Get more from your Mavic
The largest Mavic community in the world
Join Us Now

I Can't believe this has been law for 10 years

Swanee

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
21
Reactions
3
Age
53
Here is the actual law as written in my city... there are no typos or words omitted. Read sentence number one carefully and tell me if you see a problem. I do. (Raymore, Missouri, USA).


SECTION 250.060: - MODEL AIRPLANES AND REMOTE CONTROL VEHICLES
It shall be unlawful for any model airplane or remote control vehicle in public parks, playing areas, public facilities or on other public properties. Model airplanes and remote control vehicles are permitted to be used in areas specifically designed for such recreational purpose and posted that such activity is permitted.

(Ord. No. 28066 §1, 7-28-08)
 

macoman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
889
Reactions
805
Age
45
This law is directly talking about regular RC airplanes not specified to drones and this law is very outdated because regular electric or gas RC airplanes needs their own area to take off. Just like a real airplane, they need a lot of space, a pavimented area. Unlike drones that can take off anywhere and in any type of environment. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Classic flyer

Lake_Flyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
1,137
Reactions
613
Age
64
Yeah, parks are nice to fly in terms of open space. But then there's the people, children, dogs etc.
And of course regulations......
 

Lake_Flyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
1,137
Reactions
613
Age
64
Unlike drones that can take off anywhere and in any type of environment
....not to mention they never fall out of the sky, they always return to home, never fly away, always avoid every obstacle and are basically flying itself :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: macoman

macoman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
889
Reactions
805
Age
45
Yeah, just like frisbees, baseballs, footballs and golf balls. Lighten up.
What he means is compared to regular gas or electric RC airplanes... He is right, drones are more automatic aircrafts with better functionality.
 

Mavflyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
433
Reactions
268
What am I missing here? It basically says nothing radio controlled? I have seen things like this posted at parks before. What is so significant about this particular one? I've read it probably 10 times and nothing sticks out to me.
 

tcope

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
2,504
Reactions
1,735
Age
54
Location
Sandy, UT
The only issue I can see is it's broad term, "public properties". But is also worded very poorly in that it those devices can't even be in those areas? I suspect that it could only apply to those devices that were on the ground (otherwise you could not buy an RC vehicle and drive home with it. If correct, it would not apply at all to a drone in the air.

Yes, the law is very old. But even then people need to understand that someone with a 6th grade education can write a law. They don't need to know anything about laws or the legal system.
 

The Fat Controller

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
358
Reactions
443
Age
61
Location
Bangor, Northern Ireland
I can see the problem with the first sentence, it's complete b0llocks. Try reading it aloud. It uses English words but that's as far as it goes, it doesn't even make sense. if you substitute 'to use' instead of 'for' then at least it would read OK.
 

Swanee

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
21
Reactions
3
Age
53
I can see the problem with the first sentence, it's complete b0llocks. Try reading it aloud. It uses English words but that's as far as it goes, it doesn't even make sense. if you substitute 'to use' instead of 'for' then at least it would read OK.
Bingo! Paul, you are the first to read this carefully as I suggested in first post.
It doesn't describe the prohibited activity. It could be "to possess" or to "discuss" or <insert any verb here>. We can all make assumptions about what the law means. They probably meant "to operate", but they didn't say that. I think the law as written is too vague to be enforceable.
 
Last edited:

tcope

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
2,504
Reactions
1,735
Age
54
Location
Sandy, UT
. I think the law as written is to vague to be enforceable.

Welcome to a majority of laws written, especially those written at local levels. You don't even need to be able to write in order to be put in the position of being able to write a law.

IMHO a judge is still very likely to rule against a person who is charged with this as I think the intent is clear.
 

Swanee

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
21
Reactions
3
Age
53
Welcome to a majority of laws written, especially those written at local levels. You don't even need to be able to write in order to be put in the position of being able to write a law.

IMHO a judge is still very likely to rule against a person who is charged with this as I think the intent is clear.
Here is a not so far fetched hypothetical situation... Suppose I live adjacent to a municipal park with wide open spaces and very few people. What if I take off from my back yard and fly over the park at 400 ft. AGL, take some nice pictures, then return and land in my back yard. Assume I flew in accordance with FAA regulations and AMA recommendations. Cop spots this and follows to my house. Can I be ticketed? Will I prevail in court?
 

tcope

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
2,504
Reactions
1,735
Age
54
Location
Sandy, UT
Here is a not so far fetched hypothetical situation... Suppose I live adjacent to a municipal park with wide open spaces and very few people. What if I take off from my back yard and fly over the park at 400 ft. AGL, take some nice pictures, then return and land in my back yard. Assume I flew in accordance with FAA regulations and AMA recommendations. Cop spots this and follows to my house. Can I be ticketed? Will I prevail in court?

You should... that does not guarantee that you will.

Ben Stein once mentioned that many times judges ignore the law and rule based on their personal beliefs. Look at the judge in KY who ruled that it was okay to shoot a drone down because he thought it was invading his privacy.

The main problem I have with these types of laws is that they are made so that the police can simply bully a person. For example, there is law in NY that states you cannot fly over public property and take photos. 100% against the 1st Amendment. The problem.... the police are going to tell someone that they need to stop flying or they are going to get a $500 ticket. Most people are going to stop flying because it _is_ a law and because they don't want to get a $500 ticket. If someone were to go to court the prosecuting attorney would most likely get a plea agreement or even just drop the charges... because they don't want a judge to rule against the law and make case law negating it. The police can then continue to bully people with the law.

An example of Stein's statement:

WHOA: Ben Stein Breaks Silence on Judges Against Travel Ban... "Dictators in Black Robes..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: DroningOn

Mavflyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
433
Reactions
268
Bingo! Paul, you are the first to read this carefully as I suggested in first post.
It doesn't describe the prohibited activity. It could be "to possess" or to "discuss" or <insert any verb here>. We can all make assumptions about what the law means. They probably meant "to operate", but they didn't say that. I think the law as written is too vague to be enforceable.
Seriously? I dont think a typo will absolve you in this situation. It's pretty clear what it means.
 

Swanee

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
21
Reactions
3
Age
53
Seriously? I dont think a typo will absolve you in this situation. It's pretty clear what it means.

I think it's way more than a typo. Use of "dont" is a typo. Overly broad terms like "playing areas" is not.

This law was poorly written in 2008 and completely obsolete in 2018. I may be flying over City Hall soon...
 

Mavflyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
433
Reactions
268
I think it's way more than a typo. Use of "dont" is a typo. Overly broad terms like "playing areas" is not.

This law was poorly written in 2008 and completely obsolete in 2018. I may be flying over City Hall soon...
How is it obsolete? People still fly model airplanes and RC vehicles. They didn't want people flying over kids and public property back then, and probably still don't. I wouldn't really consider that overly broad or obsolete. Be careful what you wish for. A new "updated" law may be drafted by someone with drone paranoia and you may not like the results.
 

Swanee

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
21
Reactions
3
Age
53
How is it obsolete? People still fly model airplanes and RC vehicles. They didn't want people flying over kids and public property back then, and probably still don't. I wouldn't really consider that overly broad or obsolete. Be careful what you wish for. A new "updated" law may be drafted by someone with drone paranoia and you may not like the results.
Do you always fly your Mavic at a designated model airplane flying field? Bet that gets old.
 

Classic flyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,233
Reactions
702
Age
70
Location
North Central Florida
This law is directly talking about regular RC airplanes not specified to drones and this law is very outdated because regular electric or gas RC airplanes needs their own area to take off. Just like a real airplane, they need a lot of space, a pavimented area. Unlike drones that can take off anywhere and in any type of environment. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong.
I believe you got it spot-on sir
 
  • Like
Reactions: macoman
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 2 Case

DJI Drone Deals

1. Mini SE - $299
2. Mini 2 - $449
3. Air 2 (renewed) - $649
4. Air 2s - $999
5. FPV Combo - $1299
6. Mavic 2 Zoom - $1349
7. Mavic 2 Pro - $1499

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
108,292
Messages
1,282,313
Members
139,096
Latest member
bigjoe