Military equipment is notoriously cheap and can sometimes fall short of expectations when in the hands of the dirt-eating grunts who use them the most. But, every once in a while, a company comes by and makes something that not only lives up to its potential, but manages to make its way into the hearts of troops everywhere (things as wonderful as the M27 are few and far between). So, when DevTac developed the Ronin Kevlar Level IIIA Tactical Ballistic Helmet, we wondered how effective it really was.
Thankfully, Dr. Matt Carriker, a veterinarian and fellow gun enthusiast, put the helmet to the test on his YouTube channel, Demolition Ranch. We’ve covered a previous video of his where he tested Army helmets, seeing just how bulletproof they really are, but does this Boba-Fett-looking helmet stand up to the test?
Let’s find out!
This thing just looks awesome.
Before the test, Dr. Carriker goes over some of the basic features of the helmet to provide a baseline of what to expect. Some of those features include armor plating — some parts Level II, others Level IIIA. Allegedly, the helmet is able to withstand most bullets shot from a pistol.
You never know if you’ll catch a ricochet in the face while squirrel hunting.
Dr. Carriker starts off easy and light, hitting the helmet with a .22 LR fired from a suppressed pistol, then moving onto a .22 Hornet round fired from a Taurus Raging Hornet. The results for both are the same — some chipped paint but no penetration, which is what we hoped would happen given such a small bullet.
There are some scratches and holes, but nothing went all the way through.
Next, he hits it with a .410, shooting a Charles Daly Defense Honcho. The lenses are supposed to stop a shotgun blast, and they do, but they get shot out. Afterwards, like a true, red-blooded American, he double fists a pair of Maxim 9s to hit the helmet with 9mm rounds. Still no penetration.
We might have to get one for ourselves here… For professional reasons, of course.
After seeing that 9mm ain’t going to cut it, Dr. Carriker goes on to test a .357 magnum round shot from a Desert Eagle. After that, he picks up a .44 magnum and then, later, a .45-70 Government round shot from a revolver. The results for all three, despite doing significant damage to the helmet, were the same: no penetration.
The Game Awards 2019 has announced this years list of nominees, which includes 107 different games spread across more than 20 categories.
Established in 2014, The Game Awards is an annual ceremony featuring live performances, celebrity presenters, major industry announcements, and world premiere trailers. More than 26 million people streamed the awards last year.
This year’s nominees are led by games like “Death Stranding,” “Fortnite,” “Control,” “Apex Legends,” and “Super Smash Bros. Ultimate,” all of which received three or more nominations. The Game Awards also includes special categories for unique genres, independent releases, virtual reality, and esports.
Fans can help choose the winners in every category on the event’s website or by searching “TGA vote” on Google. You can vote for a winner in each category once per day through December 11 — your vote will be authenticated with an existing social media or Google account. (Chinese viewers can use Bilibili to vote.)
The Game Awards ceremony will be held on December 12 at the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles at 5:30 p.m. PT. The awards will be streamed live on more than 60 different international platforms — including YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, and Mixer — but tickets to attend the event in person are also on sale now.
Cinemark Theatres across the United States will host a special event in 53 of its theaters where it’ll pair a live simulcast of the awards with the world premiere screenings of “Jumanji: The Next Level.”
Here’s the full list of The Game Awards 2019 nominees:
In 1979, American Vela Hotel satellites detected a bright double flash near the Prince Edward Islands of Antarctica. A double-flash is a clear indication of a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere, as all 41 of the previous double flashes turned out to be. The only thing was this time, no one was claiming this unannounced nuclear test.
A Soviet spy later announced the flashes were caused by a joint Israeli-South African nuclear test.
The South Africans had been researching atomic energy since at least 1965, with the delivery of a U.S.-made nuclear research reactor and a supply of highly enriched uranium fuel. The country soon began to pour its resources into its own uranium enrichment programs and by 1969, was able to produce weapons-grade uranium on its own. By the 1970s, South Africa was developing nuclear explosions for use in mining, but that program quickly became a weapons development program. By the 1980s, South Africa was a nuclear weapons state.
In the 1980s, South Africa was also developing missiles that could be used with the six warheads they constructed, based on the Israeli designs for its Shavit rockets.
Israel’s Shavit rockets delivers satellites into space for the Jewish state.
It’s important to note that during this entire process, South Africa was fighting a prolonged border insurrection with its breakaway state of South West Africa and its allies in Angola and Cuba. Between 1966 and 1989, the Cold War raged hot in the southern tip of the continent as the South West African People’s Organisation wrested control of the region against the South African Defence Forces. At the same time, the South Africans were fighting Angolan and Cuban intervention, as well as insurgent groups from nearby Zambia, especially the People’s Liberation Army of Namibia.
The extended fighting at their borders gave South Africa a big incentive to develop nuclear weapons to bring leverage to their position at the negotiating table. When the Western powers and the Soviet Union got wind of potential South African nuclear tests in the late 80s, they were horrified and pressured the South Africans to abort the test. But South Africa never had any intention of putting warheads on the missiles; they didn’t fit anyway. South Africa wanted the world to think they did, however.
A South African armored column in Ohangwena, Ovamboland in the 1970s.
Instead, the South Africans did the opposite. They signed a peace accord with all the belligerents they had been fighting for more than 20 years, withdrew their troops from South West Africa, and allowed the region to declare its independence as the new country of Namibia. The very next year, South Africa ended its nuclear program. Since then, it helped establish the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone and became party to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, ending more than 40 years of nuclear weapons research.
First, the Marines make a request to blow up unwanted, unusable ammo. If the request is denied, the ammo is sent out for further testing and investigation. Otherwise, Marines relocate the munitions to the proper area with the help of Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians.
Once the EOD techs arrive at the detonation site, the munitions are carefully laid out in tight groupings to ensure that a single controlled explosion is all that is needed.
After the damaged goods are set in place, a well-calculated amount of plastic explosive is then embedded into the area and rigged with blasting caps and strung together with detonation cord.
After the layout is complete, the EOD crew creates plenty of space between them and the detonation site and, after a brief countdown, the ammo is completely destroyed.
The sole purpose of this act is to ensure that no amount of dangerous munitions ever fall into the hands of the enemy.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide legal advice. These drone laws & regulations are continually changing, and you should not rely solely on the lists herein. Please look up your state’s current laws and/or contact an attorney to determine what, if any, legal requirements or restrictions apply to the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in your area.
Recreational vs. Commercial Drone Regulations
One of the biggest hurdles to mass adoption of drones is the numerous regulations that restrict what drone owners and operators can do. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has several regulations that have hindered drone market growth.
The most prevalent of these restrictions is the one colloquially known as the “line of sight rule,” which mandates that drone operators keep the unmanned aircraft within eye shot at all times. This clearly removes any potential application for drones in the delivery space, as the need to keep a drone in line of sight at all times defeats the purpose of sending off a drone to drop off a product at a consumer’s home.
But there are different FAA drone rules for commercial use and for recreational use. Recreational drone laws are in some ways more lax than commercial ones, but the line of sight remains pivotal (more on these laws later).
Drone Pilot License and FAA Laws & Regulations
“Do I need a license to fly a drone?” “Do I need to register my drone?” These are two of the most common questions prospective drone owners ask.
As of a law passed on January 3, 2018, a recreational drone user must register their drone with the FAA, mark the outside of the drone with the registration number, and carry proof of registration when flying. Furthermore, the pilot must fly only for recreational purposes.
This next portion is crucial: The pilot must keep the drone below 400 feet in uncontrolled or “Class G” airspace. This simply refers to airspace where the FAA is not controlling manned air traffic, which means it is safe to fly your drone there. Fortunately, most drones and their accompanying mobile apps provide guidelines to help identify appropriate airspace and height.
The FAA has a full list of drone rules and guidelines here.
The FAA’s online registration system went into effect on Dec. 21, 2015. This required all UAS weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55 pounds to be registered.
Since then, the number of drones registered in the U.S. has been increasing. More than 900,000 owners had already registered by the end of 2018, and monthly owner registration averaged between 8,000-9,000 during the full year 2018, according to the FAA.
As of December 10, 2019, there were 1,509,617 drones registered with the FAA. This includes 1,085,392 recreational drones and 420,340 commercial drones, as well as 160,748 remote pilots certified.
State and Local Laws & Regulations
In addition the federal laws, several states have enacted drone regulations of their own. Here’s a breakdown of drone regulations by state:
Alaska state law HB 255 passed in 2014 places limits on how law enforcement can use drones in their operations, which includes but is not limited to how and whether they can save images and video captured by drone.
SB 1449 passed in 2016 is quite robust, and includes the following regulations:
Drones cannot interfere with police, firefighters, or manned aircraft.
Flying a drone in what is considered “dangerous proximity” to a person or property is deemed Disorderly Conduct.
Drones must stay a minimum of 500 feet horizontally or 250 feet vertically of any “critical facility.” These include but are not limited to courthouses, hospitals, military installations, water treatment and oil and gas facilities, and power plants.
Any city or town in Arizona with more than one park must permit the usage of drones in at least one of those parks.
Cities and towns in Arizona may not craft their own drone laws.
Arkansas has several state laws regarding drones. Act 293 forbids the use of drones to invade privacy and commit video voyeurism. Act 1019 forbids the use of drones for surveillance of “critical infrastructure.” And am Arkansas State Park Regulation passed in 2018 forbids the operation of drones in any Arkansas State Park without first acquiring a Special Use Permit from the Office of the Director.
The most populous state in the union has three laws regarding drones. Civil Code Section 1708.8 forbids the use of drones to record another person without their consent. SB 807 grants immunity for first responders who damage any unmanned vehicle that interferes with first responders during emergency services. Related, AB 1680 makes it a misdemeanor for drones to interfere with the activities of first responders during an emergency.
HB 1070 passed in 2017 requires the Center of Excellence within the Division of Fire Prevention and Control within the Department of Public Safety to conduct a study on the integration of drones within state and local government operations that relate to certain public safety functions. The law also created a pilot program to facilitate this goal.
Meanwhile, Colorado State Parks Regulation #100-c.24 in 2018 forbids the operation of drones in Colorado State Parks with the exception of designated areas.
SB 975 prohibits municipalities within the state from regulating drones with the exception of municipalities that are also water companies, which can regulate or forbid the use of drones over said municipality’s public water supply and land.
DEEP 23-4-1 prohibits the use of drones at Connecticut State Parks, State Forests or other lands under the control of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, with the exception of those specifically authorized by the Commissioner through a Special Use License.
HB 195 forbids flying a drone over any event with an attendance greater than 5,000 people (such as concerts, sporting events, auto races, and festivals), as well as any critical infrastructure (such as government buildings, power plants, water treatment facilities, military installations, oil and gas refineries). Lastly, the law forbids cities and towns in Delaware from crafting their own drone laws.
Criminal Code Section 934.50 forbids the use of drones for surveillance that violates another person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes law enforcement, however police can use drones with a valid search warrant, if there is a terrorist threat, or “swift action” is needed to prevent loss of life or to find a missing person, per SB 92. That same law also allows someone harmed by the inappropriate use of a drone to pursue civil action.
HB 1027 forbids local regulation of drones, but does allow for local legislatures to craft some drone laws related to “nuisances, voyeurism, harassment, reckless endangerment, property damage, or other illegal acts.” It also forbids also the use of drones over or near critical infrastructure in most situations, and bans the possession or use of a weaponized drone.
Finally, Florida Administrative Code 5l-4.003 forbids the usage of drones on managed lands (such as Florida state parks and forests) with the exception of runways or helispots and only with authorization from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
HB 481 preempts Georgia’s local governments from creating drone regulations after April 1, 2017. This law also permits state and local governments in Georgia to regulate the launch or landing of drones on public property.
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources also has rules and regulations that forbid the use of drones in Georgia’s State Parks and Historic Sites, with some exceptions for waivers for professional commercial projects that could help generate revenue or promote those sites. Prior authorization is required for such exceptions.
Act 208 created a drone test site advisory board, along with a chief operating officer to oversee the site.
Idaho Code 36-1101 forbids the use of drones to hunt, molest, or locate game animals, game birds, or fur-bearing animals. Idaho Code 21-213 mandates warrants for law enforcement to use drones, creates guidelines for drone use by private citizens, and outlines civil penalties for damage caused by improper use of drones.
Illinois has one of the more thorough sets of state drone laws in the nation.
20 ILCS 5065 created the Unmanned Aerial System Oversight Task Force Act charged with regulating commercial and private drones. These regulations include landowners’ rights, operational safety, and privacy rights.
HB 1652 prohibits the use of drones to interfere with the activities of hunters or fishermen.
SB 1587 permits the use of drones by law enforcement with a warrant for counterterrorism, to prevent harm, or to thwart the impending escape of a suspect. If used, law enforcement agencies must destroy all information gathered by the drone within 30 days, with exceptions made if the information contains reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
SB 2937 relaxes regulations on drone usage by law enforcement during a disaster or public health emergency, and creates rules for how law enforcement can acquire and use information gathered from a private party’s use of drones.
Finally, SB 3291 forbids cities, towns, and other municipalities from enacting regulations or restrictions on the drone use, with the exception of municipalities with more than one million residents.
Indiana has multiple state drone laws, starting with HB 1009, which created warrant guidelines for law enforcement use of drones and other real-time geolocation tracking devices. The law also created a Class A misdemeanor called “Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property,” in which a person intentionally conducts electronic surveillance of another’s private property without permission.
HB 1013 permits drone use to photograph or video a traffic crash site, while HB 1246 forbids drone use to locate game during hunting season.
SB 299 created two Class A misdemeanors tied to drone use. The first is “sex offender unmanned aerial vehicle offense,” in which a sex offender uses a drone to follow, contact, or surveil another person under conditions that prohibit said offender from doing so. The second is “public safety remote aerial interference offense,” in which a person uses a drone in a manner that obstructs or interferes with a public safety official performing his or her duties. Both offenses become level 6 felonies if the guilty party has a prior conviction under the same section.
Finally, IAC 312 8-2-8 (i) forbids drone use on Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) property, which includes state parks; however, the DNR can grant licenses to use drones at its discretion.
The Hawkeye State’s lone drone law, HB 2289, forbids any state agency from using drones to enforce traffic laws and insists upon a warrant or other lawful measure to use any information obtained by drones in any civil or criminal court proceedings.
SB 319 expands the definition of harassment in the state’s existing Protection from Stalking Act to include particular drone uses.
HB 540 permits commercial airports to design their own drone facility maps and forbids drone use in certain areas designated by said maps.
HB 1029 created the crime of unlawful drone use, defined as the intentional use of a drone to surveil a location without the owner’s prior written consent.
SB 183 regulates drone use for agricultural commercial operations, while SB 141 clarifies that some drone surveillance constitutes criminal trespass.
HB 635 added drones under the crimes of voyeurism and video voyeurism, and HB 335 authorized the establishment of registration and licensing fees for drones in Louisiana at a $100 limit.
HB 19 forbids drone use to surveil school rounds or correctional facilities, while SB 73 expands the definition of obstructing an officer to include intentionally crossing a police barrier with a drone. SB 73 also permits law enforcement and the fire department to disable drones if they endanger the safety of the public or an officer.
Lastly, SB 69 insists that only the state, not local governments, can regulate drone use.
Sec. 1. 25 MRSA Pt. 12 mandates that law enforcement agencies obtain approval before acquiring drones and lays out other rules for police use, such as warrant requirements.
Section 14-301 establishes the state’s power over local authorities to create laws that regulate drone operation.
Furthermore, SB 992 outlines several prohibitions for drones, all of which classify as misdemeanors. First, local governments cannot regulate drones except if the drone belongs to the locality. Second, the law allows commercial drone operation provided the FAA has authorized the user to do so commercially, and allows recreational use under federal law compliance.
Third, SB 992 forbids drone use that interferes with emergency personnel, to harass any individual, to violate restraining orders, or to capture photo or video that invades a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Finally, the law forbids sex offenders from using drones to photograph, follow, or make contact with an individual they are forbidden to contact.
Minnesota Statute 360.60 mandates that all recreational and commercial drone operators register their drone with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Commercial operators must have drone insurance per the requirements set forth under Minnesota Statute 360.59. Furthermore, all commercial operators must pay a licensing fee for a Commercial Operations License, according to the Department of Transportation’s Aeronautics Rules Chapter 8800.
In the Big Sky State, SB 196 outlines that information gained from drone use is only admissible in court when obtained with a search warrant or through some other exception recognized by the courts.
HB 644 forbids drone use that interferes with efforts to suppress wildfires.
Amendments 362, 640, and 746 officially define drones as aircraft, which regulates drone operations. This law also prohibits weapons on drones and forbids the use of drones within a certain distance of airports and other “critical” facilities. Finally, it places restrictions on drone use by law enforcement.
SB 3370 is a robust law that establishes several guidelines for drone use:
Permits drone use in accordance with federal law
Classifies drone use in a way that endangers the life or property of another as a disorderly person offense.
Establishes that is a fourth-degree crime if an individual “knowingly or intentionally creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or security of a correctional facility by operating an unmanned aircraft system on the premises of or in close proximity to that facility”
Outlines that using a drone to interfere with a first responder is a criminal offense
Allows drone owners of critical infrastructure to apply to the FAA to forbid or limit drone use near said infrastructure
Classifies operating a drone under the influence of drugs or with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater as a disorderly person offense
Forbids local governments from regulating drone use in any way that conflicts with this law
Appropriately, the state that was “First in Flight” was also one of the first to adopt a truly detailed set of drone laws, starting with SB 744 in 2014, which established requirements for recreational, commercial, and government drone use.
SB 446 gives North Carolina’s Chief Information Officer the power to approve drone use by state agencies, mandates tests for drone operations, and establishes a permit process for commercial drones.
HB 128 forbids drone use near a correctional facility, with the exception of certain official use or other prior authorization.
HB 337 permits drone use for emergency management activities. It also makes adjustments to align the state law with federal law, and exempts model aircraft from the state’s training and permitting requirements for drones.
Finally, NCAC 13B.1204 forbids drones to take off or ascend at any state park area without a special permit from the park.
North Dakota Code Sec. 29-29.4-01 restricts drone use to surveillance, crime investigation, and other law enforcement uses. It also mandates law enforcement have a warrant to do so.
HB 2559 forbids drone use within 400 feet of any critical infrastructure facility.
HB 2710 established quite a few drone regulations, including:
Creating new crimes and civil penalties for mounting weapons on drones, as well as interfering with or obtaining unauthorized access to public drones
Allowing a law enforcement agency to use a drone with a warrant and for exceptions such as training
Requiring any drone operated by a public body to be registered with the Oregon Department of Aviation (DOA)
Allowing a landowner under certain conditions to take action against an individual operating a drone lower than 400 feet over their property
SB 5702 set the fees for registering a public drone. HB 4066 clarified and modified some drone definitions and made it a class A misdemeanor to operate a weaponized drone. It also regulated public drone use and mandated policies and procedures for data retention.
HB 3047 adjusted the law forbidding weaponizing drones by making it a class C felony to fire a bullet or projectile from such a device. It also prohibits drone use over private property in any way that intentionally or recklessly harasses or agitates the property’s owner or occupant. Finally, it allows law enforcement to use drones to reconstruct accident scenes.
Lastly, The State Fish and Wildlife Commission forbids the use of drones to hunt, fish, or trap animals and prohibits using drones to interfere with hunters.
Title 18 Section 3505 forbids drone use to intentionally surveil other people in a private place, to use a drone in a way that puts another person in reasonable fear of injury, or to operate a drone to handle contraband.
Title 53 of Section 305 builds upon this law by having Title 18 Section 3505 preempt any laws or resolutions of other municipalities. Furthermore, municipalities cannot regulate ownership and operation of drones unless authorized by statute.
HB 7511 provides exclusive regulatory power over drone use to the state and the Rhode Island Airport Corporation, in accordance with federal law. It also prevents local governments from crafting their own drone laws.
Title 250 of Park and Management Area Rules and Regulations forbids drone use at any Rhode Island state park without a special use permit, typically issued for professional filming and media companies. Furthermore, the law also bans drone use to harass or disturb individuals, wildlife, or natural resources at a state park.
SB 80 mandates that drone operation complies with appropriate FAA requirements. It also classifies drone use over military and correctional facilities as a class 1 misdemeanor. Delivering contraband or drugs by drone to a correctional facility is a class 6 felony under this law. Finally, it amends the crime of unlawful surveillance to include intentional drone use to observe or record an individual in a way that violates their reasonable expectation of privacy, and forbids landing a drone on someone’s property without consent. Unlawful surveillance is a class 1 misdemeanor.
The much simpler SB 22 grants exemptions from aircraft registration requirements for drones that weigh less than 55 pounds.
The Volunteer State has six drone laws to consider. SB 796 permits law enforcement to use drones with a search warrant in cases of high-risk terrorist attacks or if quick action is necessary to prevent clear and present danger to life. Any evidence obtained in violation of this law cannot be admitted in state criminal prosecutions, and the law creates opportunities for those wronged by such evidence to take civil action.
SB 1892 classifies intentional drone surveillance of an individual or property, and possessing images from said surveillance, as Class C misdemeanors. Distribution or use of those images is a Class B misdemeanor.
On a similar note, SB 1777 makes it a Class C misdemeanor for any private entity to use a drone to conduct video surveillance of someone who is hunting or fishing without their consent.
HB 153 forbids drone use to capture footage above open-air events and fireworks displays. HB 2376 clarifies that individuals can use drones on behalf of both public and private institutions of higher education.
Finally, SB2106 makes it illegal to operate a drone within 250 feet of a critical infrastructure facility in order to surveil or gather information about said facility.
HB 912 detailed 19 lawful uses for drones and also created two new crimes: illegal use of drones to capture images, and the offense of possessing or distributing said images.
HB 1481 classifies drone use over a critical infrastructure facility if the drone is not more than 400 feet off the ground as a Class B misdemeanor. Meanwhile, HB 2167 allows individuals in certain professions to capture images for use in those professions via drone as long as no individual can be identified in the images.
HB 1643 forbids local governments from regulating drones with the exception of special events and when the drone is used by the locality. HB 1424 forbids drone use over correctional and detention facilities. It does the same for sports venues, with some exceptions.
SB 840 allows telecom companies to use drones to capture images. Furthermore, it clarifies that only law enforcement can use drones to capture images of property within 25 miles of the U.S. border for border security reasons. Lastly, it permits insurance companies to use drones to capture images for certain insurance purposes, according to FAA regulations.
Finally, the Texas Parks & Wildlife Policy bans drones in Texas State Parks without a permit, with the exception of Lake Whitney and San Angelo. Individuals can also request permits for drone use at state parks.
SB 196 mandates that law enforcement obtain a warrant before using drones in any location where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Related, SB 167 regulates drone use by the government and establishes that law enforcement must have a warrant to obtain, receive, or use any data from drone use.
HB 296 permits law enforcement to use drones to capture footage at testing sites, or to find a lost or missing person in an area in which a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
HB 217 forbids individuals from using drones to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly harm, actively disturb, or chase livestock.
Finally, SB 111 established several regulations for drones:
Creates cases for law enforcement to use drones for purposes not related to a criminal investigation
Mandates law enforcement create an official record of drone use to provide information on that use and any data acquired from it
Preempts local regulation of drones and exempts drones from aircraft registration in Utah
Classifies flying a drone with a weapon attached or carried on it as a class B misdemeanor
Modifies the offense of criminal trespass to include drones entering and remaining unlawfully over property with specified intent
States that a person is not guilty of what would otherwise be a privacy violation if the person is using a drone for some legitimate commercial or educational purpose under FAA law. It further amends the offense of voyeurism (a class B misdemeanor) to include the use of any technology, including drones, to secretly capture video of an individual under certain circumstances
SB 155 mandates that law enforcement report annually on drone use by the department, regulates said use, and forbids weaponizing drones.
In 2013, HB 2012 forbade drone use by any state agency “having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement or regulatory violations,” as well as units of local law enforcement, until July 1, 2015.
HB 2125 mandates that law enforcement agencies obtain a warrant before using a drone for any purpose, with a few exceptions. Meanwhile, HB 412 forbids local government regulation of drones.
SB 873 specifies that the fire chief or other ranking officer at a fire department has the authority to maintain order at an emergency site, which includes the immediate airspace where drones might fly.
Finally, HB 2350 classifies using a drone to trespass on another’s property to peep or spy on them as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The Washington State Legislature allows drone use in any state park area with written permission, wherein the director or designee can set restrictions. The operator must have said permission on them when using the drone.
HB 2515 forbids hunting, taking, or killing wild animals with drones. HB 4607 mandates that operators have permission from the State Park Superintendent to fly drones in any of West Virginia’s state parks.
SB 338 bans drone use to interfere with hunting, trapping, or fishing, while AB 670 forbids drone use over correctional facilities.
SF 170 requires the Wyoming Aeronautics Commission to craft rules and regulations for where drones can take off and land. The commission can also develop reasonable rules for drone use through coordination with the drone industry and local governments. Importantly, the law clarifies that the commission cannot regulate drone use in navigable airspace, and makes it illegal to land a drone on another’s property; however, operators can fly drones over their own property.
Easily one of the rarest medals a troop can earn is the Antarctica Service Medal. Spend a single day in Antarctica, south of 60 degrees latitude in the Southern hemisphere, and you’ve forever got bragging rights.
Do it in the wintertime and you’ve earned a distinctive “Wintered Over” clasp you can hold over everyone else. But being authorized to get down there is the hardest part.
Since its discovery in 1820, numerous nations who’ve landed in Antarctica have stuck their flags in the ground and claimed it as their own. Because the continent has essentially no readily available resources, is extremely remote, and was nearly impossible to settle on long-term, the flags (and their claims) were fairly weak.
But that didn’t stop many nations from trying to hold a claim. The United Kingdom (and, by extension, Australia and New Zealand), France, Norway, Argentina, Chile, and Nazi Germany all claimed portions of the continent. The United States and the USSR also held the right to make a claim but never did.
To ease tensions between all parties in 1959, the Antarctica Treaty was established which laid the ground rules for the continent. It was agreed that Antarctica is the “common heritage of mankind” and could not belong to an entity, territorial claim or not.
This was established to increase scientific understanding of the region and allow scientists the ability to freely communicate. Another article of the treaty bans military personnel and nuclear weapons testing from the continent.
The only exception to this policy is that troops are allowed entry into Antarctica as long as it’s done for scientific research and other peaceful purposes — this is the exact mission of every troop who travels south of the 60-degree line.
Airmen, sailors, and coast guardsmen will routinely travel to scientific research facilities to give aid, transportation, or supplies. However, finding the justification to send soldiers or Marines is more limited.
These troops can be found at McMurdo Station, one of the largest coastal facilities on the continent, and Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, which is a scientific research facility located at the geographic south pole.
Nothing beats the lazy Fridays of a four-day weekend – like today! Everyone probably did something patriotic for Independence Day. Whether it was seeing the fireworks with the family or getting roaring drunk in the barracks with the guys, we all did something extravagant yesterday.
And now today’s a day where nothing really happens after a big holiday. Now it’s time to just recoup and recover from the hangover by sitting on our collective asses with video games, movies, or whatever on a regular weekday… Only to do it all over again the moment your buddy calls you up or knocks on your barracks’ room door.
So here’s to sitting on our collective asses! Enjoy some memes. You earned it!
On Dec. 9, 2018, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand went to the floor of the Senate to ask her colleagues for unanimous consent to pass H.R. 299, known as the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act.
The act, which passed in the House of Representatives with a unanimous vote, would extend Veterans Affairs benefits to veterans who served in warships off the coast of Vietnam and were exposed to toxic Agent Orange.
If successful, Gillibrand’s request would have expedited the bill’s passage — but one senator, Republican Mike Enzi of Wyoming, objected, according to Stars Stripes.
“On this bill, many of us have been made aware of the potential cost growth and the budgetary and operational pressures that would happen at the VA,” he said. “They’re having a lot of problems, anyway.”
Leaking Agent Orange barrels circa 1973.
The VA has estimated that the bill would cost the bureau .5 million over the course of 10 years. But the Congressional Budget Office has previously estimated it would cost a fraction of that amount — id=”listicle-2623193782″.1 million. Regardless of cost, some senators, backed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, view the bill as an obligation.
“If we can afford to send veterans to war, it’s unacceptable that we can’t afford to take care of them when they return home wounded,” B.J. Lawrence, national commander of the VFW, said in a statement.
Sen. Jon Tester, the ranking Democrat on the Senate veterans affairs committee, agreed.
“It is our obligation to meet the needs of the folks who have sacrificed for our country,” he said on the Senate floor.
Sens. Gillibrand and Tester held a press conference on Dec. 11, 2018, calling for more support for the struggling bill.
“Shame on the VA for trying to muddy the waters and say ‘but we don’t have enough money for these veterans,'” Gillibrand said in the press conference. “Is their sacrifice no less?”
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
The U.S. Army on Monday unveiled its $178 billion spending request for fiscal 2021, a proposed budget that adds some 1,000 active-duty soldiers and sets aside money for new long-range missiles, high-tech soldier systems and a new family of rifles for infantry and other close-combat forces.
The $178 billion topline request is $4 billion less than last fiscal year’s $182 billion request, according to Army budget documents. The Army received $180 billion in the fiscal 2020 enacted budget.
The Army is requesting .5 billion for military personnel, including .1 billion for the active force, a .4 billion increase over the .7 billion it received last year, according to budget documents.
Despite the increase, the Army is projecting modest growth, adding 900 active-duty soldiers to its ranks and transferring another 100 new active-duty soldiers for the new United States Space Force.
By the end of fiscal 2021, the Army plans to reach an end strength of 485,000, according to the documents.
The Army met its fiscal recruiting goals in fiscal 2019 after struggling to recover from a troubling 6,500-person recruiting shortfall the year.
The National Guard is slated to receive .8 billion for 336,500 soldiers, an increase of 500 from last year, according to budget documents. The Army Reserves is set to receive .1 billion for 189,800 soldiers, an increase of 300 soldiers from last year under the request.
The Army is also requesting funding for significant investments in soldier lethality, another modernization priority.
The Next Generation Squad Weapon — a new 6.8mm system slated to replace the M4A1 carbine and M249 squad automatic weapon in infantry squads — is slated to receive 1.2 million — that’s .4 million for RDTE and .8 million to start buying the first rifle and automatic rifle variants, according to Pentagon budget documents. Fielding is scheduled to begin in fiscal 2023.
The Army also plans on spending 6 million for 40,219 sets of Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) — a Microsoft-based system that features sophisticated goggles that allow soldiers to see their weapon sight reticle in their field of view along with other key tactical information. Fielding is set to begin in fiscal 2021.
The Army continues to place a high priority on its modernization effort, a plan to replace most of its major weapons platforms over the next decade.
The budget request realigns billion in the fiscal 2021-2025 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) to fund its cross-functional team development efforts.
Army leaders “eliminated 41 programs and reduced/delayed 39 programs across the [Future Years Defense Program] not tied to the [National Defense Strategy] or modernization priorities,” according to budget documents.
The Army began ruthlessly cutting non-modernization programs in the last budget cycle to free up more than billion in a tedious process known as “Night Court.”
“We must transform all linear industrial age processes to be more effective, protect our resources and make better decisions,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville, said in the documents. “We must be the Army of tomorrow, today.”
The Army is making cuts to procurement of weapons and tracked vehicles, requesting .7 billion compared to the .7 billion it received last year, according to budget documents.
The Army cut buys of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, purchasing 32 vehicles for 3 million. Last Year, the Army bought 21 for 5 million, according to Pentagon budget documents.
The Army also cut military construction, requesting id=”listicle-2645128013″.1 billion, down from the id=”listicle-2645128013″.8 billion it received last year. The request includes 0 million for nine projects in the active-duty force. That’s a decrease from the id=”listicle-2645128013″.4 billion the service requested for 21 active Army projects in fiscal 2020, according to budget documents.
The National Guard is slated to receive 1 million for 18 projects, according to budget documents. The Reserve would get million for four projects.
The Army increased its missile budget to .5 billion, up from the billion it received from last year, according to budget documents.
For long-range precision fires, the Army’s top modernization priority, the service is requesting 0 million in research, development, testing and evaluation (RDTE) for the Long-Range Hypersonic Missile effort, according to budget documents.
The Army is requesting a total of 2.6 million for its new, long-range Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). Some 2.7 million of that is for research, development and testing and .9 million would purchase 30 of the new missiles, according to Pentagon budget documents. The PrSM is intended to engage targets beyond 500 kilometers, replacing the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) which has a range of about 300 kilometers.
The Army is spending 7 million for the Mobile Short-Range Air Defense System, or M-SHORAD, compared to last year’s 3 million, according to budget documents.
Soldiers and commanders are usually stuck with whatever equipment the procurement officers and civilian leaders are willing to buy for them, sometimes forcing troops to go into combat with outdated and inferior equipment.
But sometimes, those “outdated” weapons are actually just perfect for the fight. Here are five times that a supposedly obsolete weapon system saved the lives of its users:
1. Bayonets in Afghanistan and Iraq
Bayonets, most often associated with fighting in the Civil and Revolutionary Wars, actually played a key role in battles during the modern Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
But the A-10, a low and slow platform, made its operational debut in 1976, three years after the Yom Kippur War supposedly closed the books on them. Despite that, the A-10 has fought and survived in a number of contested environments, most notably Iraq where it has twice been a key part of American forces breaking the back of armored and anti-aircraft ground forces.
The women of Soviet Russia’s 588th Night Bomber Regiment, the Night Witches, flew in plywood and canvas biplanes through the best defenses that Nazi Germany had to offer, conducting multiple bombing missions per night to break up attacks against Soviet ground forces.
Their planes, the Polikarpov U-2 biplane, were underpowered and outgunned compared to the Luftwaffe’s modern air force. But the Night Witches used the biplanes to fly over German defenses nearly silently and drop bombs — they could only carry two at a time per plane — on Nazi positions.
In October 2018, the Navy Trademark Licensing Office, headquartered at the Office of Naval Research (ONR), transferred more than $1 million — for the first time — to the Navy’s Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) program, a quality-of-life program for sailors and their families.
This money, which totaled more than $1.3 million, comes from royalties collected from the sale of licensed products using Navy trademarked logos, and goes toward community recreational programs supported by MWR.
“The trademark royalty funds have helped Navy Morale, Welfare and Recreation program staff members offer many fun and engaging activities, along with recreational leisure skills programs for Sailors and their families at installations worldwide,” said Jeffrey Potter, head of financial analysis at Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) in Millington, Tennessee. “This initiative has been extremely important to CNIC fleet readiness, and we truly appreciate how this relationship has benefited quality of life programs at installations across the Navy.”
Determining what types of items can carry the Navy’s trademark is the job of Nadine Villanueva Santiago, manager of the Navy’s Trademark Licensing Office (NTLO).
“Our job is to ensure that Navy-branded consumer goods available in the marketplace are ones that instill pride in the service and admiration for the men and women who serve,” said Santiago.
Currently, the Navy trademark appears on thousands of officially licensed products — including clothing, household goods, ornaments, watches, and handmade goods. However, not every product Santiago receives makes the grade. Navy trademarks won’t be approved for alcohol, tobacco- or smoking-related items, drug paraphernalia, gambling- or lottery-related products, firearms, undergarments or products containing profanity or hateful language.
Nadine Villanueva Santiago, manager of the Navy’s Trademark Licensing Office (NTLO), headquartered at the Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Va., talks about recently received items with her team, from left, Michael Badagliacca, Stacey Marks and Hassan Sudler.
(U.S. Navy photo by John F. Williams)
Since 2013, the NTLO has reviewed and tested the products that come through their office — from validating the appropriateness of an item, to reviewing factory audits for safe working conditions, to ensuring the quality of an item meets or exceeds expectations.
“If you buy an officially licensed product, you can guarantee that it’s been vetted and gone through the appropriate channels to ensure the item is of good quality and is not made in a sweatshop or factory with safety violations,” said Santiago. “Plus, you can feel good that a portion of the proceeds go back to the Navy through the MWR program.”
MWR is not the only Navy program to profit from the trademark office. The Navy Wounded Warrior-Safe Harbor program also benefits in another form. According to Santiago, product samples that are not requested to be sent back to the licensees are inventoried and transferred to the Wounded Warrior-Safe Harbor program. That program then distributes the items to warfighters enrolled in the program at Warrior Games or at medical treatment facilities.
“When we let licensees know what will be done with their samples, they typically don’t request the items back,” said Santiago.
The NTLO has more than 250 licensees. Navy licensed products are available globally including in major retailers and a variety of e-commerce websites. All officially licensed products will have a hologram or hangtag that identifies the authenticity as officially licensed merchandise.
And for Santiago, it’s these licensees — the ones that go through the proper channels — that help her office succeed in protecting the rich history and heritage of the Navy.
While the Navy has transferred more than .2 million to the MWR over the years, it should also be noted that each military service has a trademark licensing program office that manages its trademarks. As a whole, the Department of Defense trademark program offices have transferred more than million to MWR programs for support of our nation’s warfighters and families.