 4 #9 July 18, 2015 AnvilbrotherSons of guns did it on national tv. Built a downward firing gun and fired it onto 12x12 flooring tiles on the ground. The FAA never said nothing to them. But they are special, they are Hollywood showtime. Mythbusters built a remote controlled foreign gun too, which is definitely illegal in California. And in the way they did it could have also been charged with making a fullauto too. Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtiflyer 0 #10 July 18, 2015 AnvilbrotherSons of guns did it on national tv. Built a downward firing gun and fired it onto 12x12 flooring tiles on the ground. The FAA never said nothing to them. Sons of Guns had the appropriate FFL at the time to construct that drone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #11 July 18, 2015 jtiflyer***Sons of guns did it on national tv. Built a downward firing gun and fired it onto 12x12 flooring tiles on the ground. The FAA never said nothing to them. Sons of Guns had the appropriate FFL at the time to construct that drone No FFL required to build (construct) a gun, as long as it isn't being built with the intention to sell it, which then requires a manufacturer license, which is a special type of FFL Link to types of FFL (first thing I found on a quick search). http://www.fflanswers.com/ffltypes.html"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #12 July 19, 2015 BIGUN***QuoteThe father of an 18-year-old boy who built a drone with a gun attached and posted video of it on YouTube with the title "flying gun" says they broke no laws. Mmmm... Pretty sure it is! Source? Jim Williams, the man in charge of regulating drones for the FAA, was unequivocal about the question. "We currently have rules in the books that deal with releasing anything from an aircraft, period. Those rules are in place and that would prohibit weapons from being installed on a civil aircraft,” said Jim Williams, head of the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, in an address to the drone industry’s leading trade group meeting this week in Northern Virginia. “We don’t have any plans of changing [those rules] for unmanned aircraft,” Mr. Williams added.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #13 July 19, 2015 There are so many things incorrect with this thread. 1. No one made a gun so the fact that RJ had some level of FFl is irrelevant. 2. Only certain types of "drones" are under the FAA, and its usually due to the fact that they are doing commercial work. And for that matter last time I checked it was just a proposal to regulate civilian drones, and had not gone into effect. The only thing existing that talks about "drones" is the large commercial ones used by the military and police, not the hobby and homemade ones under 55 lbs. 3. Buying a phantom and attaching a baby glock to it is legal. Stupid but legal. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,049 #14 July 19, 2015 Thank you for that.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #15 July 19, 2015 No offense to you or Mr Williams, but people in positions of authority who are neither lawmakers nor judges will say all kinds of crap to try and stop people from doing things they don't want them to do. (And people who are neither lawmakers nor judges will argue otherwise.) By way of example, in California, ask a shooting range owner, a gun store manager, a cop, anyone who answers the phone at CA DOJ, and a paid attorney how to legally transport a handgun and the ammunition for it from your house to the range. You'll get at least five different answers and at least four of them will be wrong. Just about anything short of established case law is moot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #16 July 19, 2015 AnvilbrotherOnly certain types of "drones" are under the FAA... Nope. Anything man-made that flies over the US airspace falls under FAA regulations. Anything that is released from the aircraft and causes a safety concern to people or property absolutely falls under the FAA as well. Mounting a gun on civilian aircraft, model or otherwise, falls under the FAA.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #17 July 19, 2015 I'm sorry but you are wrong on that one there are guidelines but not regulations. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BartsDaddy 4 #18 July 19, 2015 While I don't know about other states but in California it is illegal to make a remote foreign gun. So unless the guy is flying on the drone with it so he can pull the trigger and not some solenoid or servo. It would be considered illegal. Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #19 July 19, 2015 Lol California that explains it Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #20 July 20, 2015 The PIrker case proves you wrong about that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #21 July 20, 2015 Bullshit I already stated that what I was talking about did not apply to commercial ventures go back and read. Pirker did not really lose anyway he decided that it wasn't worth fighting anymore after he won an appeal, then lost an appeal and could get out of it all for $1,000 and a no guilt plea. Everything I have said about HOBBY r/c not being under FAA regulations is true, I fly weekly 5 different aircraft including a quad and and FPV. QuoteSection 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the following statutory requirements are met: • the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; • the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; • the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization; • the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and • when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower ... with prior notice of the operation.... Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 268 #22 July 20, 2015 Anvilbrother Buying a phantom and attaching a baby glock to it is legal. But discharging that firearm within city limits/populated areas/residential areas (i.e. other than a designated shooting facility or hunting area) is a different story.See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #23 July 20, 2015 Depending on where you live you can and that varies wildly. Here in my city you can't fire anything even a bb gun within 500 hundred feet of a roadway, and can use anything if your 1/2 mile off the road, and that's IN the city limits. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #24 July 20, 2015 AnvilbrotherBullshit I already stated that what I was talking about did not apply to commercial ventures go back and read. Pirker did not really lose anyway he decided that it wasn't worth fighting anymore after he won an appeal, then lost an appeal and could get out of it all for $1,000 and a no guilt plea. Everything I have said about HOBBY r/c not being under FAA regulations is true, I fly weekly 5 different aircraft including a quad and and FPV. QuoteSection 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the following statutory requirements are met: • the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; • the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; • the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization; • the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and • when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower ... with prior notice of the operation.... The FAA got Pirker on a Part 91.13 violation totally unconnected with commercial operation. Pirker lost on appeal to the NTSB. The NTSB court made no mention of commercial operation in its ruling. And firing a gun from a drone does not fit under the terms of the section 336 rule since it is not sanctioned by any nationwide community based organization. And you missed the last section (b) of Part 336, no doubt deliberately. This makes it clear that the FAA has the final word.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #25 July 20, 2015 You jump in here and inject youself I to a conversation late leaving out the context. Sure all alphabet soup federal agencies all have that we can do whatever they want clause. Quade said this QuoteNope. Anything man-made that flies over the US airspace falls under FAA regulations. Which is what my replies are talking to. So please show me where he is right that the FAA has regulations for my planes.... Not the one sentence blanket we have the right to investigate incidents part. Show me the REGULATIONS he said we fall under as HOBBY pilots. I will wait. He was originally fined for commercial operations and that's what the ENTIRE shit show was about. After the ruling that said the FAA was acting illegally that's when the other part came out of butthurtness. His case has and will always be about commercial operation. No one actually knows if the part 91.13 actually sticks to rc aircraft because he backed out and just paid the $1,100 so no review or appeals were made to justify if he was reckless or if that even applies to rc aircraft! http://www.team-blacksheep.com/docs/pirker-faa-settlement.pdf Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
