Help Help Stop the state of Mn (felony law)

[PhantomDave]

The state of Minnesota is considering a bill today, that would make it a felony if you take a picture with your phantom and capture someone without their consent. On public or private property. I would like your help in e-mailing all the authors of this bill to put a stop to this before it spreads to other states. This is being discussed at 10 AM central time. Unfortunately there's not a lot of time, but I have listed their e-mail addresses at the bottom of this post. Please take the time to write them.


Here is the section in question

1.22    Sec. 2. [624.75] PRIVATE USE OF DRONES.
1.23    Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this section, the terms in this
1.24subdivision have the meanings given them.
2.1(b) "Dangerous weapon" has the meaning given in section 609.02, subdivision 6.
2.2(c) "Drone" has the meaning given in section 634.40, subdivision 1, paragraph (b).
2.3(d) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other
2.4legal entity but does not include the state or a political subdivision.
2.5    Subd. 2. Prohibition on use of drone. A person is guilty of a felony if the person
2.6uses a drone to capture images of an individual on public or private property without the
2.7permission of the individual and the owner of the private property or appropriate public
2.8authority.
2.9EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2013, and applies to offenses
2.10committed on or after that date.



[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

 

[bobomet]

Even if a law of this sort passed, it would be challenged in a Federal Court in no time, and would be overturned.
The ramifications are too over-arching, and only open discussions about photography privacy laws that have been argued for decades and have never stood.

 

[PhantomDave]

Even if a law of this sort passed, it would be challenged in a Federal Court in no time, and would be overturned.
The ramifications are too over-arching, and only open discussions about photography privacy laws that have been argued for decades and have never stood.

I would rather not wait to challenge it in federal court. Other states are considering similar laws. Better to put a stop to it sooner than later

 

[LuvMyTJ]

"2.9EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2013, and applies to offenses
2.10committed on or after that date."

How can they charge a person with a felony retroactively?

 

[jthorstad]

Wow...wish I'd seen this sooner. I live LITERALLY 100 yards or less from a state representative. I think (hope) he would find this foolish.

 

[havasuphoto]

Even if a law of this sort passed, it would be challenged in a Federal Court in no time, and would be overturned.
The ramifications are too over-arching, and only open discussions about photography privacy laws that have been argued for decades and have never stood.

+1
This Bill will die either in Committee or on the house floor. It doesn't pass the "legal smell test", and is in direct violation of your Constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court has already defined "reasonable expectation of privacy". You can Google that.
Also, have you seen Google Earth/Street maps?

How is it, that someone can be in the House or Senate, and create a bill, with no knowledge of our Constitution? Whomever wrote that Bill, needs to be fired!!! That person doesn't have a clue.......

Me? I'd be the guy flying the Phantom, standing on the MN Capitol Lawn(if I lived there), with my Go Pro, taking pictures
Got Attorney?? Check!!

 

[mikeydaddio]

Even if a law of this sort passed, it would be challenged in a Federal Court in no time, and would be overturned.
The ramifications are too over-arching, and only open discussions about photography privacy laws that have been argued for decades and have never stood.

+1

The above is the reason celebs can't get any relief from papparazi.

Mike