Hello everyone! Welcome back to my civic post that is all about rules and regulations! I typically try to write my blog posts around things that are current in the world, and for this week, I was having a tough time finding things to talk about. Yes, I could probably go into the government shut down, or maybe I could just talk about something that isn’t really current but rather just try to see what y’all’s opinions are on things.

However, as a sports fan, I also want to write about something that I actually would enjoy writing about; you know, so I can get to the 850 word minimum without pulling any teeth 🙂

SO for this week, I am going back in to the Wide World of Sports, and this time, focusing on a brand spankin’ new league. So buckle up, here it is time for another post!

Clay Matthews arguing a call with a referee, via Google Images

Over the past few years, fans and players alike have been complaining about the NFL. If you remember from one of my previous posts (“The No Call Heard ‘Round the World”), one of things I talked about is that the NFL rules have many “loop-holes.” This is partially because the rules themselves have lots of room for interpretation, and then with that, the rules are thus interpreted differently, resulting in inconsistency and frustration. That isn’t the only thing people have been complaining about, however. The NFL has found themselves to be in a bit of a pickle – the fans love the hard hitting entertainment aspect of the game and think that football in the NFL has gotten “softer” over the last ten-ish years. But on the flip side, it seems as though more and more former and current NFL players are coming out with proof that they suffered brain damage due to playing the game. So the NFL doesn’t really know how to maneuver around these rocky waters.

AAF Teams, via Google Images

Insert the Alliance of American Football, known as the AAF. The Alliance of American Football is a brand new football league in America which premiered last weekend. The AAF has eight teams: the Arizona Hotshots, the Atlanta Legends, the Birmingham Iron, the Memphis Express, the Orlando Apollos, the Salt Lake Stallions, the San Antonio Commanders, and the San Diego Fleet. The AAF’s main goal is to simply entertain fans and remind them why they love football so much. They decided to do this through their rules. There are some major differences between the AAF and the NFL, which we will be discussing in this post.

First, which isn’t really stated explicitly, the AAF will be much more lenient on hits, especially to quarterbacks. The thought process here is that fans love hits, so why not give them hit? Yes, player safety is obviously a concern, but at the same time, fans and players are often frustrated when the defense gets a defensive penalty for hitting the quarterback too hard when in actuality, they barely made contact. Here are two examples showing this difference between the AAF and the NFL.

Secondly, the AAF has implemented many rules that are different from the NFL in hopes of making the games quicker and more enjoyable for fans to watch, both at the games and on their couch. To make it easier, here they are right from the AAF’s officials website:

AAF Game, via Google Images

“Games will start without kickoffs as a nod to player safety. There will be a coin toss, with the winner deciding whether to receive or defer. The team that gets the ball will send out its offense to start from its 25. The AAF’s play clock will be 35 seconds, which is five seconds shorter than the NFL’s. There are no television timeouts during games and fewer commercials to reduce overall game time to roughly 150 minutes instead of 180 minutes in the NFL. Overtime will allow both teams to have the ball once, first-and-goal from the 10. Teams have to score a touchdown and go for two points while field goals are not allowed. Games can end in a tie after the overtime period. Onside kicks are not a part of The Alliance and instead ‘onside conversions’ will be a new addition. If a team is trailing by 17 points or more inside of five minutes remaining in a game, they must convert a fourth-and-12 from their 28 in order to keep the ball. On defense, no more than five players may rush on passing plays. No defensive player may rush from a position of more than two yards outside the widest offensive lineman and more than five yards from the line of scrimmage. The exceptions would be play-action or run-pass option plays and if the ball leaves the tackle box.”

Fans watching the game are now able to listen to what the referees are discussing during an official review; via Google Images

In addition, the AAF will have a “sky-cam” type referee to help officials make the correct call. Also, when a call is being challenged and reviewed, fans at the game and at home will be able to hear what the referees are discussing. Pretty interesting right?

There are some things I want to offer my opinion on: I love the idea of another football league. I think the AAF gives players who want another chance in the drastically-more-popular NFL the perfect opportunity to showcase their talents against other professional players. Secondly, I think eliminating kickoffs is smart overall for player safety. I also love the two-point conversion rules, because I think that adds an extra level of excitement (plus, who likes odd numbers, anyway?). Finally, I think that the “onside conversion” idea is really creative and a good change because completing a successful onside kick in the NFL is pretty rare.

(For what it’s worth, I hate that all the logos look like photoshop, but I guess that isn’t really a huge deal…)

So let me know what you think! Do you like the new rule changes? Will the AAF gain and retain popularity, or will is die like the XFL (which, for those who care, is also making a comeback and will be back in action in 2020)? Comment below!

Hey everyone. Welcome back to another week of blog posts! This week, we are steering away from sports – which I bet you are all happy about – and going back into the political world.

“The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have voted overwhelmingly to pass the FIRST STEP Act — which the New York Times says will deliver “the most significant changes to the criminal justice system in a generation.”

Donald Trump during his State of the Union address, via Google Images

This is the quote in the bold, large, italicized letters at the heading of firststepact.org, a website founded by “a coalition of groups supporting the First Step Act.” It was one of the major headlines of Donald Trump’s most recent State of the Union address given this past Tuesday. But what exactly is it? I hadn’t known really anything about it myself until after the State of the Union address, but I think it is important for people to hear about changes in the government, especially of this caliber.

So what is it? Also known as the Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act, the First Step Act is a piece of legislation that is designed to begin the reform of the criminal justice system. It targets a lot of different areas of the system. Drug offenders with “three strikes” (three convictions) who used to face life in prison now will only only face a maximum of 25 years. Federal judges now have more “wiggle room” and leeway for their own discretion and opinion when sentencing some drug offenders. The First Step Act gives incentives to prisoners by allowing them to participate in programs that are “designed to reduce the risk of recidivism, with the reward being an earlier release to either home confinement or a halfway house to complete the sentence” (Fox News). Also, 2,600 people serving crack cocaine offenses who were charged before August of 2010 the opportunity to meet with judges and potentially receive a penalty reduction. The First Step Act also rewards “good behavior” by

Jail cell, via Google Images

allowing the prisoners to “earn” credits, which they can then turn into days reduced from their sentences. For News gives this example to explain: an inmate serving a 10-year sentence who earns the maximum credits each year could be released 70 days early. Fox News also says that according to the Congressional Budget Office, this piece of the legislation could save $414 million over the next 10 years. Finally the First Step Act reaffirms laws already in place. I am a little confused by this piece of the puzzle, so I’ll cite the Fox News article that I have been quoting so far to help explain this too:

“The law also addresses existing laws and regulations, seeking to reaffirm enforcement of those, according to The Marshall Project. For example, it expressly prohibits the use of restraints on women who are pregnant, in labor or in postpartum recovery. This has been prohibited since 2008. Additionally, it would require officials to place imprison offenders no more than 500 driving miles away from their home or family, according to The Marshall Project.”

The Fox News article can be found above and right here.

So what are politicians saying about the First Step Act? To start, Donald Trump said this about the act in his State of the Union Address:

A tweet from Cory Booker; screenshot via Fox News

“[…] my Administration worked closely with members of both parties to sign the First Step Act into law. This legislation reformed sentencing laws that have wrongly and disproportionately harmed tSHhe African-American community. The First Step Act gives non-violent offenders the chance to re-enter society as productive, law-abiding citizens. Now, States across the country are following our lead. America is a Nation that believes in redemption.”

Jessica Jackson, one of the biggest advocates for the act and National Director and Co-founder of #cut50 said this: “This victory truly belongs to the thousands of people who, like me, have been personally impacted by incarceration and have dedicated their lives to improving the system. This bill was informed by their experiences. Their stories helped win over the President’s support. Tomorrow, they will help ensure we implement this bill quickly and effectively.”

Finally, Jesselyn McCurdy, deputy director of the Washington legislative office at the ACLU, has this to say: “The First Step Act is by no means perfect, but we are in the midst of a mass incarceration crisis, and the time to act is now.”

Personally, I am happy that people and politicians are working together to try to fix/reform the criminal justice system. From what I have read, both parties are actually sharing opinions and ideas when discussing the First Step Act, I think that it is refreshing and a good thing for the country to have both sides working together on this.

But what do you think? Comment below!

For more detailed information about the First Step Act, visit this site. For examples of those who have benefited so far, visit firststepact.org

What’s up guys, I am back with another civic issues post. I know my page is supposed to be around criminal justice and laws, but there is a current issue in the sports world that I feel I could not ignore – and it involves the current laws in play of the National Football League, otherwise known as the NFL. I am sorry to the non-sports fans who will read this week; hopefully this will help teach you about football, just like last week’s taught you all a little bit about baseball and the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Robey-Coleman hits Lewis, via Google Images

There was a play in the Saints vs. Rams playoff game almost two weeks ago that shook the entire football world and called for accountability from the NFL’s League Office and specifically, Commissioner Roger Goodell. I am going to assume that none of my readers have see the play, so let me set the stage for you all: the New Orleans Saints are playing the Los Angeles Rams in the NFC Championship Game. The winner will play the winner of the AFC Championship Game (either the New England Patriots or the Kansas City Chiefs) in the Super Bowl, which is actually this upcoming Sunday (February 3). Anyway, the Saints and Rams are tied at 20 with a little under two minutes left to play in the game. If they score a touchdown on this drive, it would practically win them the game, as the Rams would likely not have enough time to score a touchdown of their own. However, if the Saints only score a field goal, the Rams could potentially drive down the field and kick a game-tying field goal of their own.

Greg Zuerlein kicks the game-winning field goal, via Google Images

It is third down. Saints’ quarterback Drew Brees throws a pass down the sideline to wide receiver Tommylee Lewis. It looks like he is about to catch the ball, when suddenly Rams’ defender Nickell Robey-Coleman comes flying across the field and completely decks Lewis, making him unable to catch the pass. Instead of getting a first down, the Saints  are forced to kick a field goal. The Rams, then, kick their own field goal as time expires, force the game into Overtime, and win the game with another field goal on their next drive. The Saints went from almost moving on to the Super Bowl to going home empty handed in a matter of minutes.

Dez Bryant reaches for the End Zone, via Google Images

Now, many people point to that specific play as the reason the Saints lost. Saints fans even are calling for a do-over. Although I disagree with that claim wholeheartedly, the point of this post is to point to the National Football League’s inconsistency with their current rules. Time and time again, there has been confusion over how the referees call a professional football game. A few years ago, Dez Bryant appeared to catch a potential touchdown, only to be called short, then to not even have caught the ball in the first place. The NFL has added new rules to protect players’ heads. However, referees do not call hits to the head consistently. A running back may use their head to break a tackle against a defender – no call. Then, a defensive end could hit his hand on the quarterback’s helmet – penalty called. Now, this call…or, no call for that matter.

According to the NFL, it is a 15 yard penalty if the player is caught:

1. forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him.
2. lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

Now watch the video. In your opinion, is this rule violated? In my opinion, it seems like the referees made a bad call – if that is not an illegal and violent hit to the head, what is?

That is only one area of the NFL Rulebook under scrutiny. Another rule in place is called “Pass Interference.” Here is how the rule is defined in the NFL Rulebook:

“It is pass interference by either team when any act by a player more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders an eligible player’s opportunity to catch the ball. Pass interference can only occur when a forward pass is thrown from behind the line of scrimmage, regardless of whether the pass is legal or illegal, or whether it crosses the line.”

Roger Goodell speaks with the media before the Super Bowl, via Google Images

Now, again, watch the video. Is this rule violated? I believe it is. So why are these penalty constantly being inconsistently called/not called? It’s a great question, and many are asking the same questions. People have been calling for Commissioner Roger Goodell to comment, and recently he did admit that “[the play] is what [the NFL] wants to have [a penalty] called.” However, he also commented that referees are humans and they make mistakes. I agree – yes, people make mistakes. But I also think that clear penalties like the one seen in the Saints-Rams game need to be called. It is unacceptable if it isn’t.

NFL Referees, via Google Images

There are two very popular ways to fix the issue. 1, referees could use instant replay to catch missed penalties. There are rumors that the NFL is looking into this option, but Goodell has expressed concern about having people in a league office fixing calls missed at the stadium. 2, which is picking up more steam, there should be no more “all-star” referee teams for playoff games. For regular season games, referees will be on the same “team,” calling the game with the same referees. For playoff games (and big regular season games as well), the league assigns their best referees for the games instead of sticking with the regular season teams. Many people say that referees are not as comfortable calling playoff games because they do not have the same trust with those referees as they do with their teams. I don’t think that instant replay will be used to call penalties yet this season, but I do think that the NFL will go away with the “all star” referee playoff teams.

Let me know what you think about the controversy. Comment below!

From left to right, top to bottom: Rivera, Martinez, Mussina, Halladay; via Google Images

This past Tuesday, the 22nd of January, the Baseball Hall of Fame announced the annual results of the Hall of Fame voting. The voting is done by an extensive list of baseball writers and submitted to the Hall. Four former players were elected into the Hall this year: Mariano Rivera, Roy Halladay, Edgar Martinez, and Mike Mussina. All four players are definitely worthy of election; the baseball did a good job of getting them in. However, many argue that yet again, there are players on the ballot who did not get what they deserve – an election of their own. Now, I know many of my readers know little to nothing about the Baseball Hall of Fame or the controversies surrounding it, so let me try to help with that before I dive any further into this.

According the Baseball Reference, a player is eligible for election into the Hall of Fame if they meet these conditions:

1. “The player must have competed in ten seasons. A single game counts as a “season” in the eyes of the Hall.
2. The player has been retired for at least five seasons. If a player comes back and plays in the major leagues, the clock restarts. The easiest way to figure out the rule is to add six to the last season the player was active. Therefore, players eligible in 2007 played their last game in 2001.
3. A screening committee must approve the player’s worthiness. Most players are given a token appearance on the ballot if they meet the ten year rule and they were a regular player for most of that time.
4. The player may not be on the ineligible list (banned from baseball).
5. If a player dies within the five year span, he is eligible six months after his death provided he meets the above criteria. If an active player dies, he is eligible six months after his death.
6. To remain on the ballot, the player must receive at least five percent of the votes for any given year. If a player fails to receive 5%, he falls off the ballot until 16 years after his retirement.
7. A player is considered elected if he receives at least 75% of all ballots cast in an election.”

Top 10 vote receivers in 2019, via MLB Network

I mentioned who votes before, and this confused me for awhile; Baseball Reference explains it as such: “Any member of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) who has been an active member for ten years is eligible to vote. The BBWAA is limited to writers for newspapers. Internet journalists, scholars, and television and radio personalities are not eligible to become BBWAA members and are ineligible to vote. Rules were loosened in the 2000s, allowing prominent internet-based journalists to become members of the BBWAA, in recognition of the fact that the number of newspapers in the United States was diminishing rapidly and that baseball coverage was taking on new forms.”

So what is the controversy, you may ask? Well, from – this is a rough time period – the 1980’s to mid 2000’s, baseball did not have super extraneous rules against using Performance Enhancing Drugs, otherwise known as PED’s. Yes, ok, they were prohibited in 1993. However, they did not test league-wide, making it pretty easy for players to use. And there is a pretty strong assumption that a lot of players used PEDs when they played in that time period – and why wouldn’t you? No one was stopping you; it was a leg-up on the competition, others were using them, so why should they have an advantage?

L-R: McGuire, Sosa, Clemens, Palmeiro, Bonds; via Google Images

This has created a dilemma for voters in today’s game. During what is known in the Baseball World as the “steroid era,” many game-changing players had record breaking careers. Players like Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire, Gary Sheffield, Curt Shilling, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds were all accused of cheating via PEDs in some capacity. All of them, who were exceptional baseball players, have not been elected into the Hall of Fame. Many point to the fact that they were suspected of using PEDs as the reason they haven’t gotten in.

There are two sides to the argument here, and both are very passionate. One side says that the “Call to the Hall” should be a sacred honor, and therefore no players who were proven users should be in. They carry this criteria over to those suspected as well. The other says that since so many players used, it would be unfair to punish the ones who were the best, especially if they were good before and after they were suspected/convicted.

L-R: Bagwell, Raines, Rodriguez; via USA Today

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this recently, and I used to be on the no PED side. However, after doing research of my own, I think those who were suspected and not convicted should be elected. Here is why: players like Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, and Roger Clemens are some of the best players of all time. Period. Without them, the game of baseball would have its history books totally rewritten. Before his PED scandal in 2003, Barry Bonds had the most Wins Above Replace in history of the game. After 2003, he is still top five. In history. Bonds and Clemens have never been found guilty of using PEDs; they’ve been investigated heavily, but there has been no clear-cut evidence. Also, other players from that era have been elected. Players like Ivan Rodriguez, Jeff Bagwell, and Tim Raines were all suspected with Bonds and Clemens, and they were elected. So why not Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, and Sammy Sosa? – players with better careers than those three who were elected? Why not Mark McGuire, who admitted to PED use, just like as he claims most players did during his playing days?

That’s my take – what’s yours? Comment below!

In today’s society, we often see celebrities speaking up and stepping out onto the public stage to stand up for what they believe in, especially if they think something that has occurred is wrong. One way this is done is through the social media app Twitter. It is very common to see famous and influential people tweet about videos or articles that caught their attention. For example, during the California Wildfires, President Trump tweeted a controversial tweet about cutting federal funding to forest management due to “so many lives [being] lost” as a result of “gross mismanagement of forests.” This resulted in many celebrities such as Katy Perry, John Legend, and Leonardo DiCaprio respond on Twitter to President Trump’s claim, sparking even more debate and attention to the tragic fires.

Johnson and West, via Today.com

Kim Kardashian West has been recently putting her own efforts towards a cause that has become very important to her – the imprisonment of the wrongfully convicted. It began for West when Alice Marie Johnson was sentenced to life in prison without parole for non-violent drug charges. It was her first offense of any kind. Kim Kardashian West, like many others, saw a very moving Facebook video that shows Alice Johnson explaining her circumstances and story at the time. Kim Kardashian West knew that something must be done. West brought her lawyer Shawn Chapman Holley to the White House to meet with Jared Kushner and Donald Trump multiple times. Eventually, Alice Marie Johnson was released via President Trump’s clemency warrant…and Kim Kardashian West’s help.

Cyntoia Brown in court, via Fox News

It hasn’t stopped with Alice Johnson’s case for West. Since Johnson was released, Kim Kardashian West has been involved with many other wrongfully convicted prisoners.  This past January, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam granted Cyntoia Brown clemency. Cyntoia Brown was sentenced to life in prison as a sixteen year old prostitute for murdering a forty three year old man. The forty three year old man was one of the many people that bought Brown for prostitution and to be drugged. Scared for her life, Brown shot the man. When a story came out on Twitter, Kim Kardashian West responded to the tweet, causing an uprising over the case. West then helped Cyntoia Brown be finally released, which will occur at the end of the month. Cyntoia Brown is currently 30 years old.

Matthew Charles, via Nashvillepublicradio.org

Kim Kardashian West has also helped Matthew Charles and most recently Chris Young with their own cases. Matthew Charles was given a thirty five year sentence for selling crack, but was released in 2016 due to receiving a sentence reduction. However, in May of 2018, Matthew Charles was ordered to return to prison because a federal court determined that Charles had to finish out the remaining fourteen years of his initial thirty five year sentence. While he was out, Charles had completely turned his life around, volunteering at The Little Pantry That Could, as well as a steady job, a place to live, and a girlfriend. Yet, he lost all of that only a few years after receiving it. Hearing his story, Kim Kardashian West once again took to Twitter and shared his story with her millions of followers. With her help, President Trump passed the First Step Act that gained Matthew Charles his freedom once again.

Kevin H. Sharp’s tweet, via his twitter page

And as mentioned, Chris Young is the most recent man to have received Kim Kardashian West’s help. Chris Young was caught buying drugs, and since he already had two low level drug charges against him, he fell victim to what is known as the “three strike” rule, sending him to life in prison without parole. Even the judge who convicted him disagreed with his own decision, tweeting “What I was required to do that day was cruel and did not make us safer” (Kevin H. Sharp – twitter page). Kim Kardashian West met with President Trump on September 5th of the past year, and only time will tell if he, too, will be released from prison.

As seen throughout the post, both celebrities and media plays a huge role in helping fix wrongful convictions. However, Kim Kardashian West’s steps are only the beginning. Lorenzo Johnson is a blogger and writer for the Huffington Post. A few years ago, as pointed out in one of his articles regarding the matter, Johnson received a comment from Steve Gilmore. Gilmore wrote, “[the media] are quick to report about other countries and their shortcomings, example, Italy and Amanda Knox’s case, but for some reason they refuse to expose the inadequacies in our judicial system, except when it’s too late and someone has already spent and wasted many years of their lives wrongfully incarcerated.”

Gilmore is exactly right. Yes, the media and celebrities do a very good job at getting information out to the public and often times impacting a decision. However, there are so many cases out there. It is unfair that many cases will never get picked up like Charles’ and Brown’s. There must be a way for more stories like theirs to be heard for the public so that more change can be made.

*Sources include various articles from USA Today and Fox News; they can be found via the hyperlinks throughout the blog post.

Recently, there has been a steady increase in the use of unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAVs), also known as unmanned aircraft systems (UASs). The list of their uses is extensive, and includes recreational, video surveillance, boarder patrol, wildlife protection, disaster response, and to assist with search and rescue. Because of this, lawmakers are constantly debating what type of laws should be in place against these UAVs for both the public and for government agencies.

Austrian explosive balloons, via Google Images

Unmanned aircraft vehicles have been around for roughly two centuries.  In 1839, Austrian soldiers used unmanned balloons filled with explosives to attach Venice. As you can probably expect, it didn’t go overly well for the Austrians, as many blew back to them instead to Venice, so that tactic didn’t stick around too long. Fast forward to 1916 when Great Britain created the first pilotless winged aircraft, the Ruston Proctor Aerial Target.

During World War II, drone technology advances drastically thanks to the amount of funding that went into the war. However, they still were not fully trusted and were seen as overly expensive. During the Cold War, the US and the USSR used some form of unmanned aircraft vehicle surveillance to spy on each other. Then in 1982, using unmanned aircraft vehicles for military purposes really took a turn, when Israel flew UAVs with their armed aircrafts to totally wipe out Syrian forces by using them to both scout enemy territory and act as decoys that wouldn’t cost human lives.

Many point to 2006 as the year that began non-military use of drones. This was the same year that the FAA – the Federal Aviation Administration – released the first commercial drone permits. The drones were largely used to aid in natural disasters and wildlife surveillance, search and rescue missions, border security, and by companies and corporations for various uses. However, with that increase use came an increase of fear and mistrust of these UAVs by the public and government alike, sparking a push for policies and procedures regarding the unmanned aircraft vehicles.

(For more information about the history of drones, visit this website. They were my source for the information above.)

In 2017, eighteen states passed at least twenty four laws regarding UAVs (the list of states can be found here). Last year, Alaska, North Dakota, and Utah also passed their own laws and regulations. All three of those states’ regulations are regarding specifically government agencies’ use and development of unmanned aircraft vehicles, not for/against public recreational use.

Moose calf, via Google Images

Some of the states regulations are rather intriguing. For example, Montana passed a resolution that allows a maximum of $348,000 to be spent on unmanned aircraft systems that monitor both climate and moose population changes. Indiana created many new criminal offenses. These include a sex offender offense, when a person uses an unmanned aircraft vehicle to follow, stalk, etc. a person(s), and public safety offense, when the user intentionally obstructs an official of any type to be doing their job. Oregon prohibited weaponizing UAVs (I don’t know about you, but that seems like a pretty smart idea to me) and South Dakota prohibited unmanned aircraft vehicles that weigh over fifty five pounds. Finally, in Texas, the public cannot use unmanned aircraft systems to take pictures at all, but they allow insurance companies that are registered with the FAA to take photos for insurance purposes. Police, on the other hand, can take pictures for boarder security, as long as what is being photographed is within 25 miles of the boarder.

Drones on the boarder, via Google Images

Speaking of the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration has made extensive attempts to regulate the use of unmanned aircraft vehicles for both recreational use and non-recreational use. In 2016, they came out with a list of requirements for small unmanned aircraft vehicles: They cannot be larger than fifty five pounds; they must remain in sight of the person operating them at all times; they can’t be used up thirty minutes after sunrise and thirty minutes or less before sunset to limit risk of collision and/or injury and/or damage; unmanned aircraft systems can’t be flown over 100 miles per hour;  there must be at least three miles of weather visibility; a person flying must either have a pilot certificate or be with someone who does; the government can take and evaluate any unmanned aircraft vehicle at any time; pilots must be at least sixteen years old; the unmanned aircraft vehicle can not be flown recklessly or pose any threat to the safety of the surrounding public. If you are curious, the full 2016 summary can be found here.

Drone used to monitor poachers, via savetherhino.org

Although state and federal governments are passing many regulations upon unmanned aircraft systems, there are many people who would like to see them be used to their full potential. The National Police Foundation, for example, is striving to help law enforcement uses UAVs successfully (and more often), while regaining the trust of the public. DSLR Pros focus on making safe and reliable drones for companies and the government to use for search and rescue missions. Air Shepherd and Save the Rhino are both using drones to effectively track poachers and stop illegal hunting of animals.

It is obvious that UAV technology is not going anywhere any time soon, and I really feel that UAVs have many benefits that need to be explored and enabled…as long as people go through the proper legal channels. It will be very interesting to witness the constant debate over public and private safety and the benefits of UAVs.

To learn more visit:

https://www.powerdms.com/blog/law-enforcement-drone-policy/

https://www.dhs.gov/uas-law-enforcement

Important sources:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/current-unmanned-aircraft-state-law-landscape.aspx

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf