4 day trip to Maui, should I bring my drone?

[Droning on and on...]

It has nothing to do with our form of government. It has to do with State's rights vs Federal rights/law. If the Federal Government gives me the right to fly, why should I agree to let the States take it away or limit that right?

Well, because you're a decent person, respect the wishes of others as being equally important as your own in public places, and are willing to negotiate and compromise so everyone has a chance to meet their needs.

Or not. I'm not allowed to describe what most of us fellow citizens think about the "or nots". The vocabulary is prohibited on this site. Also, the "or nots" tend to provoke anger, escalation, and too often violence.

It's very similar to having a loud party, not quite violating the local sound level ordinance, but irritating your neighbors nonetheless. When they knock on your door, you get all, "I know my rights!" with them, and they walk away mad. This is the stuff neighborhood tragedies are born from.

Instead, had you visited you neighbors a few days ahead, let them know about the party and that it may be noisy for 5 or 6 hours, I guarantee it will come out differently. Perhaps a neighbor has to get up at 4am, and asks if you could quiet down by 11pm. You agree... compromise.

"why should I agree to let the States take it away or limit that right"?

Because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

 

[Droning on and on...]

If you would just read and understand and respect the Constitution and people's rights, you'd have your answer. It's not perfect but the best available governance process....it's all there. And it works.

Do States have the right to prohibit any take off or landing from the entire land surface the state has jurisdiction over?

 

[tstr14]

Because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Well if it's the "right thing to do" why limit it to the states? Heck let every city, township and burg have their own laws too! Perhaps you don't understand the quagmire this would create.

 

[mavic3usa]

Do States have the right to prohibit any take off or landing from the entire land surface the state has jurisdiction over?

The states only has as much power as the people give them. In some states, they have this power, in other states they do not. When they do, usually the local governments like the city and the county are pre-empted from being able to prohibit this. It's not just drones, it could be various activities and it doesn't always have to be a law, if in fact the city/county has authority it could be an ordinance. Land under the jurisdiction could include public property and it could include restricted property as well so it all depends. Maybe in one place, you can't land into the foyer in city hall but you can launch from a public park or from the street corner at 5th and main. Maybe in one place you can't launch from the police department parking lot but you can launch from the public sidewalk.

Yes, the FAA has acknowledged they do not control what a non-Federal entity can do with regard to take off and landing of drones as long as it doesn't interfere with FAA control, for example, you can't charge landing fees and sell take off and landing rights to private companies, etc. There are also a few exception like emergency landings, etc. Personally I would like to see more FAA [non]-control and less state/local government control but alas, I fear a slew of state and local laws are on the horizon and it will be a lot more than take-off and landing laws.

The First Amendment of the United State guarantees the right to a free Press so any government agency needs to be careful with their "restrictions." Not saying the press has the right to do whatever they want but talk to your lawyers and any unresolved disputes that we don't agree with....we'll just take it to court (when we are ready).

 

[wco81]

I'd love to fly off Diamond Head. Doesn't have to be over or directly adjacent to the coast nor anywhere near Waikiki.

Yes I know it's not Maui.

But the whole coast to the east of DH also looks great photogenically-speaking.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Well if it's the "right thing to do" why limit it to the states? Heck let every city, township and burg have their own laws too! Perhaps you don't understand the quagmire this would create.

How is that not already the case with privacy laws, speed limits, and just about everything at the local and state level? State laws and local ordinances are hardly uniform across the US, sometimes varying greatly.

That's a Republic. And it's awesome. I'm not interested here in Santa Cruz living under the cultural sensibilities of the residents of Macon GA, and I suspect they feel the same way.

The current mosaic of cannabis legality is a perfect example. Overall, people are freer and happier with cannabis legal where people want it to be, and prohibited where people don't want it to be legal. Win win.

 

[tstr14]

How is that not already the case with privacy laws, speed limits, and just about everything at the local and state level? State laws and local ordinances are hardly uniform across the US, sometimes varying greatly.

That's a Republic. And it's awesome. I'm not interested here in Santa Cruz living under the cultural sensibilities of the residents of Macon GA, and I suspect they feel the same way.

The current mosaic of cannabis legality is a perfect example. Overall, people are freer and happier with cannabis legal where people want it to be, and prohibited where people don't want it to be legal. Win win.

<sigh> Because the FAA has granted states the rights to make privacy laws - PROVIDED they aren't all encompassing. In other words, the state if Illinois can't declare Chicago a "Privacy Protected no-fly zone". Just ask New York.

Go ask a cannabis seller where he keeps his business money. Chance are it won't be a bank because banks are Federally insured, and as such, the Feds could seize that money because cannabis remains an illegal drug Federally. While the States do have certain rights under the 14th amendment, the Federal Law rules supreme outside those things not covered. And use of airspace remains in the Federal domain.

 

[Droning on and on...]

<sigh> Because the FAA has granted states the rights to make privacy laws - PROVIDED they aren't all encompassing. In other words, the state if Illinois can't declare Chicago a "Privacy Protected no-fly zone". Just ask New York.

What are you talking about?

The FAA has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over privacy law, nor does the Federal Government.

My last post in this thread on this topic, it's straying far from the OP.