Dangerous legislation in Missouri

[Daytona500]

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

The FAA has control of the air space not the towns , cities or anyone else . They can't stop you from flying over anything except , jails and certain infrastructure How many times has this been said they can't enforce a law like that.period .

 

[DoomMeister]

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.

That is true for launch, landing, and operating, but this bill is also trying to say flying within 400’ AGL over a property is an offense also. Overflight is not an offense under FAA rules and this legislation is overstepping federal regulations.

This definitely needs to be fought against. @Vic Moss what thoughts do you have on this and what would be the best way to put the brakes on this terrible piece of legislation.

I am truly fed up with ignorant state and local lawmakers trying to overstep their boundaries and regulate airspace. That is the job of the FAA!

@GFields i just quoted your post as I agree with you when it comes to flying from private property. Every time I read one of these posts where lawmakers outside the federal government start trying to make laws concerning airspace my blood starts to boil. They might find their time better spent finding ways to upgrade our infrastructure, fighting urban blight, and bringing manufacturing back into the USA instead.

 

[GregS]

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.

The only part that would concern me is this line:
"or within a vertical distance of 400 feet from the ground within a private property line, without permission from the property owner".
It "appears" that since we cannot fly higher than 400' AGL, that is in violation of FAA laws, which means one cannot fly over a private residence; period.
Am I reading this wrong?

 

[Walleye Hunter]

The only part that would concern me is this line:
"or within a vertical distance of 400 feet from the ground within a private property line, without permission from the property owner".
It "appears" that since we cannot fly higher than 400' AGL, that is in violation of FAA laws, which means one cannot fly over a private residence; period.
Am I reading this wrong?

That's my interpretation as well but then there is this...

"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."

And I think that a TRUST certification should qualify as a federal certification.

 

[GregS]

I certainly agree with DM. It is in violation of the law; however, for example, I went to Gulf Shores, AL to fly and was told no drones allowed..period! Of course I could sue and win, but what about time, costs, and the fact that I am a snowbird and they probably would set my court date in July so I would have to come back down here from Illinois....in other words, they gotcha!
More...I was on the beach there along with the Rescue Squad and Sheriff's Deputies who were trying to find a guy who had been on a surfboard pretty far out and had 'disappeared'. I told the Deputy that I can get my drone and look for him. I was given the evil eye and told, "No drones allowed here".

 

[orionshooter]

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?

Yes it does and thank you for bringing critical thinking to this conversation. The proposed ban requires the pilot to choose between a class A misdemeanor for flying under 400 feet or an FAA sanction for flying over 400 feet.

 

[Ridgeback65]

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?

Great question!!

 

[Spartan Drones]

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

GFields is exactly correct.

 

[Walleye Hunter]

I certainly agree with DM. It is in violation of the law; however, for example, I went to Gulf Shores, AL to fly and was told no drones allowed..period! Of course I could sue and win, but what about time, costs, and the fact that I am a snowbird and they probably would set my court date in July so I would have to come back down here from Illinois....in other words, they gotcha!
More...I was on the beach there along with the Rescue Squad and Sheriff's Deputies who were trying to find a guy who had been on a surfboard pretty far out and had 'disappeared'. I told the Deputy that I can get my drone and look for him. I was given the evil eye and told, "No drones allowed here".

Is that shore a federal park? If so, that could be a reason, otherwise, I suspect that you were being misinformed. They don't care, they suffer no repercussions for doing so.

 

[orionshooter]

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

Not really. This proposed legislation does not raise a constitutional rights issue in which case you would be right.

Instead, this proposal raises subject matter jurisdiction. In the case of aviation, this subject matter has been explicitly reserved to the federal government. So absolute is this allocation that state entities are prohibited from passing laws even if they are identical in every respect to federal law.

This proposal sounds like “hey look at me” grandstanding for votes.

 

[MS Coast]

Is that shore a federal park? If so, that could be a reason, otherwise, I suspect that you were being misinformed. They don't care, they suffer no repercussions for doing so.

There is no federal park, forest, or wildlife management area in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The police officer was not misleading @GregS. The city has an ordinance that prohibits flying drones on all city property, rights of way, specified venues, and all Gulf beaches. The prohibition against operating in the national airspace above those areas may not be valid in light of FAA control. But it is part of the city ordinance.

Municode Library

MunicodeNEXT, the industry's leading search application with over 3,300 codes and growing!

library.municode.com

 

[DanJ]

Huffing and puffing from state legislaters.
The FAA has absolute control of airspace.

 

[KB9Radio]

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.

It's not the take off or landing that's the issue, it's that you can't fly over at less than 400'. Since we can't go over 400' that basically means you (hobbiest) can't fly/pass over private property. If I read it correctly, they definitely wrote it to exempt everyone except folks flying for fun.

 

[MS Coast]

Huffing and puffing from state legislaters.
The FAA has absolute control of airspace.

Yes. BUT!

The problem is that the FAA isn't going to be there when the local police officer confronts you for flying in violation of the city ordinance. See post #25. Until those ordinances are tested in court, they stand and the police are obligated to enforce them.

 

[Walleye Hunter]

Yes. BUT!

The problem is that the FAA isn't going to be there when the local police officer confronts you for flying in violation of the city ordinance. See post #25. Until those ordinances are tested in court, they stand and the police are obligated to enforce them.

Yep, just like everything else. We still have to fight for our rights. They get to violate them with our tax dollars with impunity.

 

[JimSteadman]

WE all KNOW that the FAA has jurisdiction once a drone leaves the ground. But state legislators THINK that they have the power to regulate our airspace. Sometimes lawmakers propose legislation only so they can go back home and use their sponsorship of the legislation for political purposes. Perhaps that is part of what is driving this action. There seems to be a determination on the part of some legislative bodies from town and city councils to state lawmakers to 'protect' their constituents from a perceived threat of drones 'spying' on them. We are getting news reports daily of the effectiveness of drones in the Ukraine War where they have been effective for surveillance and delivery of deadly force. That has heightened public alarm. We need to get ready for more of this foolishness.

 

[spsphotos]

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

Doesn't say that. Could get you in trouble if you toss your drone on someone's lawn and take off, but nothing in there about flying over property.

 

[spsphotos]

It's a stupid law anyway. Trespass already covers this. Just another redundant law.

 

[Ranger]

Doesn't say that. Could get you in trouble if you toss your drone on someone's lawn and take off, but nothing in there about flying over property.

“, 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.”

I realize that this proposal isn’t legal.

 

[Zbip57]

deleted