Hobbyist Drone use killed?

[kensteele]

like i posted before, there was and still is the supreme court ruling on this matter.
despite of how much FAA presses on the opinion that anything related to air is not a subject of private property ownership, i personally side with the supreme court on this. there is a specific ruling stating the specific altitude above your property as a boundary. anything - everything - no exclusions - what is inside of it is your property. no FAA and no feds have any ******* business stating otherwise or expanding their grasp inside of it.

and, yes, there always be other entities to confront that - from home owner associations to the FAA, to claim their divine right to own your ****.

paul, we're going to need to know the scotus case you are referring to. personally, i can't agree that property rights extended to the airspace above your home but i do agree you should be able to use it to a certain height without getting faa approval (maybe 15-50 feet?) but beyond that, it's gotta be public (regulated by faa) imo.

 

[paulatkin73]

If you mean United States vs. Causby (1946) then you need to re-read the ruling. The court reject the Causby's ad coelum ownership claim. What it upheld was not his right to fly, but his right to control the space above his property to a reasonable height for structures, trees etc., and that he was entitled to relief from public overflights at low altitude that unnecessarily scared his chickens.

So you insinuate that a right to touch the air with your skin does not presume the right to breathe it into your lungs. I disagree. Ruling states as is - owner has rights and control over the content of the airspace above the land you own. No federal planes are allowed in it. No one and nothing is allowed in it, because you own it. And if you own it - you decide what to have in it. Control - ownership - enforcement of the private property boundaries. No FAA, no supreme leader, nobody has any business interfering with what you do on and over the land you own.
As of 'situations have changed' - nothing changed except of the level of the federal intrusion into private lives of citizens and continuous deterioration of private freedoms and rights, in the name of same 'greater goods'.

 

[paulatkin73]

paul, we're going to need to know the scotus case you are referring to. personally, i can't agree that property rights extended to the airspace above your home but i do agree you should be able to use it to a certain height without getting faa approval (maybe 15-50 feet?) but beyond that, it's gotta be public (regulated by faa) imo.

Read it up. There are plenty of commentaries and discussions on that matter. It goes way beyond drones, it goes back to core ownership and property trespassing concepts.
What a lot of folks say next is the unfortunate reality today - it is almost imprinted into our brains now by the government - that if you do own your property it does not mean you have any rights to use it. They really want it to be so, to get an authority to 'license' you on what you may be allowed to do with your property on your own land. It is where we do part, as i do not accept that, that's all.

 

[paulatkin73]

And you got to be extremely naive to think that this unlawful intrusion of your property rights by FAA is random and not sponsored by likes of amazon, google and other corporations that presume themselves above any law and cannot wait to fly their devices around your houses and crash into your property without any implications to them.

 

[kensteele]

Read it up. There are plenty of commentaries and discussions on that matter. It goes way beyond drones, it goes back to core ownership and property trespassing concepts.
What a lot of folks say next is the unfortunate reality today - it is almost imprinted into our brains now by the government - that if you do own your property it does not mean you have any rights to use it. They really want it to be so, to get an authority to 'license' you on what you may be allowed to do with your property on your own land. It is where we do part, as i do not accept that, that's all.

i will read up on it. but i don't think i'll discover exactly what you are talking about. i find it really really hard to believe you like is taxachusetts. how's that working out for you? no wonder you are angry at the government. come live where i live where you can be free to focus on keeping the government in check make sure they stay in their lane rather than fighting back or pushing back against a government who's already taken away most of your rights. you don't own the air above your property indefinitely, that's ridiculous. you might have a case for someone low flying that is interfering with your property rights or doing some sort of active surveillance but passing over is hardly trespassing. if it is, we're all in trouble.

 

[paulatkin73]

i will read up on it. but i don't think i'll discover exactly what you are talking about. i find it really really hard to believe you like is taxachusetts. how's that working out for you? no wonder you are angry at the government. come live where i live where you can be free to focus on keeping the government in check make sure they stay in their lane rather than fighting back or pushing back against a government who's already taken away most of your rights. you don't own the air above your property indefinitely, that's ridiculous. you might have a case for someone low flying that is interfering with your property rights or doing some sort of active surveillance but passing over is hardly trespassing. if it is, we're all in trouble.

You start mixing federal and state issues. Also, where i do live and why is my business alone.

To stay on topic, if you will read it up - the limit was set, in rural areas, for 360ft from the top of the tallest structure on the privately owned land. In non rural areas - 500ft, but it refers to a different case, less definitive than a first one.

 

[Thomas B]

Gentlemen, please make more effort discussing the issue without personal comments. Thanks.

 

[kensteele]

You start mixing federal and state issues. Also, where i do live and why is my business alone.

To stay on topic, if you will read it up - the limit was set, in rural areas, for 360ft from the top of the tallest structure on the privately owned land. In non rural areas - 500ft, but it refers to a different case, less definitive than a first one.

ok, i'll look at scotus. never heard of this sort of ruling with definitive numbers like that. if we can't get our drones up past 400 feet, this is going to really become problematic. i still have to go back to state and local because unfortunately, that's where we live and we can avoid the other half. locally, if people think like you do and believe they own the air....

 

[AMann]

You start mixing federal and state issues. Also, where i do live and why is my business alone.

To stay on topic, if you will read it up - the limit was set, in rural areas, for 360ft from the top of the tallest structure on the privately owned land. In non rural areas - 500ft, but it refers to a different case, less definitive than a first one.

I think you’re talking about this 1946 case where planes were flying less than 100 feet over this guys property and were scaring his chickens:

United States v. Causby - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Sorry, I may have caused a lightbulb moment for some in pointing this one out

 

[kensteele]

or this: U.S. v. Causby: How a 1940s Chicken Farmer Case Will Impact Drone Usage in the 21st Century

 

[sar104]

So you insinuate that a right to touch the air with your skin does not presume the right to breathe it into your lungs. I disagree. Ruling states as is - owner has rights and control over the content of the airspace above the land you own. No federal planes are allowed in it. No one and nothing is allowed in it, because you own it. And if you own it - you decide what to have in it. Control - ownership - enforcement of the private property boundaries. No FAA, no supreme leader, nobody has any business interfering with what you do on and over the land you own.
As of 'situations have changed' - nothing changed except of the level of the federal intrusion into private lives of citizens and continuous deterioration of private freedoms and rights, in the name of same 'greater goods'.

That's way too bizarre - I'm not even going to attempt to answer.

 

[sgrinavi]

Gentlemen, please make more effort discussing the issue without personal comments. Thanks.

It would be nice if one of you admins went through this thread and deleted all the personal attacks against me......

 

[badaxed]

Dunning–Kruger strikes again. It's an epidemic...

The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don’t know you’re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club.