View Full Version : Drone Federalism Act of 2017 - Sponser Diane Feinstein
Senate Bill 1272
Who Supports It:
Senator Diane Feinstein (D – CA)
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)
National Governors Association
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Association of State Aviation Officials
Quick Summary of Important Facts of the Drone Federalism Act of 2017:
On May 25, Senator Feinstein introduced into the U.S. Senate the bill below. It is labeled Senate Bill 1272. It has been referred to the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Track the current progress of the bill by clicking here.
The bill modifies Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to require those model aircraft to have the permission of the land owner if they are within 200ft above ground level or 200ft above the structure, whichever is higher.
Any future rulemakings the FAA will do (like over people, night, or extended line of sight of operations) will have to define the preemptive effect of these laws. Additionally, the FAA “shall ensure that the authority of a State, local, or tribal government to issue reasonable restrictions on the time, manner, and place of operation of a civil unmanned aircraft system that is operated below 200 feet above ground level or within 200 feet of a structure is not preempted.”
The FAA will enter into agreements with no more than 10 State, local, or tribal governments to provide technical assistance to these participants regarding regulating drones and these participants in the pilot program are going to be consulted with by NASA.
This bill does NOT affect preemption for manned aircraft.
Read more here --- https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-federalism-act-2017
Not surprised.
She is grand poohbah of the Nanny State. Just once I wish she'd have to live by her own rules.
Not surprised.
She is grand poohbah of the Nanny State. Just once I wish she'd have to live by her own rules.
Or at least melt when it rains...
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Want my drone? Come and take it.
Want my drone? Come and take it.
Don't drone me bro
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-07-17, 22:08
What is the problem? I'm for it. I have RC aircraft and I'm looking at "drones". As long as 200ft means vertical, not lateral distance from a structure.
The one thing I would have a question about is paramotoring. Drones should still be line of sight operation. Paramotoring can be cross country, and knowing whose farm land it is, or is it public could be a real pain.
This is good for property rights.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is good for property rights
Not if you live in a city that will ban you flying your own drone on your own property. This was happening like crazy before, and it will happen like crazy again if this is allowed to pass. That's right, if you live in the city limit that bans drones, even if you have 10 acres, you won't be able to fly around your own house. Sorry, I have to call BS on this bill.
Look, I get it. As I really want one of these new toys, I DO see both sides of the fence. I want to be able to go fly one and have fun, but I also understand that homeowners don't want somebody buzzing around their property.
I'm also a widebody airline pilot, so I very much understand the danger involved when stupid people get their hands on these things. Laws are already on the books to protect airplanes. Just like the gun debate, rather than enforce the existing law, they are trying to pass something that's going to amount to almost a complete ban.
Most local governments have banned unauthorized aerial photography of persons on private property. Once again, laws are in place. Rather than forcing existing law, let's make more. Anyone seeing a trend here?
Sadly, it's a typical government knee-jerk. Once again, the law-abiding masses are being punished for the few idiots that have screwed up. If this passes, you're going to have to drive 20 miles out in the country and hope you can find a piece of public land where the local government won't put you in jail if you take off and land.
Sorry for grammar and punctuation, on the iPad And need to head to work.
We don't just need to ban photography, we need to ban low altitude flights over private property....photography, video, etc.
Yeah, I understand, you like the toy but that doesn't give you a right to violate my property or privacy. And certainly, you don't want pissed off property owners attempting to shoot these things out of the air.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Moose-Knuckle
06-08-17, 04:51
Not if you live in a city that will ban you flying your own drone on your own property.
I can't shoot my own guns on my own property, I live within "city limits".
We don't just need to ban photography, we need to ban low altitude flights over private property....photography, video, etc.
Yeah, I understand, you like the toy but that doesn't give you a right to violate my property or privacy. And certainly, you don't want pissed off property owners attempting to shoot these things out of the air.
This isn't popular, but I agree with you.
While not every drone / Gopro owner is a sexual predator no one should have the right to invade someone else's private property rather that be physically trespassing or flying a drone over to obtain photos / video.
Moose... And now you see why people that don't own guns don't have any sympathy for us.
Your gun versus drone analogy is completely apples and oranges. Since you don't care about drones, it's OK if the government takes away the ability to for me to fly one if I want to buy one. Yeah if the government comes after something you like, you'd be fuming.
Moose... And now you see why people that don't own guns don't have any sympathy for us.
Your gun versus drone analogy is completely apples and oranges. Since you don't care about drones, it's OK if the government takes away the ability to for me to fly one if I want to buy one. Yeah if the government comes after something you like, you'd be fuming.
Nobody said you couldn't fly a drone.
Drone flight is not a natural or constitutional right.
My property rights trump your drone rights. You can't drive your car in my field either. Does that make me somebody trying to take away your "rights"?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Moose-Knuckle
06-08-17, 05:20
Moose... And now you see why people that don't own guns don't have any sympathy for us.
Your gun versus drone analogy is completely apples and oranges. Since you don't care about drones, it's OK if the government takes away the ability to for me to fly one if I want to buy one. Yeah if the government comes after something you like, you'd be fuming.
That's not what I was driving at.
Point is everything is regulated these days, so why should drones get a pass?
I'm not for big government . . . like . . . at . . . all. But I'm also a huge proponent of personal privacy.
If a drone user is doing stuff in public space that is one thing, but when they fly their craft over private property that becomes a point of contention.
That's not what I was driving at.
Point is everything is regulated these days, so why should drones get a pass?
I'm not for big government . . . like . . . at . . . all. But I'm also a huge proponent of personal privacy.
If a drone user is doing stuff in public space that is one thing, but when they fly their craft over private property that becomes a point of contention.
The point I'm trying to make is that this law will stop people from FLYING OVER THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
I don't want to fly over your property. Just mine. I give up. I'm not going to be able to change your guys minds. Don't worry, I'll still probably side with you guys WHEN the government comes after something you like to do.
Glad I didn't get one of these for Christmas. I darn sure won't be buying one now.
Moose-Knuckle
06-08-17, 05:37
. . . this law will stop people from FLYING OVER THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
Okay.
Not knowing where you live, I currently reside in suburbia. If I fly a drone on my property I would have to cross my property line into someone else's within a minute or less.
Now if you live on some land then no, I don't agree that the government should ban them.
Same as if I owned land out in the boonies and they passed a law stating that I couldn't shoot on it, yeah F that noise.
Dude, it says in the first paragraph that to fly over property, it requires landowner permission.
I don't care if you fly a drone on your own property, and I don't believe that's what the bill states.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
However, it's apples to oranges as there is no constitutional right to flying a drone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whiskey_Bravo
06-08-17, 06:58
You should be able to drone away over your own property, or property that you have permission of. I do not believe you should be able to fly your crap over my property without my permission though. Every decent drone can be outfitted with a 4k camera now which I would rather not be videoing my wife laying by the pool or my daughter playing in the backyard. I have an 8 foot fence to keep people out and you shouldn't be able to just hover over my backyard.
Without looking into the details, if this bill does the above good for it.
The last Congress generated 10,334 pieces of legislation and passed 329 bills actually enacted. About 3% of bills actually get enacted. It will be interesting to see what happens to Feinstein's bill in this particular Congress.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-08-17, 08:12
The point I'm trying to make is that this law will stop people from FLYING OVER THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
I don't want to fly over your property. Just mine. I give up. I'm not going to be able to change your guys minds. Don't worry, I'll still probably side with you guys WHEN the government comes after something you like to do.
Glad I didn't get one of these for Christmas. I darn sure won't be buying one now.
That is why I specified 200 ft vertically. 200 feet horizontally is a problem because now you literally have shut down urban airspace.
It really doesn't solve the privacy issue since from 200 ft, with a 30+ MP camera you can see everything, but at least it keeps them from annoying the crap out you in your backyard.
Outlander Systems
06-08-17, 09:02
Only one problem with that, kiddo.
You don't own the airspace over your property. Otherwise, anytime an airliner flew over your house, you could bust out dem stanger missiles and get your kill on, cuz, "MUH PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!" :rolleyes:
If you're very concerned with your privacy, you should probably stay off the internet, and never use any form of credit/debit card.
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
(a)Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.
My property rights trump your drone rights. You can't drive your car in my field either.
You should be able to drone away over your own property, or property that you have permission of. I do not believe you should be able to fly your crap over my property without my permission though. Every decent drone can be outfitted with a 4k camera now which I would rather not be videoing my wife laying by the pool or my daughter playing in the backyard. I have an 8 foot fence to keep people out and you shouldn't be able to just hover over my backyard.
Without looking into the details, if this bill does the above good for it.
The point is that even if they can't fly over "your airspace", they can still hover on their side of the property line and get the goods on your female family members. I'm of two minds on this subject. One is pursuit of happiness as guaranteed by the Constitution. The other is individual property rights. Yet your property deed makes no mention of the airspace above you. According to the interwebs, the only things in the air are:
Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace
None of those are listed in property deeds. So the air, even a few feet above you, is not your property. IF someone operates a drone over your property, you may have legal rights based on reckless conduct or disturbance of the peace, so I see no reason for a special law protecting the air above your property. I would support a state or local law requiring any drown owner/operator to obtain landowner or lease holder permission to retrieve a drone that has landed or crashed on private property. If the landowner or lessee refuses retrieval permission, the only option would be for the operator to call law enforcement to retrieve the drone for them.
That follows pretty much along the lines of wild game retrieval laws in many states. If you shoot a deer and it dies on another's property, and they refuse your request to retrieve it, you have to call the game warden to retrieve it for you. Under those laws, the landowner doesn't have the right to refuse the game warden. It's simple, elegant and has worked for decades if not longer.
I don't own a drone and don't intend to, yet I see the ability to own and operate one in a safe, responsible manner as a right no less than that of free speech or firearms possession. Where that right ends is when it infringes on the safety, property rights or reasonably expected privacy of another.
Crow Hunter
06-08-17, 09:39
Only one problem with that, kiddo.
You don't own the airspace over your property. Otherwise, anytime an airliner flew over your house, you could bust out dem stanger missiles and get your kill on, cuz, "MUH PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!" :rolleyes:
If you're very concerned with your privacy, you should probably stay off the internet, and never use any form of credit/debit card.
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
(a)Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.
Technically, with some extremely rare exceptions, you don't own your property either assuming you hold it with fee simple title.
The Government holds allodial title to practically all property in the US.
However, common law holds that a person with fee simple title can control access and resources on their property.
I agree with this legislation. I don't want people trespassing on my property via feet or flying a drone.
You want to fly over 200 ft in the air, fine, hovering over my deck, peeping in my window or over my vehicles, no, I will find out if I can shoot one down with a shotgun. ;)
If someone wants to fly around on my property, or drive their ATV, or hunt, etc, they should have the decency to ask permission.
I love how people who don't own/fly drones think anyone is 'peeping into windows' with them. It comes from a place of ignorance much like the anti-gun "reasoning" we fight ever day. If one's objective is peeping in windows there are FAR better tools than a large, loud, expensive drone. All of which are legal mind you.
Outlander Systems
06-08-17, 10:00
Pretty much this.
Like I spent fat stacks to spy on my fatass neighbor. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
I liken it to the dude living in a tarpaper shack with the, "NO TRESSPASSING" signs everywhere.
Dude, nobody gives a shit about your miserable existence.
I love how people who don't own/fly drones think anyone is 'peeping into windows' with them. It comes from a place of ignorance much like the anti-gun "reasoning" we fight ever day. If one's objective is peeping in windows there are FAR better tools than a large, loud, expensive drone. All of which are legal mind you.
Crow Hunter
06-08-17, 10:24
Pretty much this.
Like I spent fat stacks to spy on my fatass neighbor. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
I liken it to the dude living in a tarpaper shack with the, "NO TRESSPASSING" signs everywhere.
Dude, nobody gives a shit about your miserable existence.
Okay. I am your fat neighbor with the no trespassing signs on my tarpaper shack. Why do you want to fly over my house at less than 200 ft?
How will this law affect you?
What would you do if you were sitting in your living room typing on M4Carbine.net and I drove over on my ATV through your backyard and sat on your patio/deck and started eating a sandwich and having a beer while using my phone to surf tar shack forums? Would you just stay on M4Carbine.net and talk about my fat ass on your patio or would you getup and throw me out? What if I refused and said I had a right to be there? Would you call the law? What law would you cite that I was violating?
Just like gun laws, the problem isn't with the vast majority of owners, the problems lie with a few that always take things to extremes. Open carry to you and me would mean a discreet nice holster and a handgun, to them it means plate carrier, AR-15, helmet, 2 handguns and an sawed off shotgun when going to get tacos at Taco Bell. Unfortunately the few ruin it for the many. But to prevent the few from abusing others rights, rules have to be made so that law enforcement can get involved.
Outlander Systems
06-08-17, 10:42
I have zero interest in flying less than 200' in elevation, so I'm not concerned.
My point being that those most spun up about ZOMG DRONEZZZZ are the same mouthbreathers who think anyone wants to drive a 4x4 on their property.
If someone is flying a drone and staring in your windows, simply call the local constabulary, and file a police report. Problem. ****ing. Solved.
Okay. I am your fat neighbor with the no trespassing signs on my tarpaper shack. Why do you want to fly over my house at less than 200 ft?
How will this law affect you?
If someone is flying a drone and staring in your windows, simply call the local constabulary, and file a police report. Problem. ****ing. Solved.
Bwhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah!
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha!
My sides hurt!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha!
Field a police report?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
I own a drone and enjoy flying it around the local park when it's free of people for my unskilled self to auger into. It has a camera and I make sure it's never pointed towards people's homes. That's just me.
This legislation is pretty retarded to say the least. We have existing local, state and federal laws that cover peeping toms, pedophiles, being a nuisance and endangering aircraft. This law does absolutely nothing to help protect people.
At 201 feet AGL I can use my 4K GoPro and get good detailed of whatever I want. Simultaneously I can hover 1" away from your fence line at 10' AGL and do whatever I want so to speak. So what have you gained? Aside from forcing a pervert to go high enough so you won't hear them you got shit for protection against all these mysterious perverts lurking in your neighborhoods. Maybe our outrage shouldn't be directed at Drone owners, but rather at government that allows all these perverts to live among us.
Sorry, but let's spend a few years enforcing existing laws and identify actual weaknesses instead of wasting time with perceived issues.
Outlander Systems
06-08-17, 11:21
Pretty much wut TAZ said.
Can't speak for anyone else, but in my given area, there are existing local laws that would land my ass in trouble if I was flying my drone up on someone's windows.
Furthermore, just like guns, the new law won't prevent Pervy Joe from getting his creep on.
Only one problem with that, kiddo.
You don't own the airspace over your property. Otherwise, anytime an airliner flew over your house, you could bust out dem stanger missiles and get your kill on, cuz, "MUH PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!" :rolleyes:
If you're very concerned with your privacy, you should probably stay off the internet, and never use any form of credit/debit card.
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
(a)Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.
One problem with this, kiddo....the Supreme Court has also ruled flight is not allowed at altitudes that interfere with landowners' use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lol, call the cops and report a drone? You've got to be kidding.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lol, call the cops and report a drone? You've got to be kidding.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm thoroughly confused now. We think calling the cops to report a drone peeping on your daughter is a laughable thing to do, but simultaneously want regulations to stop all the perv drone owners from perving to your daughter.
I'm thoroughly confused now. We think calling the cops to report a drone peeping on your daughter is a laughable thing to do, but simultaneously want regulations to stop all the perv drone owners from perving to your daughter.
We must pass the new laws! Only then can you call the cops. Who'll think of da chirrens?!
I'm thoroughly confused now. We think calling the cops to report a drone peeping on your daughter is a laughable thing to do, but simultaneously want regulations to stop all the perv drone owners from perving to your daughter.
Why are you confused? So you think most departments are competent enough or prepared to deal with drones?
Most people are good an honest and won't be a nuisance with their drones. I don't want any drone flying less than 200 feet over my land, pervert or not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
thopkins22
06-08-17, 16:35
However, it's apples to oranges as there is no constitutional right to flying a drone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes there is. It's called the 10th amendment.
Why are you confused? So you think most departments are competent enough or prepared to deal with drones?
Most people are good an honest and won't be a nuisance with their drones. I don't want any drone flying less than 200 feet over my land, pervert or not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's confused because you want a law against flying drones over your property, but then think calling the cops about a drone flying over your land is a joke. Do you honestly believe the FAA or FBI is going to come investigate your drone complaint if this law passes? THAT, would be a laugh. :)
None of those are listed in property deeds. So the air, even a few feet above you, is not your property.
Actually you do have air rights. They are not well defined and vary. Generally it is agreed to you have rights to say erect an antenna, build a tall building of a certain nature and then not only those normal things but you have rights of some reasonable distance above them... and that's where it gets gray.
For instance is it reasonable to assume that you living in a zoning that demands single story buildings but allowed you to place an 80' flag pole. Do you really need 200' more above that flag or antenna tower. Is it regionally typical. Is there something about the terrain that would agree with that need. In fact is air rights were not recognized you could fly stuff over people's property or even shoot across it.
Can you imagine two kids living on either side of you and playing catch across your property all day? They can't because you have air rights to a reasonable height.
Pretty much wut TAZ said. Can't speak for anyone else, but in my given area, there are existing local laws that would land my ass in trouble if I was flying my drone up on someone's windows. Furthermore, just like guns, the new law won't prevent Pervy Joe from getting his creep on.
Both of you are spot on. This is what I was getting at earlier. It is ALREADY ILLEGAL in my AO to use a drone to photograph people on private property without consent. It's also illegal to photograph certain institutions with criminal intent. I'm talking FELONY... Again, here is what ALL of the nay-sayers are missing... What concerns them IS ALREADY ILLEGAL.
My next post will counter someone missing this.
lol, call the cops and report a drone? You've got to be kidding.
So what good is ANOTHER law going to do if you think calling the cops is laughable???
Dispatch: 911, what is your emergency?
Tylerw02: Now this drone guy is breaking two laws instead of one!!! Roll the SWAT team.
Hello... McFly!!!???
He's confused because you want a law against flying drones over your property, but then think calling the cops about a drone flying over your land is a joke. Do you honestly believe the FAA or FBI is going to come investigate your drone complaint if this law passes? THAT, would be a laugh. :)
It's going to keep honest people honest.
People will not do things that are illegal because they are illegal. It's not going to stop pervs and criminals anymore than gun laws stop murder.
If you think you SHOULD be able to fly your little drone over my property at low altitude, I serious wonder about your moral compass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So what good is ANOTHER law going to do if you think calling the cops is laughable???
Dispatch: 911, what is your emergency?
Tylerw02: Now this drone guy is breaking two laws instead of one!!! Roll the SWAT team.
Hello... McFly!!!???
Don't be stupid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Both of you are spot on. This is what I was getting at earlier. It is ALREADY ILLEGAL in my AO to use a drone to photograph people on private property without consent. It's also illegal to photograph certain institutions with criminal intent. I'm talking FELONY... Again, here is what ALL of the nay-sayers are missing... What concerns them IS ALREADY ILLEGAL.
My next post will counter someone missing this.
It may be illegal where you live, but that's not the case everywhere.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Man, some of you guys...
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Yes there is. It's called the 10th amendment.
Not how that works....
If that were the case then I could constitutionally trespass on your property on foot, because "muh rightssss".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It may be illegal where you live, but that's not the case everywhere.
Newsflash: If your local jurisdiction won't pass a law to make unauthorized photography of people on private property illegal, this new federal law wont either. That decision will still rest with your local authority. The federal law will simply allow local municipalities and in some cases entire states to BAN drones outright.
I hate to break it to you, but the honest people are already honest. All of the people that I know that Like to fly these thinks DON'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT TAKING PICTURES OF YOU! Sorry to burst your bubble. You know there's Google Earth if someone wants to see your backyard. Better go after private satellites also.
If this law is passed... Chester the molester will continue to do what he wants with his drone. The honest people that were simply enjoying a fun hobby when it was legal will be screwed. When drones are outlawed... Only outlaws... Here I go again wasting my time. I can tell your mind is made up. We can agree to disagree.
Outlander Systems
06-08-17, 17:43
How have you handled trespassing drones previously?
It's going to keep honest people honest.
People will not do things that are illegal because they are illegal. It's not going to stop pervs and criminals anymore than gun laws stop murder.
If you think you SHOULD be able to fly your little drone over my property at low altitude, I serious wonder about your moral compass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You guys seriously want to argue to fly a drone less than 200 feet over one's property?
I don't care if one is taking photography or videography or not, you should be flying a drone less than 200 feet altitude over my property.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is the limit? How low should you be allowed to fly a drone over ones property? 3 feet? Should Marty McFly be able to come into your yard because he's not technically touching to ground with a hoverboard?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You guys seriously want to argue to fly a drone less than 200 feet over one's property? I don't care if one is taking photography or videography or not, you should be flying a drone less than 200 feet altitude over my property.
OK. That's fair. I actually agree with you.
The problem is the proposed law gives local municipalities control over the sky. They could simply just pass a FAA regulation stating (1) Drones are covered under all FAR's, and (2) unauthorized flight over private property below 200' AGL is prohibited. DONE!
Many drone operators would be OK with this. Again, the proposed law is a significant over-reach IMHO. They want to set up for a ban.
To be clear... I don't want to fly over your property at low level, and I don't want someone else flying over mine at low level. I GET IT, and so do most people that own these things. There's common ground here without allowing cities/states/counties to effectively ban these things.
OK. That's fair. I actually agree with you.
The problem is the proposed law gives local municipalities control over the sky. They could simply just pass a FAA regulation stating (1) Drones are covered under all FAR's, and (2) unauthorized flight over private property below 200' AGL is prohibited. DONE!
Many drone operators would be OK with this. Again, the proposed law is a significant over-reach IMHO. They want to set up for a ban.
To be clear... I don't want to fly over your property at low level, and I don't want someone else flying over mine at low level. I GET IT, and so do most people that own these things. There's common ground here without allowing cities/states/counties to effectively ban these things.
^^^^^This. Yes, drones should be covered under the FAR's. I don't want a patchwork of regs that are all different around the country for things that fly.
But wasn't it argued tenth amendment, and "let local municipalities" have say so already in this thread?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm pretty sure many of the people on this forum will argue agains't any kind of privacy protection law as long as a "D" sponsors it. If the "D"s suddenly wanted to support the 2nd amendment some users would go anti gun, I swear.
Maybe in Montana gas different needs than highly-populated LA.
Isn't that what federalism is about? Local laws to deal with local problems putting citizens closer to control and the ability to enact change?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm pretty sure many of the people on this forum will argue agains't any kind of privacy protection law as long as a "D" sponsors it. If the "D"s suddenly wanted to support the 2nd amendment some users would go anti gun, I swear.
I don't believe any have argued one shouldn't be allowed to fly a drone over public property or private property with the owners' permission.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm pretty sure many of the people on this forum will argue agains't any kind of privacy protection law as long as a "D" sponsors it. If the "D"s suddenly wanted to support the 2nd amendment some users would go anti gun, I swear.
Wrong. If the D's suddenly went pro 2A, I would suspect foul play and try to figure out what they were up to.
Guys, especially TylerW who seems to be the most fervent pusher of this legislation… It is written, sponsored and promoted by Diane Feinstein. That should be all you needed to hear. Maybe some people here on our forum aren't familiar with her track record?
Leave my guns alone. Leave my dogs alone. Leave my property alone. Leave me and my family alone. And leave my drone alone. In return, I'll do the same for you.
More laws and more government control will help no one, regardless of which side of this issue you stand on.
OK. That's fair. I actually agree with you.
The problem is the proposed law gives local municipalities control over the sky. They could simply just pass a FAA regulation stating (1) Drones are covered under all FAR's, and (2) unauthorized flight over private property below 200' AGL is prohibited. DONE!
Many drone operators would be OK with this. Again, the proposed law is a significant over-reach IMHO. They want to set up for a ban.
To be clear... I don't want to fly over your property at low level, and I don't want someone else flying over mine at low level. I GET IT, and so do most people that own these things. There's common ground here without allowing cities/states/counties to effectively ban these things.
Bingo. Just setting it up for the congressional ban hammer.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
It's going to keep honest people honest.
People will not do things that are illegal because they are illegal. It's not going to stop pervs and criminals anymore than gun laws stop murder.
If you think you SHOULD be able to fly your little drone over my property at low altitude, I serious wonder about your moral compass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't pay attention very well do you? I don't own a drone and have no intention to obtain one. I'm simply siding with the rights of drone owners actual rights over your imaginary rights. :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.