My favorite line is where they called for a two-year moratorium on the use of drones in the state of Minnesota.
St. Boni MN says no to drones
- Thread starter neveradayoff
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
Good cartoon 
I love the USA. Its the only place I have visited in the world where I actually think I would be happy to live other than dear old England. I thought it was the land of freedom but if every little town can make its own laws how on earth do people know what they can and cannot do?
I love the USA. Its the only place I have visited in the world where I actually think I would be happy to live other than dear old England. I thought it was the land of freedom but if every little town can make its own laws how on earth do people know what they can and cannot do?
Shrimpfarmer said:Good cartoon
I love the USA. Its the only place I have visited in the world where I actually think I would be happy to live other than dear old England. I thought it was the land of freedom but if every little town can make its own laws how on earth do people know what they can and cannot do?
What's even worse, most don't publicize it until you cross those lines.
EMCSQUAR said:
Actually, they are required by law in most states to publish a newly enacted ordinance in whatever publication best covers the affected geographic area (if they don't, it's generally not enforceable). Similarly, they are typically required to keep their ordinances on public file and readily available for review. In the case of Minnesota, their League of Cities has a handy reference at http://www.lmc.org/handbook/chapter07.pdf - see the section on ordinances*. What I saw there is pretty consistent with my state and, I suspect, probably most states.
The real shortcoming is that there are so many laws that very few citizens ever take (or have) the time to read the publications or the laws ... frankly, a herculean undertaking. And reviewing all laws in a given area would be an almost impossible task for visitors.
Being something of a cynic (I prefer realist
"trust, but verify"), I tend not to simply accept everything I hear or read regards any topic which strikes me as questionable and verifiable - laws especially fall into this category. In that regard, the internet is an incredible resource. On many occasions I've searched laws at every level, federal, state, county, and city ... and I've always been able to find applicable regulations. And, for the most part, they're understandable (i.e., not written in "legalese" - I'm not talking complicated technical areas like corporate tax law). The main difficulty I've encountered is that you can often find applicable bits and pieces spread out in many different sections of the law.A final observation - while I applaud those folks who contact the authorities and ask before doing something, I would much prefer to search the law myself. In many cases if you ask, and they don't really know, you may get a negative response if they just think what you're contemplating might be a bad idea. It's pretty much a CYA thing - they don't want you to be able to quote them later as having said it was OK. My advice when you get a negative response would be to ask them to direct you to the specific statute/law/ordinance/regulation that precludes the action.
* BTW, with regard to this ordinance, the MN League of Cities handbook specifically points out they can only pass ordinances in areas that the legislature has specifically given them authority. I rather doubt that includes "airspace" controls.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 11
EMCSQUAR said:
All us Minnesotans need to do a flying formation over mayor's house.
The only thing I can think of that a town this small would be scared of drones is that the mayor and city council doesn't want anyone filming them sleeping on the job or playing golf in their jammies in their backyard.
I travel 99% for my job and I take my P2V with me and I fly it to decompress after a job.
I have written a letter to the town council stating that if I ever have a job in that area.
Supporting either a hospital or data center.
I will not patronize any of their shops , motels , restaurants
And I will not buy any product that is designed or manufactured in that township.
I just finished up a job in Warrenton VA and have spent over $20,000 in food, motel , car rental , motel , supplies
for this project.
I have a list of no-busisness zones and Will have no problem taking my business elsewhere.
I have written a letter to the town council stating that if I ever have a job in that area.
Supporting either a hospital or data center.
I will not patronize any of their shops , motels , restaurants
And I will not buy any product that is designed or manufactured in that township.
I just finished up a job in Warrenton VA and have spent over $20,000 in food, motel , car rental , motel , supplies
for this project.
I have a list of no-busisness zones and Will have no problem taking my business elsewhere.
KG4MXV said:
It's a nice gesture but I'd be surprised if their reaction was anything other than "Good, we don't want your kind here anyway". Anything else would pretty well require admitting they're wrong.
It's a nice gesture but I'd be surprised if their reaction was anything other than "Good, we don't want your kind here anyway". Anything else would pretty well require admitting they're wrong.[/quote]
This was a week or so ago and no reply. ( don't really expect to get one either.)
This was a week or so ago and no reply. ( don't really expect to get one either.)
remember. silence = acquiescence.
so. if they say nothing then they're effectively saying it's ok. Just send them a letter saying that unless they say no then you'll just go ahead. if you're not breaking the law then what's the problem?
just sayin
Bmews
so. if they say nothing then they're effectively saying it's ok. Just send them a letter saying that unless they say no then you'll just go ahead. if you're not breaking the law then what's the problem?
just sayin
Bmews
BMEWS said:
Hmmm ... Nice try, but it doesn't work that way - the city is under no obligation to respond to an individual's letter. They've already stated their position by passing an ordinance which says you can't do it. In their view, you WILL be breaking the "law". It may not be upheld, but they will have the legal right to cite you and you'll have to go to court to prove them wrong. State laws probably will dictate whether or not you can collect damages from them.
Other options are that they know they'll lose so they won't attempt to enforce the law (setting a bad precedent for them if this failure is known), or they'll cite you and then try to work a deal rather than go to court (keeping the law intact).
My guess (admittedly knowing nothing of this community) is that like many laws (especially at the lowest government level) there will be no enforcement unless someone complains. And then they'll simply try to get the offender to stop without actually citing them. As our local police chief has said, all they really want is for the offending activity to be stopped, fines and/or court time is pointless if the activity is halted (unless they're just vindictive). And, of course, in this case, chances are their main purpose was to get the state legislature to address the issue. Making it a "law" in their community just puts an exclamation point on their resolution asking the state to do so.
it's a good discussion though. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Remember, try and protect the common law foundation upon which your constitutions rests. Sooner or later, the government are going to try and take it away from you. Once they do, you'll see a lot of changes.
Bmews
BMEWS said:
Agreeing to disagree is fine as long as the issue doesn't require one or both of us to take some irreversible action regards the other ... like maybe who gets the first shot in a duel. :shock:
I'm past retirement age and still have several friends from high school who get together regularly. Oddly enough the perspectives in this group range from very liberal to very conservative, and we've had many heated discussions over the years - and yet any of us would do anything for any other one. We may attack one anothers' positions, but we never attack each other. I expect that's because while we all have our positions, none of us are "believers", i.e., who hold to a position regardless of facts to the contrary. We may not be swayed from our individual stances, but we can at least understand the others' points ... and sometimes it does change your perspective, even if only slightly. The key is to keep in mind that conceding something does not lessen your stature (read ego), it strengthens it (you become more educated). An Aristotle quote comes to mind, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Civil discussion is quite valuable, even if we don't agree.
And as to government, the famous Pogo comic quote comes to mind, "we have met the enemy, and he is us". We are our government. It seems very distant and out of our control, particularly at the federal level, but we do get to decide who goes to Washington to represent us. From my perspective, we've created the problem in two areas ... we are so super critical of every little mistep that anyone who might be interested in serving makes, few people want to deal with being under the microscope. And, because of how the two party system has evolved, anyone who is interested must get the support of one party or the other to have any chance of being elected. But the fault is our own - we don't take the time to get familiar with ALL the issues (being naturally focused on only our own concerns) and we only listen to those candidates with lots of money to spend, i.e., either wealthy on their own or with a party's backing. Sadly, I've no solution.
I'm afraid of late I have become very aware of the slow erosion of the common law foundations (which strangely enough apply to both our respective nations), only to be replaced by contract/commercial law. I'm very much believe that one should not cause harm to any other living soul or their property and that all beliefs are equally valid. I find that when officials in public office have stopped effectively serving the public and are serving their own interests aligned with the apathy of the electorate they're supposed to serve. It's an uphill struggle to get ones voice heard. Indeed, if members of your own congress can openly lie (they do in our houses of parliament too) by uttering the least truthful answer (I think that was the phrase used). Then it's practically a lost cause.
In short, and this is going to sound strange. I learned what it was to be a man. If you've any idea what i'm talking about then you'll understand the position i'm coming from. If not, then that's fine too.
I believe there's a hierarchy to laws. Remember, man made government NOT the other way around so telling man what to do is like you or I telling nature or indeed whatever we choose to believe is our creator the exact same thing. It's just not going to work.
Bylaws might be there for a reason or there again because some nimby (not in my backyard) wants to make a name for themselves. Suffice to say, if the law isn't equitable then it's fair game for the debate. Again, all my own humble opinion.
In short, and this is going to sound strange. I learned what it was to be a man.
If you've any idea what i'm talking about then you'll understand the position i'm coming from. If not, then that's fine too. I believe there's a hierarchy to laws. Remember, man made government NOT the other way around so telling man what to do is like you or I telling nature or indeed whatever we choose to believe is our creator the exact same thing. It's just not going to work.
Bylaws might be there for a reason or there again because some nimby (not in my backyard) wants to make a name for themselves. Suffice to say, if the law isn't equitable then it's fair game for the debate. Again, all my own humble opinion.
in the wrong hands this could be used as a weapon....so sad if the product gets banned
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-man-in- ... to-school/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-man-in- ... to-school/
djalan said:
Radio control systems for model aircraft were developed in the late 1940s ... little chance they'll ever be banned. Regulated? Perhaps, but not banned.
What's different today and driving their popularity is that they're relatively easy to fly (particularly multicopters with the latest technology), and have integrated cameras - making them attractive to folks who wouldn't particularly be interested in simply flying RC models.
