Dangerous legislation in Missouri

[SteveJonesMO]

Hello:
I just learned that Missouri House bill HB 178 was passed out of committee on Feb 28 by a vote of 8-0, and is now headed to the House floor. Here is the link:https://www.house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB178&year=2023&code=R

And here is the summary:

HB 178 -- UNLAWFUL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SPONSOR: Van Schoiack
A person commits the offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft if they launch, land, or operate an unmanned aircraft on private property, or within a vertical distance of 400 feet from the ground within a private property line, without permission from the property owner. Unmanned aircraft operated by officials associated with public and private utilities and electric cooperatives; federally certified pilots; law enforcement or public safety departments; fire department or fire protection district; the Federal Railroad Administration; realtors and land surveyors; and insurance companies are exempt from the provisions of the bill. The offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm new to the drone community, and this is the first forum I've joined. So those of you more familiar with the landscape, please help get the word out on this disastrous piece of legislation.

 

[GFields]

Hello:
I just learned that Missouri House bill HB 178 was passed out of committee on Feb 28 by a vote of 8-0, and is now headed to the House floor. Here is the link:https://www.house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB178&year=2023&code=R

And here is the summary:

HB 178 -- UNLAWFUL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SPONSOR: Van Schoiack
A person commits the offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft if they launch, land, or operate an unmanned aircraft on private property, or within a vertical distance of 400 feet from the ground within a private property line, without permission from the property owner. Unmanned aircraft operated by officials associated with public and private utilities and electric cooperatives; federally certified pilots; law enforcement or public safety departments; fire department or fire protection district; the Federal Railroad Administration; realtors and land surveyors; and insurance companies are exempt from the provisions of the bill. The offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm new to the drone community, and this is the first forum I've joined. So those of you more familiar with the landscape, please help get the word out on this disastrous piece of legislation.

Greetings from Birmingham Alabama USA, welcome to the forum! We look forward to hearing from you!
Drop by the pilot’s check-in to introduce yourself.

I don't see anything "Dangerous" about it. In fact, if you're planning on taking off or landing on "private property" you should get permission with or without legislation. I'm sure it is because of blatant disrespect for personal property this legislation was introduced. Furthermore, anyone can be asked to leave private property and if they refuse they can be charged with transpassing.

 

[DesertWindAero]

Hello:
I just learned that Missouri House bill HB 178 was passed out of committee on Feb 28 by a vote of 8-0, and is now headed to the House floor. Here is the link:https://www.house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB178&year=2023&code=R

And here is the summary:

HB 178 -- UNLAWFUL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SPONSOR: Van Schoiack
A person commits the offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft if they launch, land, or operate an unmanned aircraft on private property, or within a vertical distance of 400 feet from the ground within a private property line, without permission from the property owner. Unmanned aircraft operated by officials associated with public and private utilities and electric cooperatives; federally certified pilots; law enforcement or public safety departments; fire department or fire protection district; the Federal Railroad Administration; realtors and land surveyors; and insurance companies are exempt from the provisions of the bill. The offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm new to the drone community, and this is the first forum I've joined. So those of you more familiar with the landscape, please help get the word out on this disastrous piece of legislation.

Hi Steve, sounds like you just need to get Part 107 certified and you won't have to be concerned about this if it passes.

Michael

 

[lookout]

Greetings from Birmingham Alabama USA, welcome to the forum! We look forward to hearing from you!
Drop by the pilot’s check-in to introduce yourself.

I don't see anything "Dangerous" about it. In fact, if you're planning on taking off or landing on "private property" you should get permission with or without legislation. I'm sure it is because of blatant disrespect for personal property this legislation was introduced. Furthermore, anyone can be asked to leave private property and if they refuse they can be charged with transpassing.

Maybe he's wondering about aviation or flying over from another point. But 400 vertically over a property, and being limited to a ceiling of 400 feet is trying our patience? Everyone in the good ole buddy system is exempt from the rule, but you little guys are gonna get it. It's the way the government writes most legislation. It's not an issue of whether the government is allowed to do something and the rest of us aren't.

 

[GFields]

Maybe he's wondering about aviation or flying over from another point. But 400 vertically over a property, and being limited to a ceiling of 400 feet is trying our patience? Everyone in the good ole buddy system is exempt from the rule, but you little guys are gonna get it. It's the way the government writes most legislation. It's not an issue of whether the government is allowed to do something and the rest of us aren't.

I hear ya on the "exemption clause". However, a 400' ceiling is what the current FAA rules are anyway.

 

[lookout]

I hear ya on the "exemption clause". However, a 400' ceiling is what the current FAA rules are anyway.

It sounds like they are restricting from ground all the way to the ceiling. So no flying over it or on it in any way, whether you started from it or somewhere else is what it reads to me at least. Like you can't leave your own property and go anywhere else.

 

[Chip]

A person commits the offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft if they launch, land, or operate an unmanned aircraft on private property, or within a vertical distance of 400 feet from the ground within a private property line, without permission from the property owner.

Does this law not ban overflight of private property at less than 400 feet?

 

[GFields]

It sounds like they are restricting from ground all the way to the ceiling. So no flying over it or on it in any way, whether you started from it or somewhere else is what it reads to me at least. Like you can't leave your own property and go anywhere else.

Technically, the only control they can have is the take-off and landing points. Once airborne the FAA has jurisdiction.

 

[Chip]

It sounds like they are restricting from ground all the way to the ceiling. So no flying over it or on it in any way, whether you started from it or somewhere else is what it reads to me at least. Like you can't leave your own property and go anywhere else.

Yes, I read it the same way. Missouri has crossed the legislative Rubicon and outlawed aerial trespass by drone without property owner consent.

 

[GFields]

A person commits the offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft if they launch, land, or operate an unmanned aircraft on private property, or within a vertical distance of 400 feet from the ground within a private property line, without permission from the property owner.

Does this law not ban overflight of private property at less than 400 feet?

The way it reads yes. But I think if challenged, they would lose in court as the FAA has jurisdiction once airborne. Perhaps @Vic Moss can chime in.

 

[Ranger]

Greetings from Birmingham Alabama USA, welcome to the forum! We look forward to hearing from you!
Drop by the pilot’s check-in to introduce yourself.

I don't see anything "Dangerous" about it. In fact, if you're planning on taking off or landing on "private property" you should get permission with or without legislation. I'm sure it is because of blatant disrespect for personal property this legislation was introduced. Furthermore, anyone can be asked to leave private property and if they refuse they can be charged with transpassing.

I think this bill would prohibit flying over private property w/o permission, not just launch and land.

 

[lookout]

It passed out of committee with 8-0, now onto the floor.

I have to wonder what the real beef is here that the legislators are so imperitative about making this all pass in as many ways as possible.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Unmanned aircraft operated by; . . . . . .. . . federally certified pilots; are exempt from the provisions of the bill.

I'm certainly no lawyer but the words here are the ones that need clarification. It seems obvious to me that those of us who are certified 107 holders meet the criteria of being "federally certified" since we hold a "certificate" issued by the FAA - a federal agency.

But if that is true, then it begs the question - Does not having a TRUST "Certificate" issued by that same federal agency mean that recreational flyers hold a federal certification (of a different type no doubt) but none the less still, are federally certified?

 

[Walleye Hunter]

I'm certainly no lawyer but the words here are the ones that need clarification. It seems obvious to me that those of us who are certified 107 holders meet the criteria of being "federally certified" since we hold a "certificate" issued by the FAA - a federal agency.

But if that is true, then it begs the question - Does not having a TRUST "Certificate" issued by that same federal agency mean that recreational flyers hold a federal certification (of a different type no doubt) but none the less still, are federally certified?

This is what I am thinking as well.

 

[lookout]

I'm certainly no lawyer but the words here are the ones that need clarification. It seems obvious to me that those of us who are certified 107 holders meet the criteria of being "federally certified" since we hold a "certificate" issued by the FAA - a federal agency.

But if that is true, then it begs the question - Does not having a TRUST "Certificate" issued by that same federal agency mean that recreational flyers hold a federal certification (of a different type no doubt) but none the less still, are federally certified?

In either case, this legislation is another waste of time.

 

[SmilingOgre]

It reads to me no flying over private property without permission at least as a recreational flyer. If this can gain traction it will set a precedence that many will want to jump in on. Challenges are something else of course. And then it could be just grand standing and worthless babble.

 

[Walleye Hunter]

Manned aircraft are required to maintain 1000' of distance from any person or structure. I am surprised that there is no defined distance for drones.

 

[Bob in Savannah]

It reads to me no flying over private property without permission at least as a recreational flyer. If this can gain traction it will set a precedence that many will want to jump in on. Challenges are something else of course. And then it could be just grand standing and worthless babble.

Bottom line is Federal laws trump State laws. Period.

"The US Supremacy Clause prohibits states from passing laws that are more restrictive than federal law. This means that if a state law is more restrictive than federal law, then that state law is invalid. "

Supremacy Clause - State vs. Federal - Who Rules?

The supremacy clause can be applied to debt. State and federal, learn how to apply it.

carreonandassociates.com

 

[Walleye Hunter]

Bottom line is Federal laws trump State laws. Period.

"The US Supremacy Clause prohibits states from passing laws that are more restrictive than federal law. This means that if a state law is more restrictive than federal law, then that state law is invalid. "

Supremacy Clause - State vs. Federal - Who Rules?

The supremacy clause can be applied to debt. State and federal, learn how to apply it.

carreonandassociates.com

I agree but the problem is that they can afford to lose lawsuits (with our money) and we can't afford to win them.

 

[MS Coast]

Yes, I read it the same way. Missouri has crossed the legislative Rubicon and outlawed aerial trespass by drone without property owner consent.

No, the bill was just passed out of committee. It's not law yet.

If the state considers the well established fact that the FAA has sole jurisdiction over the national airspace, it will never go any further.

I was amused to see that realtors are specifically exempted. (Another reflection of the ignorance of the folks who prepared the bill.) That shouldn't be necessary since any realtor legally flying for business purposes would have a Part 107 license, which is already addressed as a "federally licensed pilot."