Town of North Hempstead LI New Drone Regs.

[JOHNVOSS]

The Town of North Hempstead just implemented new drone rules BUT they only apply to Town facilities AND drones weighing .55 pounds and greater. Mini 2 and Mini 2 SE are OK. Full rule here: https://northhempsteadny.gov/filest...oposed_LL_-_Chapter_57_rn_edits_rb_accept.pdf

The rules are virtually identical to the Town of Oyster Bay rules except that the OB rules only apply to drones 2 lbs and over.

 

[mavic3usa]

Well, that's just ridiculous. Another government entity trying to copy the ways of NYC in an effort to control the drones which are apparently "out of control." Doesn't surprise me coming from that area. Maintaining a "pleasing public environment free of potential audiovisual nuisance" is basically calling drones a "nuisance" that needs to be controlled. It will start small and eventually it will turn into a defacto local drone ban. I read the law and I have a couple of observations:

1.It appears they are doing their best to disclaim everything to the extent it appears they are bending over backwards to accommodate flyers who have an honest with legal reasons to fly drones in the area. The problem with that is two fold: First the permitting process is onerous and off-putting and tends to interfere with spontaneous flyers because of the complexity, the timing, and the penalties for violations. Too much of it is subjective and gives local law enforcement broad powers in areas other than the purpose of the drone flight. For example, officers who "get a call for service" will likely find a way to deal with the situation instead of "show me your permit; you have a permit? have a good day." I didn't see this piece but it appears to only regulate take off and landing and not flying over property, do the police know this? What about public property such as the sidewalk and the local parks, are those restricted "facilities?" Does this regulation try to control recreational flyers by referring to them as "private?" Second, how long before "flying over private property without permission" becomes a crime?

2.The state needs to implement minimum laws and prohibit pre-emption otherwise there will soon a long and complex list of local drones laws of various types with restrictions on time of day, where to fly, how to fly, when you need a permit, weight of your drone, etc. No one will be able to get it right because just like people who drive their car, you don't fly drones in just one city. The way these laws are written, everyone can be a violator, and you'll become a victim based on other factors besides flying your drone.

I guarantee you, the minute there is a protest at the corner of 5th and Main, nobody will be able to get a permit to fly near that protest. And of course none of these laws apply to law enforcement drones. How is the press able to fly drones under these laws when they want to cover city hall? The laws goes out of its way to proclaim they don't interfere with FAA laws so if I get LAANC authorization, am I good to go if I take off from private property?

 

[MARK (LI)]

This morning the background for this regulation was the subject of a story in the local newspaper here on Long Island where this occurred ...the person who pushed for this to happen did consider it a nuisance when he was eating at a Town dock and a drone was flying over him...which then flew around through overhead wires ( he claims it was at about 20 feet) and then lower between cars that were nearby....that caused enough negative attention to draw the lawmakers to action....As far as the press......I don't care whether they get their story or not...how did they do it before there were drones?

 

[mavic3usa]

....As far as the press......I don't care whether they get their story or not...how did they do it before there were drones?

How did they do it before there was internet and social media? How did they do it before there were cameras? How did they do it before there was pen and paper?

It's called the First Amendment.

How did they rescue lost children before there were drones is probably the same question Stefanik is asking.

 

[mavic3usa]

Look like Hempstead did the same thing few years ago, so it was just a matter of time before others follow. Looks like these places wait for an event so they ban drones, cars, boats, hammers....anything they consider a "nuisance" except for the person, of course.

Town Passes Law to Create 'No Drone Zones' at Local Facilities

Town of Hempstead residents can no longer fly drones at local beaches, parks, golf courses, preserves and other facilities without a permit.

patch.com

Can't find the accessible story on North Hempstead, still looking.

 

[MARK (LI)]

How did they do it before there was internet and social media? How did they do it before there were cameras? How did they do it before there was pen and paper?

It's called the First Amendment.

How did they rescue lost children before there were drones is probably the same question Stefanik is asking.

They still have their right to free speech.....nothing changed in that regard....

Look like Hempstead did the same thing few years ago, so it was just a matter of time before others follow. Looks like these places wait for an event so they ban drones, cars, boats, hammers....anything they consider a "nuisance" except for the person, of course.

Town Passes Law to Create 'No Drone Zones' at Local Facilities

Town of Hempstead residents can no longer fly drones at local beaches, parks, golf courses, preserves and other facilities without a permit.

patch.com

Can't find the accessible story on North Hempstead, still looking.

It was in Newsday......but you won't get that unless you pay...kind of funny that they have free speech, but you have to pay them to hear it......kind of ironic how that works

It really is no big deal....it seems to just pertain to larger drones, and you can continue what you were doing everywhere but on Town property

 

[mavic3usa]

They still have their right to free speech.....nothing changed in that regard....

It's not a right if you have to get a permit. Should the local government decide they don't want you to gather the news from a protest at the corner of 5th and Main, they can deny your permit which is an infringement. Especially if the area has the road blocked off for 3 city blocks for example.

It happens every time. No, you can publish on social media whatever news story you want, it's libel. Oh, wait never mind. No, you can fly your helicopter near the police chase? Oh, wait never mind. No, you can take pictures of the crime scene when you new long lens super duper cameras, oh wait never mind. No you can fly your drone over the courtyard in city hall while we have a meeting.

It was in Newsday......but you won't get that unless you pay...kind of funny that they have free speech, but you have to pay them to hear it......kind of ironic how that works

Just refreshing your memory, I'm sure: The First Amendment protects the press from being controlled by the government...not the other way around. The free press can charge the people whatever they wish. However, the people are free to choose another source for information which will soon appear if their goods are too expensive. The law is perfect because there are exception but strong enough to allow it to adapt to emerging tech like drones, cameras, the internet, and anything new that comes up when it pertains to news gathering and the dissemination of public interest matters. A required permit is an infringement should the news decide to take this up.

It really is no big deal....it seems to just pertain to larger drones, and you can continue what you were doing everywhere but on Town property

Large drones today, small drones like minis and neos tomorrow. Town property belong to the people, not the government. Town property should be the first place you should be able to fly your drone (other than your own private property). Funny how other towns in other states have no issue with it. If they have a compelling interest, I'm all for it; some reasonable restrictions are ok. Because some idiot flew his drone a little carelessly one day....they already had a law for that, they didn't need an excuse to come up with this elaborate ridiculous law trying to "get ahead" of where they think drones might one day go. I guess I'm not surprised you sound like you are ok with this.

 

[MARK (LI)]

I know that your mind is made up....you just love to argue, and facts just confuse you....no one is denying the press the right to cover anything....now I think this is where I lost you....before drones, the press covered everything they had the inclination to follow..., just without drones...nothing is stopping them from doing what they always did ...as far as your refreshing my memory...you go so far into left field I just don't know what you are talking about...it has nothing to do with the subject.....in your third point where you say that "some idiot flew his drone carelessly one day"......well, it was not the first time.......and of course you went into your regular schtick coming up with imagined scenarios.....am I OK with what happened?...I wish it didn't, but I don't think it is an unreasonable or unexpected response....part of why I don't like seeing videos on here showing illegal flights or irresponsible flying habits...it brings unnecessary focus on the hobby ...and the inevitable government response. You say that "other towns in other states have no issue"...that is patently not true...the entire State of North Carolina requires a permit.... there are drone regulations all over the country...frequently the result of attention brought by illegal flying activity.

 

[mavic3usa]

I know that your mind is made up....you just love to argue, and facts just confuse you....no one is denying the press the right to cover anything....now I think this is where I lost you....before drones, the press covered everything they had the inclination to follow..., just without drones...nothing is stopping them from doing what they always did ...as far as your refreshing my memory...you go so far into left field I just don't know what you are talking about...it has nothing to do with the subject.....in your third point where you say that "some idiot flew his drone carelessly one day"......well, it was not the first time.......and of course you went into your regular schtick coming up with imagined scenarios.....am I OK with what happened?...I wish it didn't, but I don't think it is an unreasonable or unexpected response....part of why I don't like seeing videos on here showing illegal flights or irresponsible flying habits...it brings unnecessary focus on the hobby ...and the inevitable government response. You say that "other towns in other states have no issue"...that is patently not true...the entire State of North Carolina requires a permit.... there are drone regulations all over the country...frequently the result of attention brought by illegal flying activity.

yes you are correct, i love arguing about my rights and the constitution especially when they are being infringed upon. love it! and yes, my mind is made up and cannot be changed about the constitution. for sure. sorry you feel the constitution discussion is a "schtick." doesn't surprise me tho.

 

[MARK (LI)]

I did not relate the use of the word schtick with constitutional rights, which, by the way are not being infringed...no one has denied or taken away any constitutional right from anyone...I related it to your never ending contrived scenarios...I can assure you ...the sky is still where it belongs....it is not falling

 

[mavic3usa]

I did not relate the use of the word schtick with constitutional rights, which, by the way are not being infringed...no one has denied or taken away any constitutional right from anyone...I related it to your never ending contrived scenarios...I can assure you ...the sky is still where it belongs....it is not falling

of course the sky is not falling. infringed does not means denied or taken away.

it's a bad bad law; do you support it?

 

[MARK (LI)]

I guess because you say it's bad that it must be......do you ever put yourself in the other guys place? I see the law as a reasonable response to an inconsiderate operator who did infringe on the rights of others....I don't care for it one way or the other, but if you think about it...the "powers that be" could not just ignore the complaints about the situation.....what they did could have been a lot more severe and restrictive to drone operators......you always seem to just disregard the rights of others, as long as you get to exercise yours...you are not ( despite what you seem to think) the only person in the world with rights.....Now, if you are going to respond to this please read it a few times and don't come back with make believe situations, or responses that have nothing to do with the subject.

 

[mavic3usa]

I guess because you say it's bad that it must be......do you ever put yourself in the other guys place? I see the law as a reasonable response to an inconsiderate operator who did infringe on the rights of others....I don't care for it one way or the other, but if you think about it...the "powers that be" could not just ignore the complaints about the situation.....what they did could have been a lot more severe and restrictive to drone operators......you always seem to just disregard the rights of others, as long as you get to exercise yours...you are not ( despite what you seem to think) the only person in the world with rights.....Now, if you are going to respond to this please read it a few times and don't come back with make believe situations, or responses that have nothing to do with the subject.

The government should have just arrested that guy if he broke the law since there are always non-drone laws that cover criminal conduct but instead the city created a law so they can arrest anyone else who does what he did. No new drone law is needed but instead there is a new law that criminalizes a whole bunch of other things that were totally legal before. I dunno, that just doesn't set well with me but I get it, sometimes when you live in that kind of community there are so many laws and rules and regulations....what's wrong with a few more, huh?

I was hoping you would say you disagree with the new law but I guess I understand why you don't care one way or the other. "It could have a been alot worse" is the expected response for anyone who comes their drones laws to NYC. BTW, we don't have any "powers that be" in the country where I live; the people have all the power.

If you would like to let us know what rights we are infringe on with other people when we fly our drones without government permits and specific permission (such as in my city), happy to address it....without the make believe situations and responses, of course.

 

[MARK (LI)]

You would not get arrested if you broke the law...just fined...let me ask you something...do you agree with the regulation regarding flying over people?
I ask because you mention NYC...( I live about 35 miles away from the City) , and I recall tha tyou were up in arms about the ban on launching, controlling landing in the City...this is a picture of typical pedestrian traffic....do you think you could comply with not flying over people

 

[mavic3usa]

You would not get arrested if you broke the law...just fined...

So you agree with me this part of the law is probably the most ridiculous of all: (after the first offense, you are likely done with the hobby):

§ 57-23 Penalties for offenses.
A. Any person who violates the provisions of this article shall, upon conviction
thereof, be guilty of a violation pursuant to the Penal Law of the State of New
York, punishable by (1) a fine not exceeding $500.00 or by imprisonment for a
term not exceeding fifteen days for the first offense; (2) a fine not exceeding
$1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen days for a second
offense occurring within the first year of the first offense; (3) a fine not exceeding
$1,500.00 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen days for a third
offense occurring within eighteen months of the first offense; or by both such
fine and imprisonment.

An appearance ticket is an arrest. Yet another method to "encourage" citizens to comply so they get released from custody and taken out of handcuffs and issued a summons to show up in court rather than get taken down to the Nassau County correctional center. How about changing the laws to indicate "citation only" meaning arrest or appearance ticket is prohibited on first offense? It isn't enough to explain to the drone community that you "won't get arrested, just fined."

do you agree with the regulation regarding flying over people?

Oh look who changing the topic now; I guess it's ok if it proves your point.

I agree with the popular interpretation of the regulation for flying over people for recreational pilots by the FAA and my CBO. For now, I'm fine with it and I obey it because I know (unlike the city law where intent is N/A) this is likely to change (a different topic so I won't get into it here...but I'm ok with the topic changing slightly even though you aren't). I'm ok with the regulation for flying over people as long as the educated federal law enforcement officers are the only ones that can interpret the intent and enforce it. If anyone infers that local law enforcement can enforce it then NO I'm not ok with it. If you will notice, the city was pretty careful not to add any of the FAA regulations (such as flying over people) into their law. You don't see anything about registration or TRUST either. No police officer has any business legally enforcing any of those elements but I guess they have new drone powers which are clearly enumerated in 57-22.

 

[MARK (LI)]

I didn't change the subject...you are the one who brought up NYC laws ...not me ...I think you assumed that I live in the City....

 

[mavic3usa]

I didn't change the subject...you are the one who brought up NYC laws ...not me ...I think you assumed that I live in the City....

Flying over people is not a NYC drone law is it?

NYC is just an example of another city (like the one in this topic) where the city officials believe the FAA rules and regulations are not good enough for them. Meaning....they believe the FAA rules and regulation are too lax, not enforceable, not enforced, and simply let the drone flyer "get away" with too much.

Just so you know, my main (not only) objection is permits.

One has to ask, why are so many governments in the area adopting similar laws?

 

[MARK (LI)]

The reason is the same as for the rest of the country...it is not unique to the Metropolitan area, and that is because so many people who fly drones think that their rights are more important than those of others, and are just inconsiderate.