Omega

You are correct about the effect, but they did pass the law, and had a recall election due to it so good for them, but...I'd say there are quite a few less mags: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24833568/magpul-pulling-up-states-heading-out-colorado

They also have Colorado as one of the States which has had this happen; They enacted a large cap mag ban a bit ago.

SSS

Well, I was taught the triple tap, body-body-head, method.

This: http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/29353411/arrest-made-after-victim-shot-13-times-identifies-shooter

Dang, there goes half my rounds.

Have you let his bosses and him know that you are willing to take it to small claims court?  If not, I would send them one last notice and if it's a business, let them know you are going to notify the BBB.  If that doesn't get them to make it right, then the hassle of small claims court is in order.  I would also get a couple of quotes to see what it will take to repair it and have that available for court.

Just get a USB wifi adapter, that way it can move between laptops and desktops if need be, just be sure its 80211N capable: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Linksys-Dual-Band-Wireless-N600-USB-Adapter/22027096

Anyone remember our own Jade Helm thread? 

I'm with you, even after seeing the trailers a few times her name was not recognizable.  But she opens her mouth and now at least many of us in the gun community knows who she is.  So for her handlers, mission accomplished.

I've got a .40, so far I don't have anything to complain about.

Baby steps, if we could get them to change this for the military, then maybe later for all.  I actually do not see this as taking rights away so much as giving it to them sooner.  Really, it should be 18 for everything or 21 for everything, pick an age and stick to it.

Unless you didn't quote the entire message I am not sure about the correlation between his statement and the 50 cal.  An RPG needs line of sight and carrying one into a position to fire one would be difficult, while with these drones it would be easily deployed.  If talking about a car bomb or even an ultralight, then yes those two methods are viable attack platforms, but it does not exclude a drone.  No, I can entirely see these used in that manner, and no law will prevent it.

The only problem I see with that is that he had enough time to listen to the story, go get his shotgun and then take the shot.  I don't see that happening in 10 seconds let alone the seconds the video showed.  I am still not ready to pick a side entirely, but I will throw the BS flag if I smell it.  I will check the video again later, but I seem to remember him pointing to houses to the bottom left as some of the houses he was supposed to be shooting pics/video of, but he took a course up away from a them toward his rendezvous with destiny. 

Awesome, imagine the YouTube hits you would be getting with that video. It had brakes, you were supposed to drag your toes to slow down. I messed up quite a few steel toe boots that way. We had a hill with a slope that was just right for this, except once you leveled out at the bottom you needed to stop or roll off so you would not enter the street. That hill was used both in summer and winter with the same stopping technique, many a bruise and banged up cars I tell you.

I disagree, if it were simply a case of career field I might tend to see your point.  But we already give them access to guns, fully auto machine guns, claymores, hand grenades and C4 not to mention all the big stuff like tanks and artillery.  Its not restricting anyone's rights, it's giving those rights to those that put their lives on the line to defend our way of life and may not live long enough to get them at 21.  And it's not like those rights are not available to everyone, they are free to join even at 17 with their parents permission.  And yes, I know there are quite a few 18 year olds on either side I won't trust with a stick let alone a gun, but that is neither here nor there because as everyone points out there are some of any age that fit that profile.

Yea, there are always three sides to every incident and am willing to hear all of them, not like my opinion matters but this does highlight what I said about technology.  Many drone owners use these in a responsible manner, but as with all things, someone will find some nefarious uses for it.  Not too surprises about no cell phone images though, while many things do get recorded and go viral there are many that do not and this may be one of them.

While it does look damning to the shooter, I would like to see the ACTUAL video, not a google map with overlay.  The drone must of had its camera rolling, that is the footage that will seal the deal with me.   Hozzie; does yours have a demo mode?  I am curious to know if you can "fly" and record a flight path in demo mode as you can with some of the high(er) end RC aircraft.

If it is digital it can be altered.  How easily is something that I would have to see the data to find out.  Many programs just used a specially formatted text file which is very easily manipulated.  As for witnesses, I would rather use the unbiased footage to make up my mind. 

If that bears out I can see the drone pilots side, but I would also like for him to produce the original memory chip for analysis.  Fairly sure he has video as well no?   

I would think so, seeing as you would of paid good money for a ticket and had to suffer the embarrassment of being denied entry.  Might even give you PTSD and a phobia against public entertainment venues.

Personally, I feel those 18-20 year olds that volunteer to defend our country should be given more rights than those that do not.  If the others want those rights sooner, join.  Just like those that take drivers ed get permits sooner than those who don't.  I would even support them having to take some safety classes in high school beforehand to please the whiners.

I don't know, I think I would take a dim view on a Cessna buzzing my property.  I doubt we would be having this discussion if the drone was just flying overhead at a couple hundred feet, or even if it was over a field but just so happened to cross over every once in awhile.  But no, it appears that it was deliberately hovering low enough to look under covered areas where there just so happens to be girls out there.  And the LEO does not even look into it?  While it seems like justice has already been served and I doubt those guys will be pulling anything like this again, I think they should also be criminaly charged as well.     But technology keeps well ahead of the law and I am sure more incidents are ahead before laws are enacted.  Just like those perverts taking pics under women's skirts couldn't be charged, it may be the same here.

If they bring that up I am sure he can counter with the fact that an "aircraft" was flying too low and get the FAA involved in that aspect.  And I again assert that he was defending his property which is well within his rights.     In the city ordinance (his) against discharging a weapon within city limits.   " It shall be unlawful to discharge any firearm or airgun, beebee gun, pellet gun, or any toy gun, or any other gun, projecting lead or any missiles excepting in a regularly established shooting gallery; provided that this section shall not be construed to prohibit any officer of the law from discharging a firearm in the performance of his duty, nor to any citizen from discharging a firearm when lawfully defending person or property."

No, not trying to say you do.  I know there are valid reasons to own and operate personal drones, they even sell a decent one at rural king which I think they list deer scouting as one use.   I think he has a reasonable defense in the fact that the law says firing a weapon in defense of property is an exemption to the law.  Now that drones are becoming an everyday item, there are surely some rules that need to be followed and cases such as this will get the government involved to develop some whether we like them or not.