From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 12:04:09 MST
Doug Jones wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> >
> > Dan Fabulich wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Dont worry Mike, I dont want to spy on you. {8-] spike
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure you don't, I have good anti-air defenses for flying things 15
> > > > cm in size. My 20 guage shotgun that is perfect for woodcock, with #9
> > > > shot, would take our your little spy plane at anything less than 50
> > > > yards, and with magnum loads I could make shots of around 75-100 yards
> > > > altitude. Anything higher and I'd have to bring out the goose gun.... 10
> > > > guage #6 magnum loads.... Happy flying....
> > >
> > > Yes, but you'd have to know it was a spy plane, right? I mean, you're not
> > > just going to whip out your goose gun and take pot shots at any moderately
> > > low-flying plane that buzzes over your property... right?
> >
> > Its my property, right? Since there is no law AGAINST shooting down
> > model airplanes that trespass on ones property, then it must be open
> > season..
>
> Well, yeah, but a lot of municipalities tend to get a bit excited about
> "discharging a firearm within city limits". The neighbors might also
> object to having birdshot raining out of the sky (what goes up...).
I just led a successful public battle to prevent our city council from imposing a
noise ordinance that would have banned all discharging of firearms outside of
police and hunting use (i.e. no target shooting or self defense) among other
things. It was regarded as the most stringent noise ordinance proposed in northern
new england.
After much debate, and attempts to defer the ordinance until a city council
meeting came up that I and/or a reporter did not attend, they have tabled the
ordinance for a year....
Birdshot on the terminal leg of its trajectory is not much worse than falling
rain, the only objection they could have is that I'd be polluting their property
with lead, and thats assuming that my property is not big enough that I retain all
shot on my own land.
> It would be more sneaky to just poke the snooper's eye out with a pulsed
> laser, or nondestructively track it with a 5-watt argon laser. The
> latter might suffice to discourage paparazzi in a helicopter at
> celebrity events (although a stinger missile mockup would be more fun).
>
> I get an image of Mike mistakenly laser-zapping an inquisitive raven-
> squawwwk!
crow is good eatin'. I imagine raven would be just as tasty...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:43 MST