Hunting

And sometimes the posts just write themselves.

On the front page of the Los Angeles Times this morning, a Colorado town is considering whether to issue hunting licenses for drones. Actually, the person proposing the ordinance is already issuing them, although one shouldn’t expect them to have the force of law at this time. As the story mentions, the town’s trustees split their vote on whether to approve the ordinance outright, so it’s going up for a vote among the residents. It’s a divisive issue. 

The proposal doesn’t distinguish government drones from corporate ones. It’s not, therefore, strictly a Don’t Tread On Me small-government stand. People do recognize some reasonable justifications for a more sober consideration of widespread drone activity - who knows that a drone isn’t delivering illegal drugs, or a bomb? And it limits the number of shots that can be fired (3, unless someone is in danger) so it doesn’t support unlimited shooting just because the target is not alive. 

Despite this restrained and diplomatic tenor, the proposal also justifies the hunting by calling drone overflights an act of war.  

No, really. Act. Of. War.

Not a variation on “home is his castle,” nor “right to protect sovereign airspace,” but Act of War. And I am going on record as saying that this would only happen during a Crisis. This is the only time when “Act of War” can be brandished and NOT be the primary item discussed, whether for its hyperbole or its applicability. That suggests people either agree with it (and no doubt many do) or ignore it. That happens enough, and at some point there will be a reaction,either as the ignorers tire of extremism - or the agreers tire of inaction. 

And that will be when things really become interesting.