bobbycwall said:petersachs said:Common misconception. The last time this issue was visited was in 1946 in the Supreme Court (US v. Causby). The Court held that "a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land." That's pretty vague and the issue will surely be revisited again and again over the years, but "aerial trespass" at this time is defined by the old Causby case.aggiesrwe03 said:Actually I have heard of laws in some places that include airspace as property for example a business or land owner can claim ownership of 20 feet above the highest point of their structure. Which could constitute trespassing if one flew in that area. That's an extreme circumstance, and pretty rare but it's possible, and that would be enforced locally.
So you're saying the State of Oregon's law about this is invalid? I find that hard to believe. Legistlative Counsel is not full of dumb people. See section 837.380
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills ... rs837.html
I especially like 837.100 Issuance of citations for violations. In addition to any other persons permitted to enforce violations, the Director of the Oregon Department of Aviation and any employee specifically designated by the director may issue citations for violations established under ORS 837.990 in the manner provided by ORS chapter 153. [Formerly 493.225; 1991 c.460 §11; 1999 c.1051 §114; 2011 c.597 §148]
The states do have the right to enforce such laws absolutely 100% they CAN be more strict than the FAA rules if they choose, and local and state authorities can enforce their own laws. The notion that the FAA is the only agency allowed to enforce the law is just not true.