New California Law

[Shazbot4]

if it was me getting nailed with this by the FAA i would do 2 things, go to the local news, tell my story and ask from help from a lawyer who wants to donate their time. if i couldn't find a laywer i'd go balls deep into it by myself... i enjoy arguments and debates, i'll educate myself and put up a defense that will cost the government more money and time then they want to commit to prove what i already discussed. 1 our quad copters are less dangerious then a automibile and 2, news and police helicopters invade our privacy more then a little quad copter flying around could ever dream of. i wont spend one penny of my own money to defend myself either.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Define several. 12? 200? 1,000? Show me your data of 225K attorneys that like to fly drones or for that matter 225K.


Really? Show me a at least 2 cases where the defendant had a defense attorney do Pro Bono.


Again show me cases where these attorney did a Pro Bono case. Attorneys are trying to make a living and most do it not on a gamble.



For the third time, show some factual information on where you are getting this.


Glad I quoted this and I hope you are right because Florida just passed a similar bill.

I never said there were 225,000 California attorneys that fly drones. I said there are over 170,000 active licensed attorneys in the state of CA, and that I personally know attorneys who fly drones, and there are several active forum members who are attorneys. I stand by those statements. Attorneys "gamble" all the time. Ever heard of taking a case on a contingent fee basis? Almost all personal injury cases are taken on with the attorney fronting all the costs, in exchange for a percentage of the prospective recovery, and if there is no recovery, the costs are waived. The publicity of overturning an unconstitutional CA law is a slam dunk winner that will pay off in spades for the attorney who takes on the defense of the first person charged under it. The $160 million in venture capital money invested in CA drone manufacturers will supply any deep pockets necessary to fund the defense! The FAA itself will not allow the CA legislature or any law enforcement entity to enforce any such ridiculous law. The CA legislature has no jurisdiction over FAA controlled airspace used for flying aircraft, which includes drones, and that also includes the airspace needed for safe launching and landing! There can be no trespass through airspace not owned by the property owner. It exclusively belongs to the FAA to control for the purpose of safe flight, and no perceived invasion of privacy by some misinformed idiots will trump that!

 

[GadgetGuy]

if it was me getting nailed with this by the FAA i would do 2 things, go to the local news, tell my story and ask from help from a lawyer who wants to donate their time. if i couldn't find a laywer i'd go balls deep into it by myself... i enjoy arguments and debates, i'll educate myself and put up a defense that will cost the government more money and time then they want to commit to prove what i already discussed. 1 our quad copters are less dangerious then a automibile and 2, news and police helicopters invade our privacy more then a little quad copter flying around could ever dream of. i wont spend one penny of my own money to defend myself either.

Just to be clear, the FAA has nothing to do with the CA legislature taking it upon themselves to write unconstitutional laws that will be unenforceable. These are vigilante legislators acting on their own outside the US Constitution. Federal law trumps state law!

 

[Outta Control]

Just yesterday my local news were showing feed from their helicopter and the guy says, "check out this early bird, starting work extra early on a Monday," while zooming in on an office tower in DTLA right into a window showing a guy working at his desk. It was before sunrise so his office was illuminated and you could make him out very well.

Of course I started cursing at the screen, "how the hell are drones a problem but this isn't?!"

It is all about perception. joe public understands helicopters but all Joe public knows about drones are in Terminator and in Afghanistan.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Apple is now carrying the P3P and P3A in the Apple Store, effective today, and DJI themselves received $60 Million of venture capital money in April. That brings the total to over $220 million in Drone VC money that has a vested stake in keeping the drones free from unconstitutional laws being enacted by a reactionary CA legislature flying off the handle, legislating airspace they have no jurisdiction over! We have some very influential deep pockets on our side, ready to fund any necessary defense to the attempted assault upon our rights to fly drones in a safe manner!
Drones Now Available From Apple Store

 

[Outta Control]

Apple is now carrying the P3P and P3A in the Apple Store, effective today, and DJI themselves received $60 Million of venture capital money in April. That brings the total to over $220 million in Drone VC money that has a vested stake in keeping the drones free from unconstitutional laws being enacted by a reactionary CA legislature flying off the handle, legislating airspace they have no jurisdiction over! We have some very influential deep pockets on our side, ready to fund any necessary defense to the attempted assault upon our rights to fly drones in a safe manner!
Drones Now Available From Apple Store

Sorry Gadget but you gotta have some factual information rather than assumption or rambling off with the shoulda, coulda, woulda.

So what Apple sells DJI that doesn't mean butkus.

Seriously stop the FUD.

DJI will not be the frontrunner is spending $$$ on attorney fees to fight legislation because that is just $$$ burning up with no return.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Sorry Gadget but you gotta have some factual information rather than assumption or rambling off with the shoulda, coulda, woulda.

So what Apple sells DJI that doesn't mean butkus.

Seriously stop the FUD.

DJI will not be the frontrunner is spending $$$ on attorney fees to fight legislation because that is just $$$ burning up with no return.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, wake up and smell the coffee. If anyone is spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, it is you, not I! Drones are here to stay. I only mention the big players with major stakes in the game to demonstrate that this is no longer your grandfather's DIY RC craft days where a few guys hang out at an airfield and show off their toys. Over $200 million in venture capital has been invested in companies selling drones in the U.S. since January. Along with that comes a vested interest in protecting that market from unconstitutional laws that would restrict and strangle the use of drones. Follow the money. It doesn't matter whose money is spent overturning unconstitutional legislation that the feel good legislators and Governor "Moon Beam" might pass. Everyone else was arguing the drone owners can't afford the legal fees to overturn the unconstitutional laws. Maybe not, but plenty of others can and will. Wait and see. What else are you going to do instead? Sell your drone before the sky falls? Enjoy your drone and don't be such a negative Nelly. We are on the ground floor of a new era.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Why SB 142 will be immediately overturned, if passed, and signed by Gov Moon Beam: California's Drone Trespass Bill Goes Too Far
You also might want to read up on Federal preemption
Federal preemption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with Federal law.)

 

[Outta Control]

You are entitled to your opinion. However, wake up and smell the coffee. If anyone is spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, it is you, not I! Drones are here to stay. I only mention the big players with major stakes in the game to demonstrate that this is no longer your grandfather's DIY RC craft days where a few guys hang out at an airfield and show off their toys. Over $200 million in venture capital has been invested in companies selling drones in the U.S. since January. Along with that comes a vested interest in protecting that market from unconstitutional laws that would restrict and strangle the use of drones. Follow the money. It doesn't matter whose money is spent overturning unconstitutional legislation that the feel good legislators and Governor "Moon Beam" might pass. Everyone else was arguing the drone owners can't afford the legal fees to overturn the unconstitutional laws. Maybe not, but plenty of others can and will. Wait and see. What else are you going to do instead? Sell your drone before the sky falls? Enjoy your drone and don't be such a negative Nelly. We are on the ground floor of a new era.

So you want to call me out. Let's go.

You sir have not showed any valid proof of any of your unrealistic, magic 8 ball, guesses. Especially with your lawyer friends that likes and fly drone in that you stated that represents the majority of Ca cert lawyers that like and fly drone. Please.

You sir are delusional in your sense of reality.

You must be out of your mind to think DJI will spend millions to fight a Bill from one state while they can make more money in others and continue to progress in their technology.

So tell me in your enormous wisdom of understand law, why didn't DJI or any other big multi million dollar drone company spend 1 cent in fighting Florida SB766.

Oh BTW even a Mega-Billion dollar company such as Amazon didn't spend any money on attorneys when it testified in front of Congress.

Amazon exec makes case for drone use beyond pilot's line of sight in Congressional testimony - GeekWire

Where are your rich company stopping these frivolous drone laws.

Seriously you need a dose of reality and educate yourself more.

BTW: The Florida's SB766 was signed and passed. That is why California Legislator are "piggybacking" this Florida Bill to support CA SB142.

Senate Bill 0766 (2015) - The Florida Senate

CS/CS/SB 766: Surveillance by a Drone
GENERAL BILL by Appropriations ; Judiciary ; Hukill

Surveillance by a Drone; Prohibiting a person, a state agency, or a political subdivision from using a drone to capture an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance without his or her written consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists; authorizing the use of a drone by a person or entity engaged in a business or profession licensed by the state in certain circumstances, etc...

4/28/2015 Senate • Ordered enrolled -SJ 703
5/7/2015 • Signed by Officers and presented to Governor
5/14/2015 • Approved by Governor
5/15/2015 • Chapter No. 2015-26

Come on your turn, show me proof.

Remember you called me out. I am just returning the favor.

 

[Outta Control]

Why SB 142 will be immediately overturned, if passed, and signed by Gov Moon Beam: California's Drone Trespass Bill Goes Too Far
You also might want to read up on Federal preemption
Federal preemption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with Federal law.)

You are relying on one's opinion? now I know where you get your information from, and opinion piece.

 

[B-Scene Films]

Why SB 142 will be immediately overturned, if passed, and signed by Gov Moon Beam: California's Drone Trespass Bill Goes Too Far
You also might want to read up on Federal preemption
Federal preemption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with Federal law.)

Marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic according to the fed yet 3 states legalized it and many more have it as a prescription drug. That's just one example...

 

[GadgetGuy]

So you want to call me out. Let's go.

You sir have not showed any valid proof of any of your unrealistic, magic 8 ball, guesses. Especially with your lawyer friends that likes and fly drone in that you stated that represents the majority of Ca cert lawyers that like and fly drone. Please.

You sir are delusional in your sense of reality.

You must be out of your mind to think DJI will spend millions to fight a Bill from one state while they can make more money in others and continue to progress in their technology.

So tell me in your enormous wisdom of understand law, why didn't DJI or any other big multi million dollar drone company spend 1 cent in fighting Florida SB766.

Oh BTW even a Mega-Billion dollar company such as Amazon didn't spend any money on attorneys when it testified in front of Congress.

Amazon exec makes case for drone use beyond pilot's line of sight in Congressional testimony - GeekWire

Where are your rich company stopping these frivolous drone laws.

Seriously you need a dose of reality and educate yourself more.

BTW: The Florida's SB766 was signed and passed. That is why California Legislator are "piggybacking" this Florida Bill to support CA SB142.

Senate Bill 0766 (2015) - The Florida Senate

CS/CS/SB 766: Surveillance by a Drone
GENERAL BILL by Appropriations ; Judiciary ; Hukill

Surveillance by a Drone; Prohibiting a person, a state agency, or a political subdivision from using a drone to capture an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance without his or her written consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists; authorizing the use of a drone by a person or entity engaged in a business or profession licensed by the state in certain circumstances, etc...

4/28/2015 Senate • Ordered enrolled -SJ 703
5/7/2015 • Signed by Officers and presented to Governor
5/14/2015 • Approved by Governor
5/15/2015 • Chapter No. 2015-26

Come on your turn, show me proof.

Remember you called me out. I am just returning the favor.

Drone Law Journal

State and local government drone law.

State and local governments have passed 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 FMRA 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.

State and local governments may, however, regulate two things related to flight:

• They may regulate their own agencies‘ drone flight operations; and
• They may regulate the locations on the ground from which drones may be launched, landed or operated.

That’s it. State and local governments cannot regulate drones in any other manner. They can of course use laws of general applicability (such as voyeurism, reckless endangerment, nuisance, etc.) to prohibit certain acts, which would apply to a drone pilot, if a drone happened to be the object used to perform the prohibited act. They could also pass unnecessary and duplicative criminal statutes specific to drones, but they’d be essentially meaningless since existing criminal statutes would already cover those crimes regardless of whether they were committed with a drone.

 

[GadgetGuy]

So you want to call me out. Let's go.

You sir have not showed any valid proof of any of your unrealistic, magic 8 ball, guesses. Especially with your lawyer friends that likes and fly drone in that you stated that represents the majority of Ca cert lawyers that like and fly drone. Please.

You sir are delusional in your sense of reality.

You must be out of your mind to think DJI will spend millions to fight a Bill from one state while they can make more money in others and continue to progress in their technology.

So tell me in your enormous wisdom of understand law, why didn't DJI or any other big multi million dollar drone company spend 1 cent in fighting Florida SB766.

Oh BTW even a Mega-Billion dollar company such as Amazon didn't spend any money on attorneys when it testified in front of Congress.

Amazon exec makes case for drone use beyond pilot's line of sight in Congressional testimony - GeekWire

Where are your rich company stopping these frivolous drone laws.

Seriously you need a dose of reality and educate yourself more.

BTW: The Florida's SB766 was signed and passed. That is why California Legislator are "piggybacking" this Florida Bill to support CA SB142.

Senate Bill 0766 (2015) - The Florida Senate

CS/CS/SB 766: Surveillance by a Drone
GENERAL BILL by Appropriations ; Judiciary ; Hukill

Surveillance by a Drone; Prohibiting a person, a state agency, or a political subdivision from using a drone to capture an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance without his or her written consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists; authorizing the use of a drone by a person or entity engaged in a business or profession licensed by the state in certain circumstances, etc...

4/28/2015 Senate • Ordered enrolled -SJ 703
5/7/2015 • Signed by Officers and presented to Governor
5/14/2015 • Approved by Governor
5/15/2015 • Chapter No. 2015-26

Come on your turn, show me proof.

Remember you called me out. I am just returning the favor.

You seemed to be obsessed with Florida. I am speaking specifically to the state of California, and the current proposed bill, and you appear to be in San Jose, California. Why do you persist in arguing that FL has anything to do with CA?

You also accuse me of FUD, when you are the fearmongerer.

You also persist in misinterpreting what I have written, even after being corrected. I never stated that DJI would spend any money to protect drone flying in CA. I did state that $160 million in VC had been raised by CA drone manufacturers, which did not include DJI. Apple is also based in CA. They all have a vested interest now in protecting CA drone owners and purchasers from overreaching unconstitutional laws. Follow the money. There is plenty of money to do what you cannot afford to do: overturn the law if Gov Moon Beam ever signs it, which is speculative at best. Gov "Moon Beam" is an attorney himself, and smart enough to realize that he would be making a fool out of himself by signing into law a bill which will certainly be overturned at the first legal challenge, as written. QED.

 

[GadgetGuy]

You are relying on one's opinion? now I know where you get your information from, and opinion piece.

Hey, Bro, you and I are on the side here! Why such hostility? We both fly drones and we both want to continue to do so. I don't believe in fearmongering and FUD. If you want to waste your valuable time tilting at windmills that don't exist yet, be my guest. I support you. Personally, instead, I'll be flying my drone, while it is still perfectly legal to do so, as long as I don't engage in reckless endangerment. However, having read the bill, and trusting in those who are experts in this area, as well as having fully researched the matter myself, there is no way it survives any legal challenge in its present form. That is not to say that restrictive legislation which would pass muster isn't coming. It is. This just isn't it, yet. Let's fly our drones, until they are truly outlawed, instead of tilting at windmills, and arguing with each other over what will or won't be, until it is! Safe flying!

 

[Outta Control]

You seemed to be obsessed with Florida. I am speaking specifically to the state of California, and the current proposed bill, and you appear to be in San Jose, California. Why do you persist in arguing that FL has anything to do with CA?

You also accuse me of FUD, when you are the fearmongerer.

You also persist in misinterpreting what I have written, even after being corrected. I never stated that DJI would spend any money to protect drone flying in CA. I did state that $160 million in VC had been raised by CA drone manufacturers, which did not include DJI. Apple is also based in CA. They all have a vested interest now in protecting CA drone owners and purchasers from overreaching unconstitutional laws. Follow the money. There is plenty of money to do what you cannot afford to do: overturn the law if Gov Moon Beam ever signs it, which is speculative at best. Gov "Moon Beam" an attorney himself, and smart enough to realize that he would be making a fool out of himself by signing into law a bill which will certainly be overturned at the first legal challenge, as written. QED.

It has everything to do with CA drone issue.

Much like any other state in the union if a particular state seeks to enact a state law they will look for one from other states. If it does exist they will "piggyback" the other law and create their own.

This allows other states to prove that a particular law works.

Look at firearm, Medical Marijuana laws, and more.

It is so basic I am dumbfounded and sadden you don't see it at all.

And what about this Apple what vested interest they just freaking sell the product through their store so what. It is apparent you do not understand how a corporate and state laws work. You can say and believe in the rainbow Unicorn all you want.

What I want to know what have YOU personally done to stop this Bill.

 

[Outta Control]

Hey, Bro, you and I are on the side here! Why such hostility? We both fly drones and we both want to continue to do so. I don't believe in fearmongering and FUD. If you want to waste your valuable time tilting at windmills that don't exist yet, be my guest. I support you. Personally, instead, I'll be flying my drone, while it is still perfectly legal to do so, as long as I don't engage in reckless endangerment. However, having read the bill, and trusting in those who are experts in this area, as well as having fully researched the matter myself, there is no way it survives any legal challenge in its present form. That is not to say that restrictive legislation which would pass muster isn't coming. It is. This just isn't it, yet. Let's fly our drones, until they are truly outlawed, instead of tilting at windmills, and arguing with each other over what will or won't be, until it is! Safe flying!

I am not your Bro right now. You threw the first gauntlet. And I also listen to so-called experts but I don't rely on a hunch or their so-called expertise.

Bottom line is that this Bill needs to stop before signed. Period.

If it does even though you are in the clear you will have to pay for defending yourself even though you can justify it. It is best to stop it in its track so there is no question about any legality.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic according to the fed yet 3 states legalized it and many more have it as a prescription drug. That's just one example...

That is a case of the Feds choosing to not enforce federal law, where states have legalized it. The Feds always have that perogative. If the Feds decide to enforce their marijuana laws, however, you cannot use as your defense that state laws made it legal! The Feds trump the states!

With the current proposed unsigned CA bill, the state of CA is claiming jurisdiction and enforcement over federally controlled airspace. Even if the FAA doesn't object, anyone charged with violating the law can argue federal preemption, and will succeed, resulting in the law being embarrassingly overturned in court!

 

[damoncooper]

Please show your support for our sport/industry before it gets legislated out of existence.

Californians: Join DJI and @CEA in urging Governor Brown to veto anti-innovation Senate Bill 142. Here's how:

http://p2a.co/embed/widget/app/AOvG3hP

Your support is appreciated.

 

[Outta Control]

That is a case of the Feds choosing to not enforce federal law, where states have legalized it. The Feds always have that perogative. If the Feds decide to enforce their marijuana laws, however, you cannot use as your defense that state laws made it legal! The Feds trump the states!

With the current proposed unsigned CA bill, the state of CA is claiming jurisdiction and enforcement over federally controlled airspace. Even if the FAA doesn't object, anyone charged with violating the law can argue federal preemption, and will succeed, resulting in the law being embarrassingly overturned in court!

See you just answer and countered your belief. The Feds can trump and blow their horns all it wants but state law is their law of their land. Seriously looks at Colorado and California marijuana laws. case and point I know of a closed case where the Fed sued and won in Federal court over a Medical Marijuana center. It wasn't that the Feds stated it was illegal under Federal Law, they won because the Medical Marijuana's place of business was designated as federally owned land in the city of San Jose. If MMC's facility was 500' or one block at either direction the feds couldn't and wouldn't have won.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I am not your Bro right now. You threw the first gauntlet. And I also listen to so-called experts but this Bill needs to stop before signed. If it does even though you are in the clear you will have to pay for defending yourself even though you can justify it. It is best to stop it in its track so there is no question about any legality.

You are Fellow Drone Bro. We are in this together, even if we disagree on the approach. I merely questioned the hysteria and fearmongering that the uninformed drone owners are succumbing to, in the same manner that the public believes all drones exist to spy on them and invade their privacy. There are powers that be out there, that are far more powerful than you and I and any public comment or petition, that will be deciding how this all shakes out in the end. Should this bill be signed into law, and should you be the one singled out to be prosecuted under it, you won't need your own money to defend yourself. You will have every drone attorney offering their legal services for free to represent you, to overturn the law. You keep going back to the lone defendant. Test cases like this are eagerly sought out becuse they are such a slam dunk. Trust the process. I know you don't, but that's how these things work. Governor Moon Beam, if he signs this bill, will get his moon beam handed right back to him! You are illinformed if you think he cares about what the drone owners think. He does care about his legacy, and signing this bill will only lead to future embarrassment. Either he won't sign it, or it will be overturned. It's future versions of better written bills that we will need to worry about, but this isn't one of them. I predict a window of drone freedom for about a year. Use it as best you can. Happy flying!