New Signs at the front gate.

Has anyone posted this yet? If so let me know, and I'll request this to be taken down.
I didnt get to the back gate, but it looks like we got new signs at the front gate. Sorry droners. files.abovetopsecret.com...

Maximum punishment for trespassing there $1000/6months jail? Why would anyone be afraid of that lol.

And it's only a matter of time before drones are banned everywhere in the US so I see no reason to even buy one of those things.

I give it 5 years

a reply to: HomeyKXTA

It would be worth buying a $500 drone with camera and use it as a disposable streaming device for a one-off look. Would be interesting to see what happens to it in the air.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: HomeyKXTA

It would be worth buying a $500 drone with camera and use it as a disposable streaming device for a one-off look. Would be interesting to see what happens to it in the air.

Exactly, let them blow it to shiite, and you have the pictures in the/any, computer's tum tum.

a reply to: and14263

I`m sure they would know exactly who was in command of the drone before it got close enough to see anything. Even if you did get any sort of picture you`d have your door kicked in not long afterwards.

That looks like the standard AF warning signs you see at all bases . What happened to all the strict language ? Have a change of heart ?

a reply to: StratosFear

A man jumped the fence of the most protected house in this country and made his way through the front door and into the White House.

Although he was eventually stopped, he had gotten quite far.

It would be interesting to see what could come from such an attempt. All I ask is the video makes it here onto ATS!

a reply to: HomeyKXTA

So they can no longer kill you if you step over their "line" ?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: HomeyKXTA

It would be worth buying a $500 drone with camera and use it as a disposable streaming device for a one-off look. Would be interesting to see what happens to it in the air.

Exactly, let them blow it to shiite, and you have the pictures in the/any, computer's tum tum.

So, you want to think that would be the end of the deal for the drone owner and ANYONE having telling images on their computer taken by the illegal drone?

What world are you from?

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: HomeyKXTA

It would be worth buying a $500 drone with camera and use it as a disposable streaming device for a one-off look. Would be interesting to see what happens to it in the air.

You gonna stump up and make it happen ...

We are a very keen audience ...

Keep us posted !!

HAHA awesome!

I just purchased 4, $1200 drones to use with surveying and underground mining.
To bad im in Canada and not close to Area 51.
I would send one of ours up 200 meters and take as many pictures as i could. With all the info streaming to my ipad and saving each pic, they could shoot the drone down for all i care.
Then i would upload those pics into the software i run - Pix4d and make a 3d model of the entire site to upload to the net.

a reply to: Macenroe82

Road trip.

a reply to: Timely

I'd spring for gas.

originally posted by: HomeyKXTA
Has anyone posted this yet? If so let me know, and I'll request this to be taken down.
I didnt get to the back gate, but it looks like we got new signs at the front gate. Sorry droners. files.abovetopsecret.com...

First time I ever saw that "no drone" sign. Nice work.

Do you have a close up of just the text? Specifically the drone verbiage.

Note the signs technically refer to what happens BEYOND them. That is why nothing happens to people who take photos of the "No Photography" signs. Taking a photo on base is another story. (Of course, the airman who camera-phoned the F117s in the barn isn't sitting in Leavenworth.) What happens in free territory will be subject current US and Nevada law. Don't forget the camo dudes are Lincoln County deputies, so they have authority in free territory.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions, yada yada yada.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: HomeyKXTA

It would be worth buying a $500 drone with camera and use it as a disposable streaming device for a one-off look. Would be interesting to see what happens to it in the air.

or a small swarm of 'em

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: HomeyKXTA

It would be worth buying a $500 drone with camera and use it as a disposable streaming device for a one-off look. Would be interesting to see what happens to it in the air.

or a small swarm of 'em

a reply to: NewzNose

Yeah but that just the White House, nothing important in there.

The Camo Dudes would be on you way before you got close enough to see anything. You`d probably get a close up view of the desert when they tackled you to the ground. Or they would probably just shoot you, the deadly force being authorized and all.

NVM

Nice of Lincoln County not to provide a copy of their ordinances online. OK, technically they do have such as website, but have not updated it since 2011.

www.lincolncountynv.org...

#11-ORDINANCE #2015-02 This was the time and place set for public hearing on an ordinance restricting the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft and providing a penalty. Paul D. read the ordinance into the record. Kevin called for public comment. Russell Tracy addressed the Board and stated there are already enough federal regulations and penalties concerning drones. Russell read several of the regulations. Russell asked that the Board not infringe on his civil rights. Russell is against the ordinance. He wants to keep our airways free and under the guidance of the FAA. Russell presented a map of Groom Lake; he finds it hard to believe you can get a drone close enough to get the same level of detail. Russell referred to guidelines from the FAA for how the local law enforcement is to handle drones. Russell asked what will happen to those who have legitimate uses for drones. Russell will apply for Section 333 exemption and be able to fly drones here anyway. Russell is working towards a use for drones. Connie Simkins agrees with several of Russell’s points. Connie advised that the drones are very dangerous around airports because people don’t pay attention to the rules that are already in place. The core problem is rural areas and enforcement. More federal regulations aren’t needed and the Board shouldn’t do something simply because the Air Force asks it. Something is definitely needed in order to give our local law enforcement something to rely on. The ordinance doesn’t ban the use of drones, it simply bans them from restricted areas and from using them on others. Daniel stated there are four prohibitions: 1) no photographs of anyone’s privacy can be taken, 2) no photographs of NV’s Test and Training Range are allowed, 3) anything that would cause someone injury, damage, hurt, inconvenience, or discomfort is disallowed, and 4) no drones can operate within any restricted air space, which includes the airports in LC as well as the Test Range. Connie said we need to be concerned about the affect a drone with/without a camera will have on employees fighting fires. Russell stated the Forest Service is using drones themselves as it gives a better view than anything else available. Russell questioned how this ordinance will affect FS. Russell stated that privacy issues and annoyance need to be clearly defined. Russell doesn’t want the DA to have the ability to prosecute anyone for “annoyance” when it isn’t clearly defined. There is nothing restricting anyone from shooting one down if it’s flying over their property. Paul D. commented that it would be better if the ordinance was restricted to certain areas. A prohibition like this is based upon complaints. As of now, the County has no real authority to take action in these situations. It is difficult to prosecute. Maggie Marston, BLM, advised that the drones are causing issues with wildfire protection. As a consideration, wildfire includes state, private, and county lands. BLM has published pleas in the newspaper asking folks to cease and desist during these types of situations. Kevin called for more public comment. Adam made a motion to approve the ordinance; seconded by Paul M. Varlin stated that the language needs to be more defined and specific. The wording in the ordinance leaves a great deal of room for interpretation. Paul M. stated that the ordinance must be written in such a way that law enforcement has the ability to go forward when someone is creating an annoyance. Varlin was opposed. Motion carried 4-1.

Trust me. I have the fecal matter disturber going.

originally posted by: gariac
Nice of Lincoln County not to provide a copy of their ordinances online. OK, technically they do have such as website, but have not updated it since 2011.

www.lincolncountynv.org...

Trust me. I have the fecal matter disturber going.

County mulling requested drone restrictions
"Hooge said the Air Force has expressed concern, “that people, instead of trespassing, will drive up to the boundaries of restricted area and fly drones over their property and take pictures that way.” He added the Air Force is asking the county to pass an ordinance, and then if a person is using a drone, have them cited by the sheriff, “like we do with regular trespassers on private property or Air Force property.”"

Drone ordinance receives approval
The ordinance states: “Whereas the rapid implementation of unmanned aircraft technology throughout the United States poses a serious threat to privacy of the residents and citizens of Lincoln County, as well as to entities and government agencies operating in Lincoln County; and able to gain unprecedented access to private and government property, the ability to unreasonably interfere with and prevent real property owners and users from the legitimate use and enjoyment of their real property; photograph and record, and otherwise capture images and sounds of property, activities, and persons without consent; and signs along the perimeter of the Nevada Test and Training Range already warn that photography of the test site and training range is prohibited pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 795.”

As I argued with someone on Youtube ad nauseum, I can fly a drone outside the border, up to an altitude of 400 ft., without breaking any law. If I am wrong, then someone tell me the perimeter i.e. distance from the border, where I AM allowed to fly a drone.