Louisiana Gov. Landry signs new drone defense law; first in nation

[tstr14]

Exactly.

Who would challenge the law, on what legal grounds, and why would they do that? Who would get up and argue the federal government has the sole legal authority to disable a drone believed to be a threat by state and local law enforcement?

Any one whose drone was shot at/down?

 

[Chip]

Any one whose drone was shot at/down?

Okay. Such a person might have sufficient actual damage to have standing. So then let us say a $4000 drone was disabled by a state law enforcement officer for an allegedly illegal or reckless flight. Who has the time or resources to sue the state of Louisiana in federal court for allegedly violating the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution over a $4,000 drone? It would be a staggering undertaking and think of what you have to prove to win.

 

[tstr14]

Okay. Such a person might have sufficient actual damage to have standing. So then let us say a $4000 drone was disabled by a state law enforcement officer for an allegedly illegal or reckless flight. Who has the time or resources to sue the state of Louisiana in federal court for allegedly violating the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution over a $4,000 drone? It would be a staggering undertaking and think of what you have to prove to win.

Well if you want to talk about hypothetical cases, what about a 5 year old child permanently blinded when the wreckage of shot up, out of control strikes him? Or a damaged drone that starts a wildfire that burns several hundred acres and a dozen homes? Or the wreckage of a drone that strikes the windshield of a car, causing an accident that claims 3 people?

More likely, how about a group of drone operators pooling together to challenge the law?

 

[mavic3usa]

Well if you want to talk about hypothetical cases, what about a 5 year old child permanently blinded when the wreckage of shot up, out of control strikes him? Or a damaged drone that starts a wildfire that burns several hundred acres and a dozen homes? Or the wreckage of a drone that strikes the windshield of a car, causing an accident that claims 3 people?

More likely, how about a group of drone operators pooling together to challenge the law?

We won't be able to do this alone or individually. As I've mentioned before, we need groups to advocate on our behalf and activists to get behind this and an organization to help the community fight for our rights. How's it going to look when you take the state to court and they walk in with the FAA behind them supporting them?

Otherwise we can go the social movement route, that seems to work but it might take some time. This is where my vote stands.

 

[Chip]

Well if you want to talk about hypothetical cases, what about a 5 year old child permanently blinded when the wreckage of shot up, out of control strikes him? Or a damaged drone that starts a wildfire that burns several hundred acres and a dozen homes? Or the wreckage of a drone that strikes the windshield of a car, causing an accident that claims 3 people?

More likely, how about a group of drone operators pooling together to challenge the law?

In the case of people hit by debris, or debris causing fire, I would say that would be handled in accordance with every state's own tort or negligence liability laws which may vary. No different than any situation where the police respond to a suspected crime in progress which somehow causes injury to an innocent bystander. It requires law enforcement to use good judgment or face potential negligence liability. But that is why they have public risk departments and insurance. A group of drone operators could get together and pool resources but unless their drones have been shot down they probably lack "standing" to sue.

 

[AMann]

Why do states like Louisiana have absolutely no FRIA’s on school campuses while many others do? Possibly the same reason why states like Louisiana are enacting drone laws such as the “we will act” act?

 

[Chip]

Why do states like Louisiana have absolutely no FRIA’s on school campuses while many others do? Possibly the same reason why states like Louisiana are enacting drone laws such as the “we will act” act?

I don't know. They should. You did good job getting one on campus in your state. However, I am not sure how that relates to LA law. During the New Jersey Drone Debacle of 2024, the Fed's (DHS, FBI, FAA) made it clear that state and local authorities should obtain the training, equipment, and legal authority required to protect their communities from illegal or dangerous drone flights on their own.

 

[Chip]

One complication has always been that intercepting a drone signal may violate federal electronic eavesdropping law. Another one is that intentionally jamming the signal to or from a drone would almost certainly violate federal law as well. This is why it is necessary to pass new legislation at state and federal levels. It might have taken years to accomplish without some dramatic triggering event like the New Jersey Drone Debacle of 2024.

 

[mavic3usa]

Article asks the hard questions about the new law; same questions that I have:

Louisiana police officers can now "neutralize" drones over parades

A new law signed by the Louisiana governor gives local and state law enforcement officers the ability to take down...

dronedj.com

 

[Chip]

How's it going to look when you take the state to court and they walk in with the FAA behind them supporting them?

Its an interesting question whether the FAA would initiate or participate in any challenge to the LA law. The FAA would likely have automatic standing to challenge the law in federal court on grounds of preemption. They have done it many times before and often won. One time they lost big though was when they challenged a local Hawaii law which prohibited airplanes from towing advertising banners in the sky. The concern was that such aerial activity distracted drivers on the roads below creating a risk to public safety. The FAA argued that they regulate the airspace in Hawaii and everything in it and were alone authorized to decide what aircraft could or could not do while flying through it.

The Federal Court of Appeals ruled that state and local governments have the "police power" to protect the health and welfare of their residents and if they say no to sky signs, then that is how its going to be. This is an example of how application of the federal preemption doctrine has limits.


Could be possible reckless endangerment to do this is some places. Please check LAANC, state and local laws and ordinances and fly and tow responsibly.

 

[mavic3usa]

Its an interesting question whether the FAA would initiate or participate in any challenge to the LA law. The FAA would likely have automatic standing to challenge the law in federal court on grounds of preemption. They have done it many times before and often won. One time they lost big though was when they challenged a local Hawaii law which prohibited airplanes from towing advertising banners in the sky. The concern was that such aerial activity distracted drivers on the roads below creating a risk to public safety. The FAA argued that they regulate the airspace in Hawaii and everything in it and were alone authorized to decide what aircraft could or could not do while flying through it.

The Federal Court of Appeals ruled that state and local governments have the "police power" to protect the health and welfare of their residents and if they say no to sky signs, then that is how its going to be. This is an example of how application of the federal preemption doctrine has limits.

View attachment 183384
Could be possible reckless endangerment to do this is some places. Please check LAANC, state and local laws and ordinances and fly and tow responsibly.

Over time, we will slowly find out that LA law enforcement entities are teaming up with federal and FAA resources to police the skies together and they will support each other whether it's the Bureau of Prisons or the Nuclear regulatory agencies or the FBI or the various park rangers. But you're right, it's highly unlikely the FAA will show up in court, they never do either way. It's always the FLEO agencies that do the work along with the US Attorneys and their investigators but either way, you can be sure they are all on the same page when it comes to fighting together against the drones.