DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Michigan passes UAS preemption law

Just found a PDF version of it here UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT (EXCERPT) Act 436 of 2016 259.305.new

Some more relative postings UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT Act 436 of 2016

This is where I believe Lapeer20m got the link from Newbie question: Local ordinance in Michigan which is a MavicPilots thread

Update:

Was able to read all of the UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT Act 436 of 2016. In Section 259.303 are the definitions.

(b) "Political subdivision" means a county, city, village, township, or other political subdivision, public corporation, authority, or district in this state.

In Section 259.305 it explains Political subdivision; limitations; powers; federal preemption; conflict with other sections of law.

(1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
(2) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by the political subdivision within the boundaries of the political subdivision.
That was my reason for looking it up, to see what this act actually does. He was in a county park, so does their rule still stand? He can't fly there?

I ask because I found this confusing. #1 says no enacting or enforcing an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation. #2 says doesn't stop a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of. So does that mean the county cannot ask him to leave because of #1 but can put a law into effect because of #2.
 
Last edited:
Just found a PDF version of it here UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT (EXCERPT) Act 436 of 2016 259.305.new

Some more relative postings UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT Act 436 of 2016

This is where I believe Lapeer20m got the link from Newbie question: Local ordinance in Michigan which is a MavicPilots thread

Update:

Was able to read all of the UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT Act 436 of 2016. In Section 259.303 are the definitions.

(b) "Political subdivision" means a county, city, village, township, or other political subdivision, public corporation, authority, or district in this state.

In Section 259.305 it explains Political subdivision; limitations; powers; federal preemption; conflict with other sections of law.

(1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
(2) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by the political subdivision within the boundaries of the political subdivision.
That was my reason for looking it up, to see what this act actually does. He was in a county park, so does their rule still stand? He can't fly there?

I ask because I found this confusing. #1 says no enacting or enforcing an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation. #2 says doesn't stop a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of. So does that mean the county cannot ask him to leave because of #1 but can put a law into effect because of #2.
No, the second part says use "by the subdivision," so it means they can make internal rules for city/county employees, basically. For example they can set rules for the fire service or police or city/county maintenance personnel that may use drones for different reasons.

They probably made that exception since most public aircraft operation is actually outside the authority of the FAA. The FAA is given authority over civil aviation, but not public aviation. Local governments have to set their own regulations for public flights. For example, you might be surprised to find out that the pilot that flies a police helicopter could technically not require a license since the FAA has no authority there. So it would be up to the city to write their own ordinance requiring the police department to hire a licensed pilot.
 
No, the second part says use "by the subdivision," so it means they can make internal rules for city/county employees, basically. For example they can set rules for the fire service or police or city/county maintenance personnel that may use drones for different reasons.

They probably made that exception since most public aircraft operation is actually outside the authority of the FAA. The FAA is given authority over civil aviation, but not public aviation. Local governments have to set their own regulations for public flights. For example, you might be surprised to find out that the pilot that flies a police helicopter could technically not require a license since the FAA has no authority there. So it would be up to the city to write their own ordinance requiring the police department to hire a licensed pilot.

Thanks TomMcW,

So officer cannot ask you to leave because this act trumps old rules, regulations, and ordinances? I just want to make sure I get this correct. If approached in the future I will be polite when discussing this but I will make sure I am clear about this first.
 
Just found a PDF version of it here UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT (EXCERPT) Act 436 of 2016 259.305.new

Some more relative postings UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT Act 436 of 2016

This is where I believe Lapeer20m got the link from Newbie question: Local ordinance in Michigan which is a MavicPilots thread

Update:

Was able to read all of the UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT Act 436 of 2016. In Section 259.303 are the definitions.

(b) "Political subdivision" means a county, city, village, township, or other political subdivision, public corporation, authority, or district in this state.

In Section 259.305 it explains Political subdivision; limitations; powers; federal preemption; conflict with other sections of law.

(1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
(2) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by the political subdivision within the boundaries of the political subdivision.
That was my reason for looking it up, to see what this act actually does. He was in a county park, so does their rule still stand? He can't fly there?

I ask because I found this confusing. #1 says no enacting or enforcing an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation. #2 says doesn't stop a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of. So does that mean the county cannot ask him to leave because of #1 but can put a law into effect because of #2.

Thanks for bringing my very 1st Thread in Mavicpilot. As a non-native English speaker, I was really confused by these two sections, but I think Lapeer20m's explanation makes sense to me.

As for the (2): This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by the political subdivision within the boundaries of the political subdivision.

I think the '...by the political subdivision' can refer to either 1) prohibit, 2) promulgating or 3)use:
1) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from doing something... by the political subdivision....-->This doesn't make sense.
2) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating 'sUAS' rules by the political subdivision... -->This make sense, but the 'political subdivision' is redundant. Just like: I prohibit me from flying a drone by myself. I don't know whether this interpretation can be real?
3) ...rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by the political subdivision... -->This explanation by Lapeer20m makes perfect sense. I just hope this is the only interpretation for this section.

But, everything here won't matter if Drone Federalism Act of 2017 passed.
 
Thanks for bringing my very 1st Thread in Maviup. As a non-native English speaker, I was really confused by these two sections, but I think Lapeer20m's explanation makes sense to me.

As for the (2): This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by the political subdivision within the boundaries of the political subdivision.

I think the '...by the political subdivision' can refer to either 1) prohibit, 2) promulgating or 3)use:
1) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from doing something... by the political subdivision....-->This doesn't make sense.
2) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating 'sUAS' rules by the political subdivision... -->This make sense, but the 'political subdivision' is redundant. Just like: I prohibit me from flying a drone by myself. I don't know whether this interpretation can be real?
3) ...rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by the political subdivision... -->This explanation by Lapeer20m makes perfect sense. I just hope this is the only interpretation for this section.

But, everything here won't matter if Drone Federalism Act of 2017 passed.

I don't know how but I didn't see (skipped) what Lapeer20m said in post #9. Oh well. It makes perfect sense, especially if I add my friend's county into the mix.

(1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, Kent County shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
(2) This act does not prohibit Kent County from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by Kent County within the boundaries of Kent County.

Kent County's rules, trumped. Kent County can make rules for Kent County owned equipment, that's that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lapeer20m
Thanks TomMcW,

So officer cannot ask you to leave because this act trumps old rules, regulations, and ordinances? I just want to make sure I get this correct. If approached in the future I will be polite when discussing this but I will make sure I am clear about this first.
The act renders local ordinances unenforceable. Of course, as with all things, law enforcement officers are often not aware of the laws for niche industries like hobby aircraft. You can attempt to "educate" a LEO about the law, but in my experience LEO's don't like to be "educated" about their job.

And there are other areas that the law doesn't prevent, such as privacy laws, nuisance laws, etc. in other words, there's no law against using a flashlight. But if I'm pointing that flashlight in somebody's window there would be a problem.
 
The act renders local ordinances unenforceable. Of course, as with all things, law enforcement officers are often not aware of the laws for niche industries like hobby aircraft. You can attempt to "educate" a LEO about the law, but in my experience LEO's don't like to be "educated" about their job.

And there are other areas that the law doesn't prevent, such as privacy laws, nuisance laws, etc. in other words, there's no law against using a flashlight. But if I'm pointing that flashlight in somebody's window there would be a problem.

Noted.
 
I prohibit me from flying a drone by myself. I don't know whether this interpretation can be real?
That's exactly what it's saying. The "subdivision" can make rules for itself. The interpretation makes sense if you consider what I said in my earlier response about local governments having to self-regulate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lapeer20m
But, everything here won't matter if Drone Federalism Act of 2017 passed.
It will matter more than ever! If that act passes it would make drone use intolerably complicated. The only thing saving it would be laws like this passed at the state level to keep things from getting ridiculous.
 
I don't know how but I didn't see (skipped) what Lapeer20m said in post #9. Oh well. It makes perfect sense, especially if I add my friend's county into the mix.

(1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, Kent County shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
(2) This act does not prohibit Kent County from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by Kent County within the boundaries of Kent County.

Kent County's rules, trumped. Kent County can make rules for Kent County owned equipment, that's that.

Precisely!
 
The act renders local ordinances unenforceable. Of course, as with all things, law enforcement officers are often not aware of the laws for niche industries like hobby aircraft. You can attempt to "educate" a LEO about the law, but in my experience LEO's don't like to be "educated" about their job.

And there are other areas that the law doesn't prevent, such as privacy laws, nuisance laws, etc. in other words, there's no law against using a flashlight. But if I'm pointing that flashlight in somebody's window there would be a problem.

One "power" regular citizens have is the ability to record police officers. Mavic makes it super easy since djigo4 uses the microphone of the iPad or iPhone to record voice. Having a recording device is often a useful tool when dealing with unreasonable people, including the rare police officer who is unprofessional.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,585
Messages
1,554,095
Members
159,585
Latest member
maniac2000