Are stricter drone laws on the way?

[mavic3usa]

I'm glad you brought this up. Absolutely stricter laws are on the way. And in the US, they will come from other places like state and local governments where they can be *properly* enforced. Many of the laws will forgo intent and most of them will be trigger regardless if there are any *victims* or not. The penalties and punishment will be *disproportional* often involving arrest, heavy fines, and confiscation even on the first offense. Depending on the offense, you will probably end up on some sort of offenders list. Also when flying a drone, you will defacto lose many of your Constitutional rights. And finally, as public sentiment continues to grow against drones due to the perceived actions of the few, enforcement will increase in locations across the country such as rural and small towns never before seen. At that point, it's going to take a social media "audit" style drone movement to save whatever is left of the recreational hobby. Those are my predictions. /s /s /s

And here we are. Russ makes some good points but unfortunately the FAA is not going to come to your rescue. They will not stop CT, they will not challenge CT law, and circuit judges will probably allow CT law to stand. You may have to challenge on appeal which makes this even more difficult to fight. In fact, the FAA might even utter such nonsense that under some conditions, "we welcome state and local law enforcement assistance to help us and we've given them the power to....." Because CT certainly believe the FAA is not doing their job and they feel the state has every right to step in when the federal government is weak and absent. States pass their own laws that duplicate federal laws so they can write citations and book people into jail. A city police officer cannot book a drone pilot into the county jail for violating a federal law. But if there is a state statute then it's fair game for thousands of troopers, deputies, officers, marshals, and constables to apply their own interpretation and jam you up. The goal is to offer the prisoner a plea to avoid 364 days in jail if you don't take it to court and pay the fines, lose your drone, and agree not to commit any other crimes, violations, or infractions in the next year which most of us will take.

It's not a stretch to go from "if we can stop you from taking off, we can stop you from flying over the same places where we can stop you from taking off from." Somewhere somehow a lower court judge is probably going to approve that "leap" especially when it comes to reasonable heights over the ground. How many times have we complained it doesn't make sense for the FAA to control the air 1 inch off the ground? It's possible for judge to believe the same. A boundary or border still exists to some extent even if it's off the ground; you're not allowed to enter a building thru the 2nd story window in part because the boundary exists up there, too. That could be the argument.

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

 

[MS Coast]

And here we are. Russ makes some good points but unfortunately the FAA is not going to come to your rescue. They will not stop CT, they will not challenge CT law, and circuit judges will probably allow CT law to stand. You may have to challenge on appeal which makes this even more difficult to fight. In fact, the FAA might even utter such nonsense that under some conditions, "we welcome state and local law enforcement assistance to help us and we've given them the power to....." Because CT certainly believe the FAA is not doing their job and they feel the state has every right to step in when the federal government is weak and absent. States pass their own laws that duplicate federal laws so they can write citations and book people into jail. A city police officer cannot book a drone pilot into the county jail for violating a federal law. But if there is a state statute then it's fair game for thousands of troopers, deputies, officers, marshals, and constables to apply their own interpretation and jam you up. The goal is to offer the prisoner a plea to avoid 364 days in jail if you don't take it to court and pay the fines, lose your drone, and agree not to commit any other crimes, violations, or infractions in the next year which most of us will take.

It's not a stretch to go from "if we can stop you from taking off, we can stop you from flying over the same places where we can stop you from taking off from." Somewhere somehow a lower court judge is probably going to approve that "leap" especially when it comes to reasonable heights over the ground. How many times have we complained it doesn't make sense for the FAA to control the air 1 inch off the ground? It's possible for judge to believe the same. A boundary or border still exists to some extent even if it's off the ground; you're not allowed to enter a building thru the 2nd story window in part because the boundary exists up there, too. That could be the argument.

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

I'm seeing some frequent common themes in these dire legal prognostications.

• "The goal is to offer the prisoner a plea to avoid 364 days in jail if you don't take it to court and pay the fines, lose your drone, ..."
• "thousands of troopers, deputies, officers, marshals, and constables to apply their own interpretation and jam you up."
• "States pass their own laws that duplicate federal laws so they can write citations and book people into jail."

 

[mavic3usa]

I'm seeing some frequent common themes in these dire legal prognostications.

• "The goal is to offer the prisoner a plea to avoid 364 days in jail if you don't take it to court and pay the fines, lose your drone, ..."
• "thousands of troopers, deputies, officers, marshals, and constables to apply their own interpretation and jam you up."
• "States pass their own laws that duplicate federal laws so they can write citations and book people into jail."

It's the common theme you'll find throughout the various government laws that focus not on safety but on control and punishment. There is absolutely no need to have arrest and jail time attached to any ordinary (non-egregious) drone violation especially when there is no one killed or injured and there is often no damage to property. It can definitely be handled like a traffic violation or a civil matter but if they do that, how are they going to control the drone flyers they don't catch? If 1% of the violations are criminals and 99% of the violations are honest, innocent flyers then you can easily keep this under control by going after the 1% (which is easy because there basically aren't any criminals) and also providing jail time and arrest (words on the paper) to keep the 99% flyers in line who are most likely to make a mistake (those of us who obey the law when no one is looking). Implement it this way and your laws will hit home and do their "job" unlike traffic violations (which rely on fines and points) that are frequently violated (by everyone). For example, we can stop speeders immediately, just arrest and jail everyone going over the speed limit but that doesn't work because among other things, the population will push back unlike the drone community (which cannot push back).

I watched closely as state and local officials had to deal with the recent drone activity in NJ. Yes, it was a chorus from government. "We need more control and we need the ability to enforce laws" (which is code for arrest people who need arresting). This unexpectedly came from virtually every non-federal law enforcement agency on the east coast along when it should have only come from the legislators because after all, why would the police want to investigate drone flyers? They're not clamoring to crack down on the 1% criminals who misuse their drone but instead, the excessive laws are used to create a ton of conditions that will facilitate law enforcement. "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." It's gonna be strange when NJ has zero drone violations last year and then 2,000 the next year.

The common theme you sense from me is prevalent among many of us who love liberty and the Constitution and believe the people tell our government what to do, not the other way around (bet you can agree with me on that point now). Read about some of it here: Americans 'whacked' by too many laws, regulations, says Justice Gorsuch's book or here: The Dispatch: Too Many Laws—and Too Little Judging

 

[chadCO]

If the mentally deficient don't see you take off or land they have a big problem trying to find you. Simply plan your flights to avoid the area's that the mentally ill frequent.

 

[tstr14]

If the mentally deficient don't see you take off or land they have a big problem trying to find you. Simply plan your flights to avoid the area's that the mentally ill frequent.

That's hard to do 'cuz you know, they look just like us!

 

[chadCO]

I've been flying drones for over 30 years (Yes, 30 years) and have never had a problem with a person interfering or being a nuisance. However in all that time I've only flown around the "public" once and that was only after very careful reconnaissance and checking with the authority present on site. (Ranger). That site was Crystal Mill in Marble CO. The thousands of other flights have all been minus people. In Colorado, I would drive into the mountains far from anywhere and fly. Now in Florida, I just drive into the boonies away from the beaten path, no people, no problem.