Do you think you will still be flying these things in 12 months?

[DroningOn]

I don't think you understand how federal laws are enacted.

Unfortunately these days, very few people do

 

[Formosa Straight]

I will be flying in 12 months time without a doubt. That video kind of brought a fresh perspective to me. The guy who did the course had a really good take on it. He looked at it as part of learning. The simple fact is we share the airspace and it will on get more crowded so what's wrong with nothing how to share it properly and if that means there are restrictions then so be it. It seems that Canada has introduced some pretty severe regulations on the face of it, but once you learn the rules and get the relevant credentials you are right to go, even to the point of only needing 6 meters of clearance to people. We share the roads, we do a test and get a license, no real difference in my humble opinion. So will I be flying in 12 months, yes, absolutely, what form that takes only 12 months will tell, but I will be doing what it takes simply because I want to do the right thing and i enjoy it.

 

[Drone on]

stay on topic please.

op asked if we fly in 12 months or not?

you should ask him why he thinks "or not" is on the table, he's the one who posed the question.

please stay on topic, this has nothing to do with north korea or hypothetical situation. if you want to discuss the likelihood that hobby droning could be eliminated by next year, please start that topic and i'll be happy to weigh in.

the short answer is YES i absolutely can think of a reason why the u..s government could and would declare cease operations on all non-essential drone flights effective xx/xx/20xx grounding all drones. start another thread if you are interested, i don't want to be accused of hijacking.

What are essential drone flights?
Is delivering tacos essential? If drone commerce ramps up as expected, do you see that being shut down?
Would essential be only government police drones?

 

[kensteele]

What are essential drone flights?
Is delivering tacos essential? If drone commerce ramps up as expected, do you see that being shut down?
Would essential be only government police drones?

drone commerce better ramp up soon else things could get shut down before it can begin to take off.

 

[kensteele]

I don't think you understand how federal laws are enacted.

of course i do. that's ridiculous.

 

[Mr. Salty]

of course i do. that's ridiculous.

If you think Congress would have no say, you clearly don't.

 

[kensteele]

If you think Congress would have no say, you clearly don't.

i live in the real world and i've seen a lot of negative impact on honest, law-abiding citizens that didn't come from congress. of course congress has the final say in most laws in this country but they no tongue. instead we will be told what we can do and what we can't do by somebody other than congress.

please tell me how and why my bumpstocks were taken away earlier this year, not by congress.

 

[johnmeyer]

i live in the real world and i've seen a lot of negative impact on honest, law-abiding citizens that didn't come from congress. of course congress has the final say in most laws in this country but they no tongue. instead we will be told what we can do and what we can't do by somebody other than congress.

please tell me how and why my bumpstocks were taken away earlier this year, not by congress.

This is a really good point: most of the "laws" which make headlines these days are actually regulations or executive orders, and not real laws passed by Congress and then signed by the President. In addition, many other "laws" are done by the judiciary branch via court orders or Supreme Court rulings.

The vastly increased number of these rulings and orders is very troubling because we are ending up with "laws" which are not things which the majority voted for.

What this means for this discussion is that most of the interference with our drone pastime, hobby, or livelihood will come from unelected bureaucrats, judges, and federal agencies, and not from Congress (or from your state legislature).

While it is tempting to cheer these "laws" when they happen to align with things you want, we should all oppose them because we give up our ability to control, via elections, what is being done to us.

P.S. The bumpstock "law" just mentioned is a good example. Even if you are for gun control, using an executive order was not the right way to change gun ownership.

As a side note, I don't see why such an order was needed. Machine guns have been illegal for almost 100 years (1934), as are many other weapons of wars (e.g., you can't own a bazooka), so no law should have been required to outlaw a device which lets you create something that was already illegal.

 

[DroningOn]

As a side note, I don't see why such an order was needed. Machine guns have been illegal for almost 100 years (1934), as are many other weapons of wars (e.g., you can't own a bazooka), so no law should have been required to outlaw a device which lets you create something that was already illegal.

Not to get into the weeds about the national firearms act (NFA) of 1934 but it did not outlaw machine guns. Among other things, it assigned the regulatory responsibility for such weapons to the department of treasury and established a tax to be levied when such a weapon was transferred to a new owner. Unless there is an intervening state level law prohibiting it, a private citizen can own a machine gun attested to by the three LEGAL machine guns sitting in my safe right now.
While the present day Bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms (BATF) has some latitude through the regulatory process, the core dictates of the 1934 NFA are clearly defined in the legislation and would require a new law to change (as it was once in 1986). A regulatory agency or executive order cannot do it with a stroke of a pen.

We should never forget what the FIRST words (after the preamble) of the Constitution says:

“ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”

Congress need to do its job and stop letting federal agencies do it for them in the name of political expediency..... and yes, this goes for peoples hobbies like drones

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

I'll switch to RC boats and cars if flying become too much of a PITA. Until then, FLY ME FRIENDLY!

 

[mz-in-cali]

What I find interesting is that various agencies have enacted their own laws:

Watershed Rules and Regulations

Ordinance 284: 9.6 To operate or cause to be operated, any aircraft over any watershed at a height lower than 500’ in height.

(I suppose that means AGL)

In this case, this land is hundreds of acres, is beautiful for aerial photography, and it is rare to fly over people, so there is no danger of "drone striking people". It's a shame that it is illegal to fly over it.

 

[kensteele]

^blatant attempt to prohibit drone use and the way it is written, it likely cannot even be challenged.

if only the faa hadn't branded almost all drones as aircraft; if only they had left some [realistic] space for the hobby. but i guess nobody pushed back when they decided to register and call most drones as unmanned aircraft.

 

[MavicFT1P]

I'll give you 3 likes and a lol if you edit out the Generic Hipster Tool waving generic fine at the link/start of the youtube video

 

[Mr. Salty]

please tell me how and why my bumpstocks were taken away earlier this year, not by congress.

Because the president who signed the order thinks he can rule by fiat, which is why the bump stock ban is being challenged with multiple lawsuits. Just like the FAA's first attempt at governing drones was challenged and quickly overturned, forcing Congress to finally take up the issue.

 

[kensteele]

Because the president who signed the order thinks he can rule by fiat, which is why the bump stock ban is being challenged with multiple lawsuits. Just like the FAA's first attempt at governing drones was challenged and quickly overturned, forcing Congress to finally take up the issue.

yeah, i know why. all presidents think that way. it's legal until it isn't. and it doesn't matter what they think as long as they actually act. and he acted. whether it's against guns or drones. i thought i knew how government "worked" until now and like i said, congress will turn a blind eye. nobody forces congress to act; especially if they are paralyzed which they are. we have at least 6 more years of this. when "fiat" visits your area, i hope we are ready.

my bumpstocks are destroyed, they're gone. not going to matter much about lawsuits and reprieves; restitution and reversals. my rights have been denied with a sham for due process. doesn't matter who stole from me, i'm a victim but i try to learn from my mistakes and it's doubly hard when it's not a right and i actually have community members working against the cause (which is disappointing). believe me, it's triple frustrating when fellow gun owners say we didn't need those pesky bumpstocks anyway (which isn't the point).

not going to give the government total control of my [property] if i can help it. can't let the government have total control of the hobby (partial control for safety reasons is fine). so let's play the laws game but please, let's try to have some foresight and realize what's happening here; can you not see the plan that is being pulled together? it's not so much the federal government and the faa as it is state and local governments. it's unfolding as we speak, it's so obvious.

 

[Meta4]

let's try to have some foresight and realize what's happening here; can you not see the plan that is being pulled together? it's not so much the federal government and the faa as it is state and local governments. it's unfolding as we speak, it's so obvious.

Actually it's not obvious.
What you think you can see unfolding isn't what many (most?) others see.
It might be beneficial to think about why that is.

 

[DroningOn]

.....It might be beneficial to think about why that is.

Some of us think a LOT about that. It’s called the tyranny of the majority. Be it in the macro or the micro (drones?), it’s a huge concern for some of us. It might be beneficial for you to think about that.

 

[Meta4]

Some of us think a LOT about that. It’s called the tyranny of the majority. Be it in the macro or the micro (drones?), it’s a huge concern for some of us. It might be beneficial for you to think about that.

I do.
i think why are there some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, have paranoid views and forsee all kinds of illogical negative things (that never happen) in the future?
The answer is that some people are just like that.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

It's easy to say well, why are they going to all this trouble of the whole raft of changes in all these western countries, rules seem to be getting closer worldwide (ICAO ?), registration of operator / drones, licensing, fees.
Are they doing this to go ahead and ban them in a few years (or as per OP 2020) ?

Two ways you can look at this.

The new rules and registration / licensing are being brought in to enable safe flight in all airspace, and the ability to penalise those that don't comply.
Or . . .
The new rules and registration / licensing are being brought in to enable authorities to tighten up the rules at a whim, whenever they like, to the point of outright banning them.

It could be a combination of these.

Let's enjoy flying while we can, in a safe new World of drone flying and we can start a revolution when they decide to ban them ?

 

[floppydisk]

I don't quite follow. The basic licence costs 10 bucks for 1 try. If you fail - try again the next day, and so on until you pass. It takes 90 minutes or less to complete the test. Yes, the questions are not quite drone-related and more for general aviation, but common, it's an open book test. IMO it's much easier, faster and cheaper than getting a driver's license.