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

[Wreckhunter]

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.

The letter will be ignored in congress,as they hang together.

 

[Torque]

That's ridiculous and 1000% untrue.



You are scaring yourself.
Your paranoia is running on a constant feedback loop, escalating your fears and suppressing logical thought.

We witnessed this same paranoia when RID was implemented and he warned us we would all have to be armed with guns or pepper spray to escape from the Drone Hater's Battalion.

 

[mavic3usa]

Per post #201:

"I registered my boats, my cars, my airplanes, my drones, and my boats. They were never confiscated."

None of those are private or voluntary.


Registration in each of those database is mandatory.

As I mentioned before, there is no federal database for cars. Someone mentioned the state database and yes, in order to drive your vehicle on the street, you register it with the state in which you live. In the event your state government decided to ban all cars from the street, they will use the database to make sure that happens; however, it will be less effective because not every car on the street in that city is contained in a database controlled by that state. The federal drone database covering all drones in the entire country is rooted in confiscation. There is no financial component to it like you find with registering boats, cars, etc. I believe the mandatory federal registration database where you are penalized for operating an unregistered database is not cool. It used to be that way where recreational flyers didn't have to register each and every drone they flew for fun but that has changed.

 

[mavic3usa]

Do you have a source for that assertion?

You're asking me if I have a source regarding the confiscation process should the order be given?

You have to wait for it to happen first.

 

[mavic3usa]

We witnessed this same paranoia when RID was implemented and he warned us we would all have to be armed with guns or pepper spray to escape from the Drone Hater's Battalion.

The RID implementation was a total failure. It doesn't work. The karens tried to use the apps to locate drones and it didn't work. So darren rejected it. So yes I agree with you, there is no need to fight back against a product that doesn't even work and even the zombies refuse to use it. What a relief. For a second there, I thought our drones would be exposed to the public but luckily the process failed miserably and so officially I am calling off the need to push back against RID. But don't retire your equipment just yet. Just be prepared when the FAA comes up with round #2 or second gen RID.

How you carry yourself when flying is a personal decision, I would never warn anyone to do anything in that area. I don't tell other people what to do. In fact, it's the opposite. There were several people begging me not to defend myself, trying to tell me what to do. How ironic.

 

[Fat Pappy]

For context, the use of the word "puddles" was by politicians talking with Fox News. The facts of the regulations and policies do not support that description.

The following sections are pulled directly from the Sackett SCOTUS opinion. Clearly SCOTUS was taking the EPA’s interpretation that included places where rainwater may occasionally flow. They included the word “puddles” in their opinion when they are trying to identify the bounds of the act.

The bottom like, which my original comment covered, is that one cannot simply read the letter of the law to determine how it will be applied by the relevant agencies.

https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/05.25.23-Sackett-v.-EPA-PLF-Opinion.pdf

 

[mavic3usa]

Ok great, I'm glad that is settled. Drones will not be confiscated yet, they're not even banned yet. But at least everyone is now informed about what could happen and what that database might be used for and should we continue to ignore this and pretend like nothing real is happening at our own peril. As mentioned by others, there's a [secret] reason why they are doing this.

 

[mavic3usa]

The bottom like, which my original comment covered, is that one cannot simply read the letter of the law to determine how it will be applied by the relevant agencies.

100% agreed.

 

[Meta4]

But at least everyone is now informed about what could happen and what that database might be used for and should we continue to ignore this and pretend like nothing real is happening at our own peril. As mentioned by others, there's a [secret] reason why they are doing this.

Where's the IGNORE feature when it's needed?

 

[barrybcar]

Where's the IGNORE feature when it's needed?

On my device, it’s at the top of the thread, by the title.

 

[MS Coast]

The following sections are pulled directly from the Sackett SCOTUS opinion. Clearly SCOTUS was taking the EPA’s interpretation that included places where rainwater may occasionally flow. They included the word “puddles” in their opinion when they are trying to identify the bounds of the act.

The bottom like, which my original comment covered, is that one cannot simply read the letter of the law to determine how it will be applied by the relevant agencies.

View attachment 175816

View attachment 175817

https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/05.25.23-Sackett-v.-EPA-PLF-Opinion.pdf

Yes, a mention of the word puddle, in a rhetorical question.

 

[Zbip57]

Somebody needs to add another few layers to their tinfoil hat.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Or to use a realistic example, pacemakers are registered under the EP Device Implant Registry™ program. It allows researchers to track patient outcomes and provides a way to identify patients if a pacemaker is recalled by the FDA.

Bingo.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The bottom like, which my original comment covered, is that one cannot simply read the letter of the law to determine how it will be applied by the relevant agencies.

True, and always has been. In order to understand the law in place, the Federal Register must be included as well as the U.S. Code.

You and others imply this is somehow nefarious, sneaky, secret, or somehow kept from the public and then sprung on them. Hardly.

Just as the USC prescribes a process for creating and passing legislation into law, so does statute law describe an open, public process for creating regulation.

There's nothing underhanded or sneaky about it. It's ordinary and normal, and has been a part of how our government works from the beginning.

Do agencies over-reach? Are rules sometimes corrupt? Are citizens rights violated?

Who the heck do you think are running these agencies? Computers? No. People. Human beings. The fact that imperfection comes with human decision-makers is no reason to abandon the process. The alternative, anarchy, is worse.

 

[tstr14]

Somebody needs to add another few layers to their tinfoil hat.

 

[Fat Pappy]

True, and always has been. In order to understand the law in place, the Federal Register must be included as well as the U.S. Code.

You and others imply this is somehow nefarious, sneaky, secret, or somehow kept from the public and then sprung on them. Hardly.

Just as the USC prescribes a process for creating and passing legislation into law, so does statute law describe an open, public process for creating regulation.

There's nothing underhanded or sneaky about it. It's ordinary and normal, and has been a part of how our government works from the beginning.

Do agencies over-reach? Are rules sometimes corrupt? Are citizens rights violated?

Who the heck do you think are running these agencies? Computers? No. People. Human beings. The fact that imperfection comes with human decision-makers is no reason to abandon the process. The alternative, anarchy, is worse.

Well, you have to pass the law to find out what is in it- Pelosi…

 

[mavic3usa]

Well, you have to pass the law to find out what is in it- Pelosi…

For those who don't remember, this puts it in context. So much confusion, so much discussion, so many unknowns....the only way to find out what this bill really does....is to pass it!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Daytona500]

You know what they say:
YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID and thats the Government

 

[anotherlab]

Well, you have to pass the law to find out what is in it- Pelosi…

You are changing the story when you take a quote out of context and selectively leave part of it out,

The full sentence was:

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

That was from her comments on the Affordable Care Act:

Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.

We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

In an interview a few years later, Pelosi provided another explanation for that comment:

“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said, “the outside groups ... were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million [jobs]. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on.

“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill, so we can see, so that we can show you, what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.”

 

[MS Coast]

You know what they say:
YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID and thats the Government

There are other forums for anti-government rants. Let's not clutter this one up with this stuff.

I'm enjoying the irony of "CAN"T FIX STUPID" and "thats the Government" with the bad punctuation and capitalization.