CA. Bill 142 to make it a crime to fly over private property....

Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
253
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest Michigan
Hmm... A state law which would trump federal law. What could possibly go wrong?
 

dirkclod

Moderator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
15,428
Reaction score
9,318
Age
66
Location
Amory Mississippi
Don't think that e mailing all you can won't help ya cause it did here in MS with a bill they were trying to pass !
Terry Lowe and myself hammered a lot of representatives almost everyday with something he came up with and I don't know just that did help but it was shot down !!
The more folks that do it the better , but just don't send them some rant .
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
94
Reaction score
26
I can't wait for the California v. Google Earth case!

Statistically 0% quadcopter incidents... let's legislate!

California, where birds, bees and fish have more rights than you.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
4,851
Reaction score
2,068
Location
Salt Lake City, UT
I read the thing and I can't even comprehend how anyone with half a brain would think this would past even the lowest court. I found it interesting that they attempted to disguise their inability to enforce this law by making it seem like it's the same thing as being on someone's property.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
4,851
Reaction score
2,068
Location
Salt Lake City, UT
No one outside of Jacksons district can complain about this. I'd recommend sending a copy of this bill to the FAA as the bill attempts to take jurisdiction away from them. I'm betting the FAA would have something to say about this.
 
Last edited:

ianwood

Taco Wrangler
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
2,043
Location
Lost Angeles
I tried to comment and couldn't. This bill is a turd and needs to be flushed down the toilet.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
676
Location
Westford, MA
I can't send her an E-Mail because I am not worthy (I don't live in her district).
But here's what I would say. If you live in her district, feel free to copy me (as I have paraphrased others before me on this subject).

State and local governments have considered legislation that purports to regulate drone flight, but if challenged in court, any such laws would be considered preempted by the federal government's intent to "occupy the field," and therefore be invalid. By federal statute, "[t]he United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States" (49 U.S. Code § 40103(a)(1)). The passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, (Senate Bill, Section 607(g)) confirms the federal government's intent to continue to "occupy the field" of flight, thereby invalidating (through preemption) any state or local laws that purport to regulate it.

Don't be in a headstrong rush to make new rules. There are already laws of general applicability (such as voyeurism or nuisance) that would apply equally to a drone if a drone happened to be the object used to violate that law, but they would be essentially meaningless since existing statutes would already cover those crimes regardless of whether they were committed with a drone. And by exclusion, such laws could inadvertently make the undesirable activity legal by other means.

The laws that are on the books are all technology agnostic. They apply to computers, they apply to still cameras, they apply to wireless microphones, they apply to video cameras … and there’s no reason that they can’t be applied – as already written – to drones. Relying on existing legal protections should be the obvious choice. That means that what people are most fearful of – being stalked, harassed, or surveilled by a drone, or being victimized by a peeping tom behind a drone – are already acts bound by law.

Paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 40102 of Title 49 of the United States Code does not abdicate the FAA responsibility for the National Airspace System which, according to the FAA starts as soon as the aircraft is airborne.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meta4
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
We must all try to help squash this. If it starts in CA, it will move to everywhere before we know it.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
676
Location
Westford, MA
We must all try to help squash this. If it starts in CA, it will move to everywhere before we know it.
What is needed is for the FAA to clarify - if it flies, it's under FAA jurisdiction and preempts any local or state laws that would govern flight. But that won't happen until the Part 107 rules are finalized.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
178
Reaction score
42
Age
39
SteveMann are you a lawyer? It was very well written!

I love California, the geography, the weather, but I hate everything else about it. Why are people so paranoid about drones anyway.. I can climb a tree to peep and be way more inconspicuous than with a freaking drone.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
676
Location
Westford, MA
SteveMann are you a lawyer? It was very well written!

I love California, the geography, the weather, but I hate everything else about it. Why are people so paranoid about drones anyway.. I can climb a tree to peep and be way more inconspicuous than with a freaking drone.
No, not a lawyer, but as I said I was paraphrasing from what others have said on the subject.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
1,881
Reaction score
169
Location
Upstate NY
I read the thing and I can't even comprehend how anyone with half a brain would think this would past even the lowest court. I found it interesting that they attempted to disguise their inability to enforce this law by making it seem like it's the same thing as being on someone's property.

Don't ever underestimate the level of stupidity that can pass in a Communist totalitarian country such as California . There are a lot of progressive liberals out there that actually support and love stupid poliishions that want to ban and regulate every thing under the sun. and they keep voteing for the same mentally ill nut bags over and over again.
Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi and are two good examples that not matter how low of an IQ and no matter how mentally ill some one is and no matter how big there aspirations of wanting to be total dictators are. They keep getting reelected instead of being put in mental institutions were they belong.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Age
72
Ah, California. Like a breakfast cereal, whatever isn't fruit or nuts is flakes.

Don't know about you, but over my 2 acres, I have the legal authority in Utah to deal with invasive threats, be they live or mechanical. I have a Remington 800 with #4 shot that will put an end to anyone's belief that they can fly over my property. After that, call the police. File a report. Sue me.

Now, if you want to ASK FIRST, like a reasonable respectful person, I'd let you fly around my living room.

I bet California is like Utah a lot. You can pee in the yard, and expect someone isn't filming you. I don't agree with the law, but I can see the point of people whose privacy was invaded by the ME ME ME generation.
 

dirkclod

Moderator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
15,428
Reaction score
9,318
Age
66
Location
Amory Mississippi
Ah, California. Like a breakfast cereal, whatever isn't fruit or nuts is flakes.

Don't know about you, but over my 2 acres, I have the legal authority in Utah to deal with invasive threats, be they live or mechanical. I have a Remington 800 with #4 shot that will put an end to anyone's belief that they can fly over my property. After that, call the police. File a report. Sue me.

Now, if you want to ASK FIRST, like a reasonable respectful person, I'd let you fly around my living room.

I bet California is like Utah a lot. You can pee in the yard, and expect someone isn't filming you. I don't agree with the law, but I can see the point of people whose privacy was invaded by the ME ME ME generation.
Turkey hunt with the same gun and load bro !! Ya better hope it's low or ya just burning powder ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmosMoses
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
596
Reaction score
161
Location
Illinois
Ah, California. Like a breakfast cereal, whatever isn't fruit or nuts is flakes.

Don't know about you, but over my 2 acres, I have the legal authority in Utah to deal with invasive threats, be they live or mechanical. I have a Remington 800 with #4 shot that will put an end to anyone's belief that they can fly over my property. After that, call the police. File a report. Sue me.

Now, if you want to ASK FIRST, like a reasonable respectful person, I'd let you fly around my living room.

I bet California is like Utah a lot. You can pee in the yard, and expect someone isn't filming you. I don't agree with the law, but I can see the point of people whose privacy was invaded by the ME ME ME generation.
Lol! You're not hitting anything with that other than a fat ol Tom turkey if walked up to you and sat down.....

I'm curious too, what makes you think that someone flying a phantom over you're property is any more invasive than a helicopter or small plane? Or are you out there like a crazy person shooting at them too??
I'm thinking that not every one of them land, knock on your door, then ask permission?
If I ever see a drone buzzing over my property I'd give it a wave but I'm not parotid and have nothing to hide and i might make another friend!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: n6vmo and dirkclod

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
140,607
Messages
1,449,255
Members
102,410
Latest member
Droning Dave Iorwerth