New California Law

Outta Control said:

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.

Click to expand...

What basis do you have for your claim that the Feds "couldn't and wouldn't have won" otherwise? If the Feds are choosing to look the other way on land not owned by the Feds, that is their perogative. It wasn't that they couldn't have otherwise. They just chose a case that would not require conflicting with a state law. Federal law trumps state law. Read the prior Preemption link I supplied. The unsigned CA bill is a very clear example of preemption.

My wife personally worked on the case and it was a close win for the center but they can't get around the federal land issue. Thus the jury found enough evidence to evict the center. That is why I know.

So I don't expect you to trust or respect on what I say but it is what it is. This is a small portion on why I know what I know.

Outta Control said:

My wife personally worked on the case and it was a close win for the center but they can't get around the federal land issue. Thus the jury found enough evidence to evict the center. That is why I know.

So I don't expect you to trust or respect on what I say but it is what it is. This is a small portion on why I know what I know.

Click to expand...

I have no reason to distrust or disrespect anything you are saying. However, I would feel much more confident in the results of a bench trial than a jury trial, when drawing conclusions about the law. Jury trials are notoriously unreliable. OJ comes to mind. Juror nullification is common. With the Center case, the Feds likely didn't argue preemption, because that wasn't the reason they prosecuted the case, and the defendants certainly weren't going to bring it up. However, I shouldn't speculate about a case I know nothing about. I just wouldn't draw any conclusions from that case relative to the case at bar. FAA airspace, and the safe travel into and through it, serves a much more important national interest that the FAA needs to protect, from overzealous state legislators who attempt to assert jurisdiction over airspace they have no jurisdiction over in the first place with unconstitutional laws.

Outta Control said:

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.

Click to expand...

Here is the post from a FL criminal defense attorney drone owner on the FL law who is equally unconcerned about the FL law.

QUOTE="FlyingFred, post: 27937, member: 17880"]The law doesn't take effect until October. Even if it did, my interpretation of it is that you're good to go on 2 fronts. First, the beach itself is public real estate and you'll be fine on that front. Second, the law is pretty vague in the area of private real estate within 25 miles of the United States border (which is permitted). The law does not define what the border is. Under maritime law, the border is the low water mark so I imagine there is going to be some litigation over that in the future to clear it up. As a general rule, if a person being filmed by a drone would have an expectation of privacy (like in an outside shower that wasn't covered by a roof but is covered on all 4 sides surrounding it), you'll have a problem and might also be violating Florida's voyeurism law which is pretty tough and calls for jail. However, if you're just taking pictures and videos of the beach and unique architecture that is open to the public, you'll be fine. I flew my phantom a few weeks ago at Seaside which is only a few miles east of Destin and had no problems. I highly recommend you go over there while you are here. The town itself is really picturesque. It's where the movie "The Truman Show" was filmed. There are also several beaches that are not very populated on the outskirts of Destin such as Grayton Beach and Topsail and you shouldn't have any problems there.[/QUOTE]

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.

Veto SB 142

"...This bill currently is sitting on Governor Brown’s desk waiting for his action. Time is short. The governor has until September 12, 2015 to either sign or veto this proposed legislation.

Please act now. Go to http://amagov.modelaircraft.org/18534/californiasb142/ and let Governor Brown know that, as a recreational aeromodeler, you believe that this bill is too broad and overreaching and can only have a negative impact on model aviation..."

Bill got shot down!! VETO: California Bill SB 142 "Drone Tresspass Bill" Shot Down by Governor Brown!!! - Aeriographer.Com

I thought govener brown vetoed all the drone laws, but on the local news they said there's a new anti spying law..
they didnt say specifically what is was except it illegal to spy on people and take videos or pictures of anyone on the ground? ?
Wtf does that mean??
So if your recording while flying over people they can fine you a bunch of doe ??
Really. ...

Joola said:

It's AB 856.

This is the only drone privacy law that should be on the books IMO. It adds language to the existing privacy laws to include footage captured over the property of another. In order to be considered invading privacy, you have to meet certain criteria, like all photographers do.

I think with this law, we won't see new laws regulating drones under the guise of protecting privacy. This one pretty much covers it.

Click to expand...

I approve Joola's message.

This law is about intent.