A.P.: What you need to know about the DJI drone ban in the U.S.

[Wreckhunter]

I believe the opposite. I believe a government agency like the FCC *will* do whatever it believes is intended by the law or works best within the spirit of the law. No government agency has *ever* stuck to exactly what the law says, frankly that's not their job. Their job is to understand what Congress has intended and then make it work. If the law wants DJI drone out of America but doesn't say how exactly, the FCC and the FAA will work together to figure it out. It's up to the victims to decide how they want to respond or react because Congress absolutely will not go back to work just to tell you how to do your job. They expect you to get it down and the drone community would be naive if they think they don't see specific wording in a bill so they feel "well, it could have been worse."

I mean, c'mon, can we at least learn for the past and not make the same mistakes? The law doesn't have to authorize the cleansing of drones already on the market for that to happen one day. So yes, the law doesn't say it. But that doesn't mean it can't happen without going back to Congress. Are we going to get caught off guard again? I promise you if it doesn't happen today, it will happen tomorrow. FAA could have easily grandfathered old drones for RID and they didn't bother to do something that simple knowing quite a few older drones would die off long before RID was really actually needed. They have saddle old useless drones with RID modules...for no good reason. You think they going to let a few million DJI drones continue to fly forever?

We going to let the bill go into law thinking we are *safe* because we can keep what we already have and a few years later after we are told to *stand down* we'll be hit with a "oops, change in plan" that has to be done because [insert your favorite national security reason here] and we won't have a leg to stand on because it will be clear to anyone after a few years later that it makes zero sense to ban new drones to stop spying and let the old ones continue to spy. We have to deal with bad actors and false flags and everything else that will reinforce the need for a *real* ban because "this isn't working."

The lack of grandfather wording is left out to disarm the community and to slow us down because we would for sure react poorly to any confiscation clauses or any suggestion about "grounding." Don't talk about it and we have less a reason to go to court and push for injunctions or due process. Judicial action against Congress is harder and have more visibility. Their strategy is to allow the agencies to do the dirty work because agencies can claim discretion and judicial action against them has proven to be less volatile in today's climate, i.e. "Congress told us to do this."

One way or another, our advocates have a new job going forward and for years to come, they have new focus and new purpose because of all this. Long gone are the days of only shaping rules and regulations and collaborating on procedures and processes. Welcome to my world, the activism side.

You are sure full of doom and gloom

 

[Fat Pappy]

Nonsense.

You can find out everything that's in a law after it has passed both House and Senate and sits waiting for the President to sign it.

Charging you with something that is not written in the legislation would be grounds for immediate dismissal, which a judge would grant, absent corruption.

So, just where in the clean water act does it denote that the seasonal puddle in your back yard is navigable water subject to EPA control? It’s not there, but the unconstitutional EPA, having nothing better to do than sit around tweaking actual laws put it there. Folks are having to spend years and big bucks to fight this nonsense so they can use their property as they desire. See Sackett v EPA for but one example - link below.

If the EPA can do that, what keeps the FCC, FAA or other alphabet agency from tweaking the drone law as it sees fit? As much as I like my drone, I’m not spending thousands or tens of thousands to keep the government from stealing it. YMMV.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

The Court rebuked the EPA's claim to limitless regulatory authority. Read more how this clarified the scope of the Clean Water Act.

pacificlegal.org

 

[mavic3usa]

You are sure full of doom and gloom

It's sorta a doom and gloom situation. There's no way at this point to come out of this unscathed. It's like getting impeached, the House just impeached you but even if the Senate does not find you guilty, you still got impeached. Do you realize what is happening? I don't think it has sunk in. The government is on the verge of banning your electronic equipment and they're doing it for absolutely the most lame of reasons, how's that not "doom and gloom?" I think it would be a sad day if the Mavic 3 Pro turned out to be the best drone I ever owned. Imagine the iPhone 9 or the Samsung Galaxy S9 was your last phone....

Even if this falls apart at the lame minute, the scars will never heal and you know the government will be back one day with the same task trying to ban; until they get it right. And if they can't get it done, the states will go for it and you'll have half the country with a defacto ban.

 

[MS Coast]

No, let's first start with a list of all consumer electronics which are registered in a government database. Confiscation is much less effective without registration.

Next, let's go to the list of all consumer electronics which are banned.

If that's not a recipe for confiscation (registered and banned), even Stevie Wonder can see that coming.

So, you can't think of an instance of federal confiscation of a similar device, either.

Were you as concerned about your name, address, and phone number being in phone books before electronic databases were created? Did you suspect that the Bell companies had dangerous motives for keeping track of you and would use the information in nefarious ways?

 

[MS Coast]

So, just where in the clean water act does it denote that the seasonal puddle in your back yard is navigable water subject to EPA control? It’s not there, but the unconstitutional EPA, having nothing better to do than sit around tweaking actual laws put it there. Folks are having to spend years and big bucks to fight this nonsense so they can use their property as they desire. See Sackett v EPA for but one example - link below.

If the EPA can do that, what keeps the FCC, FAA or other alphabet agency from tweaking the drone law as it sees fit? As much as I like my drone, I’m not spending thousands or tens of thousands to keep the government from stealing it. YMMV.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

The Court rebuked the EPA's claim to limitless regulatory authority. Read more how this clarified the scope of the Clean Water Act.

pacificlegal.org

There have been no instances of seasonal puddles being classified as navigable waters. More fact, less dramatic exaggeration, please.

The FCC and the FAA and all the other federal agencies do not make law, amend laws, or modify laws.

The FCC and the FAA will not be coming to take your drones.

 

[anotherlab]

No, let's first start with a list of all consumer electronics which are registered in a government database. Confiscation is much less effective without registration.

Next, let's go to the list of all consumer electronics which are banned.

If that's not a recipe for confiscation (registered and banned), even Stevie Wonder can see that coming.

Is there a list of banned consumer electronics that have been confiscated?

 

[mavic3usa]

Is there a list of banned consumer electronics that have been confiscated?

registration = confiscation is my point.

The sole and primary purpose of a government (not private) registration database is to facilitate confiscation should the need arise.

What else is the FAA using that database for? They don't share the information with anyone. The only time they use that database is when someone has seized that drone or they suspect someone has committed a crime so they access the database to figure out who you are and where you are so they can come and potentially take your drone. How many cases do we have to continue to see where this happens?

If the government bans DJI drones, the database would be a perfect way to prevent new registration of DJI drones. Isn't that a defacto confiscation when your new drone you somehow acquired after the ban is blocked; you supposed can't fly it without proper registration so it becomes a paperweight.

The FAA database is not used for research or maintenance records or stats or communications/contacting flyer with updates, etc. It's only used for sanctions. You register your drone with the government so when it comes time for adverse action, you facilitate it and they already have your details. If you'll notice, even when you remove your drone from your inventory, the entry forever remains in the database. Why?

 

[MotoSavy]

I'm not concerned about the DJI ban. I think it will go away. Specially after over 6000 First Responder and Public Safety Offices, I think via their unions, sent a letter to the Senate stating that about 90% of their drones are DJI and in most cases they don't have to money to purchase expensive American made Enterprise Drones and would have to stop cease operations.

 

[MS Coast]

registration = confiscation is my point.

Bad math and utter nonsense. I registered my bird dogs. They were never confiscated.
I registered my boats, my cars, my airplanes, my drones, and my boats. They were never confiscated.

The sole and primary purpose of a government (not private) registration database is to facilitate confiscation should the need arise.

More nonsense. Collecting fees and taxes are primary purposes. What database has been used to facilitate confiscation of what products?

What else is the FAA using that database for? They don't share the information with anyone.

Of course they don't share it. There are privacy issues.

The only time they use that database is when someone has seized that drone or they suspect someone has committed a crime so they access the database to figure out who you are and where you are so they can come and potentially take your drone. How many cases do we have to continue to see where this happens?

Just one or two cases of the FAA confiscating or seizing a drone would be a good start. Can you point to just one?

If the government bans DJI drones, the database would be a perfect way to prevent new registration of DJI drones. Isn't that a defacto confiscation when your new drone you somehow acquired after the ban is blocked; you supposed can't fly it without proper registration so it becomes a paperweight.

The government is not going to ban drones. Your imagination is running wild.

The FAA database is not used for research or maintenance records or stats or communications/contacting flyer with updates, etc. It's only used for sanctions. You register your drone with the government so when it comes time for adverse action, you facilitate it and they already have your details.

You know this because of your extensive and intimate investigations into the workings of the FAA? Here's a simple refutation of your claims.

https://www.faa.gov/node/54496

If you'll notice, even when you remove your drone from your inventory, the entry forever remains in the database. Why?

Still beating that dead horse? Here's one reason. In the event a drone was used to commit a serious crime, it would be useful to know who owned it while investigating who used it to commit the crime.

What harm does leaving a registration record in the database do? Have you considered how many inactive database records there are for you - automobile registrations, voter registrations, utility account records, product warranty registrations, fishing and hunting licenses, driver's licenses, medical records, internet service accounts, ...

Why do you persist in preaching doom and gloom and attempting to scare people?

 

[mavic3usa]

^You are confusing private databases containing voluntary details vs federal government databases with mandatory registration. Dell.com/register is not a confiscation database (list).

 

[mavic3usa]

Why do you persist in preaching doom and gloom and attempting to scare people?

I'm not scaring anyone. The government is the one scaring everyone with their antics; you don't find that alarming? I'm preaching but the Congress on the way to banning drones is not alarming? All the yt videos, the articles, the posts, the blogs....that's not me causing that. LOL LOL

This is only phase 1 or many phases to come. I'm trying to help people (like you) to wake up before it's too late. This is not going in a positive direction, you see that right? Like others, we all have our fingers crossed and it's like an asteroid heading in your direction and you're hoping the damage is not too severe.

Alarming and scaring would be fictional accounts about agents stopping cars and searching for drones or deputies surrounding a group of FPVs or karen's being told to "say something is you see DJI"....calm down, we are not there....yet.

 

[mavic3usa]

One more thing, this is a shot across the bow. Even if it fails, you have been declared war against. Stephanik is weak, what happens when some person with real power (like the President) decides on this. Are we ready??

 

[Droning on and on...]

For example, "agencies will be compensated" could be a sample statement. If you read that kind of language, it doesn't tell you much and there are many questions left that the law doesn't answer.

Routine. Details like that are often left to the responsible regulatory agency to define. This also occurs through a public process defined in law that requires public input, rules published with a waiting period, and then publication of the final rule.

IOW, you are not subject to the whims of an LEO that can make up a fine or other punishment on the spot. You can know exactly what the law is, and what possible penalties there are well in advance of any activity that would violate the law, should you want to.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Congress mandates, FAA and FCC implement. Lots of the specifics are left to the agencies / regulators to decide. As we saw with Remote ID. Congress didn't get into the weeds about the specifics of Remote ID moduals, etc.

See post #193.

 

[Droning on and on...]

No, let's first start with a list of all consumer electronics which are registered in a government database. Confiscation is much less effective without registration.

GMRS transcievers.

 

[mavic3usa]

Details like that are often left to the responsible regulatory agency to define. This also occurs through a public process defined in law that requires public input, rules published with a waiting period, and then publication of the final rule.

Agreed. That you for confirming with me that you won't see these details in the law and you have to wait for the "regulatory agency" to [mis]define them, game the process by ignoring the public input, and ultimately end up forcing something less than ideal upon you that was neither intended by the law nor approved by the law-makers. The FAA and the FCC will not get this right, for sure.

 

[mavic3usa]

GMRS transcievers.

"The sole and primary purpose of a government (not private) registration database is to facilitate confiscation should the need arise."

Ok, thanks. Are those banned? I don't think so as soon as they are banned, the database can and likely will be used to confiscate should that become necessary.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Agreed. That you for confirming that you won't see these details in the law and you have to wait for the "regulatory agency" to [mis]define them, game the process by ignoring the public input, and ultimately end up forcing something less than ideal upon you that was neither intended by the law nor approved by the law-makers. The FAA and the FCC will not get this righttransceiver.

That is not even close to what I said. Those are your words and thoughts. If you have any character, you'll edit your post and remove, "that you are confirming from your post" from  your post.

What we've come down to here is basically you dont like the law-making process. It has always included the regulatory component.

I'm not going to bother explaining the practicality reason for why Congress doesn’t define every detail of a law, if you don't understand this... as you seem not to.

 

[Droning on and on...]

"The sole and primary purpose of a government (not private) registration database is to facilitate confiscation should the need arise."

Ok, thanks. Are those banned? I don't think so as soon as they are banned, the database can and likely will be used to confiscate should that become necessary.

Not going to participate in your paranoia.

I provided an example of another widely registered consumer electronics item. There are more, but one example is all that was needed.

 

[mavic3usa]

That is not even close to what I said. Those are your words and thoughts. If you have any character, you'll edit your post and remove, "that you are confirming from your post" from  your post.

What we've come down to here is basically you dont like the law-making process. It has always included the regulatory component.

I'm not going to bother explaining the practicality reason for why Congress doesn’t define every detail of a law, if you don't understand this... as you seem not to.

I;m agreeing with you and thus, you are agreeing with me. Nothing wrong with that.

I'll adjust me post to reflect that.