I was talking to a Michigan resident a few days ago and he told me that drone flying is entirely illegal there. I've been googling around and found nothing to support that statement. Doesn't matter to me since I'm not intending to fly there anytime soon, but does anyone know the Michigan laws?
Michigan Laws
- Thread starter mediaguru
- Start date
Ask your friend if the FAA has been disbanded and no longer has ultimate jurisdiction over US airspace.
Earlier this year I ask the Head ranger at the State Park about flying at the beach. Only problem was the endangered birdies that were nesting at that time. Two other times I have been in the air and local City police drove by and looked and left. If it was, they sure did not know anything about it. As for the FAA, there have been many discussions and comments they have no authority. A different part of the Government has the say. I sure have never seen any thing on the news about no fly in Michigan. Yes, I live in cold, cold Michigan.
Probably the same kind of nitwit that believes there are laws preventing you from filming him in public like that pyscho woman on the Connecticut beach -- who was later charged for assault and attempted vandalism of a drone.
Like I've mentioned before, I have rapidly dwindling tolerance for these idiots who brashly display the "I'm not a lawyer or police officer but I play one in real life" attitude. Next time somebody gets in my face about my Phantom flying over them in a public place, he/she is getting one of two rather unpleasant outcomes --- my fist knocking a couple teeth down their throat, or a nice squirt of Mace in both eyeballs.
I'm a nice guy so I will let them choose their punishment for being stupid and ignorant :mrgreen:
Like I've mentioned before, I have rapidly dwindling tolerance for these idiots who brashly display the "I'm not a lawyer or police officer but I play one in real life" attitude. Next time somebody gets in my face about my Phantom flying over them in a public place, he/she is getting one of two rather unpleasant outcomes --- my fist knocking a couple teeth down their throat, or a nice squirt of Mace in both eyeballs.
I'm a nice guy so I will let them choose their punishment for being stupid and ignorant :mrgreen:
MadMitch88 said:
Since you refer to the "next time", that means you have had previous times. Can you tell us about the previous times you have been verbally assaulted by somebody about your phantom and what the outcome was? I would love to hear about the encounters.
Buckaye said:
it is, but the OP said illegal which implies someone does have authority so where the FAA being disbanded comes from Im not sure??
locoworks said:
Since they were referring to a state-specific ban (none of which exist at the legitimate Federal level), I thought the implication was that they (the unnamed friend) thinks there is some type of local law.
States can't regulate general use of airspace, but they can (and some have) regulated state agencies' use of drones, which is perfectly legal for them to do. E.g. police/fire departments, etc. It's possible that Michigan has outlawed use by those and that's what this friend heard.
BlackTracer said:
I had one lady give me a snide remark at the park a couple weeks ago --- muttered something like "those things are dangerous". She was walking her Rottweiler --- so I assume all dogs are loving animals that never attack people? Hypocrisy is thick and smelly in our society.
So on a purely technical level, I havent had anyone "get in my face" about my Phantom but I'm prepared for that type of encounter with a hair trigger on clenched fists and pepper spray. To be brutally honest, I've had 3 or 4 personal encounters and they've all been friendly folks interested in the Phantom and gazing in awe as I flew it above their heads. Nice to know the majority of people out there are intelligent and rational when it comes to our hobby. But there's always a few ignorant morons who play the "I'm not a lawyer but I pretend to be one in real life" attitude with us.
I've flown lots of times here in Michigan and this is the first I've heard of such things. Granted, I have yet to run into anyone of authority and don't draw attention to myself by doing stupid things.
Just moved from MI after 41 years, been flying multi's there for the last two, heli's way more than that. That statement is totally false. There is nothing illegal about it. I got TV time and newspaper articles covering my work as well while in MI. No issues. I also assisted a MI DNR officer during some flood footage I was shooting of Muskegon River. They have the most law enforcement authority of any peace officer in the state. He was nothing but thankful.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 23
States have no authority to carte blanche restrict flying. That is up to the FAA.
States can though, restrict flying over property it owns.
Such as state parks.
I just love all those wannabe attorneys out there who just know the laws on everything.
The next time he mouths off, ask him what law school he went to.
States can though, restrict flying over property it owns.
Such as state parks.
I just love all those wannabe attorneys out there who just know the laws on everything.
The next time he mouths off, ask him what law school he went to.
mediaguru said:
I'll bet that's probably it, since the media often reports limited legislation like that with sweeping headlines like "DRONES BANNED IN MICHIGAN" and such.
It's the same here in TN, state agencies (including fire & rescue) are banned from using them currently
Happyflyer said:
I know I'm, like, 12 hours late to the party, here, but Happy's statement really caught my eye.
The FAA is absolutely the entity that has the task of enforcing the laws concerning the US airspace. I think what you are eluding to with "has no authority" is, while the FAA can (and has) issue restrictions and guidelines, there are few laws on the books that the FAA can use to back up those restrictions (as they pertain to drones). It's very much like a dog who barks a lot but has no teeth.
The US Congress is the entity that writes and passes the federal laws. And once it passes laws concerning drones (and I have every expectation that they will... eventually... but like everything else in Washington, it may take many many years), the FAA will have the authority to enforce them (or oversee their enforcement by local authorities).
However, I would be surprised if we don't see at least one state in the union try to pass it's own laws in the next couple of years. And the Federal government is known to give some leeway to local legislators... just look at all the states that have (or are considering) legalizing marijuana. Clearly this flies in the face of Federal law, under the jurisdiction and authority of the Federal DEA and ATF, and yet the states are being given some leeway to legislate on their own. Clearly the same thing can happen with drones and airspace restrictions (though, admittedly, it would be tricky because obviously that leeway can not extend so far as to affect the national commercial airways... but the states may be given leeway under 400', say).
Whether this is an issue where leeway will be given is anybody's guess. But to say that it could NEVER happen is being a bit shortsighted.
ProfessorStein said:
Very true and excellent point. As of now the FAA retains that jurisdiction....but tomorrow? I guess we'll find out!
btw, I wondered how long it would be before someone drew a parallel (even hypothetical) between potlaw and dronelaw
Can States make laws that are more restrictive, but not less restrictive than Federal laws? Say, if a Federal law existed that states no drone flight above 400 feet, could a State enact a law that restricted drone flight to less than 300 feet?
Can State regulations/rules/laws be more restrictive, but not less restrictive than Federal laws?
Can State regulations/rules/laws be more restrictive, but not less restrictive than Federal laws?
Absolutely. THAT happens all the time, buk. Federal law permits alcohol sales any day of the week, for example, but many states restrict or ban sales on Sunday. It's actually easier for states to be more restrictive, because there's less of a chance that more restriction will contradict any Federal laws. For instance, taking your example, if a Federal law existed that banned drones above 400 feet, and then a State enacted their own law that restricted drones to below 300 feet, the State law would not be contradicting Federal law because, at 300 feet, the flying drone would still be simultaneously adhering to the Federal law by not going above 400 feet.
It's less common for a State law to be less restrictive than Federal laws. Since, in the example above of the State's legalizing pot, the State's law contradicts Federal law that says pot is an illegal substance.
It's less common for a State law to be less restrictive than Federal laws. Since, in the example above of the State's legalizing pot, the State's law contradicts Federal law that says pot is an illegal substance.
Similar threads
