Washington State Drone Ban UPDATE! .....ALERT

BluSky1 February 8, 2014 at 4:28am

United States v. Causby - 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

This state will be sued in to submission the supreme court already decided this long ago.

Ron Isaksen February 6, 2014 at 9:48am

Is Washington State declaring ownership of the airspace and levying fines and penalties for airspace incursions which belongs to the United States for the purpose of air commerce? Please read United States vs Causby - 328 U.S. 256 (1946) ht...tp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/256/case.html Page 328 U. S. 260 I. The United States relies on the Air Commerce Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 568, 49 U.S.C. § 171 et seq., as amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 973, 49 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. Under those statutes, the United States has "complete and exclusive national sovereignty in the air space" over this country. 49 U.S.C. § 176(a). They grant any citizen of the United States "a public right of freedom of transit in air commerce [Footnote 4] through the navigable air space of the United States." 49 U.S.C. § 403. And "navigable air space" is defined as "airspace above the minimum safe altitudes of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority." 49 U.S.C. § 180. And it is provided that "such navigable airspace shall be subject to a public right of freedom of interstate and foreign air navigation." Id. It is therefore argued that, since these flights were within the minimum safe altitudes of flight which had been prescribed, they were an exercise of the declared right of travel through the airspace. The United States concludes that, when flights are made within the navigable airspace without any physical invasion of the property of the landowners, there has been no taking of property. It says that, at most, there was merely incidental damage occurring as a consequence of authorized air navigation. It also argues that the landowner does not own superadjacent airspace which he has not subjected to possession by the erection of structures or other occupancy. Moreover, it is argued that, even if the United States took airspace owned by respondents, no compensable damage was shown. Any damages are said to be merely consequential for which no compensation may be obtained under the Fifth Amendment. It is ancient doctrine that at common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe -- cujo
Doug Walmsley on January 13, 2014 at 7:54amSee More

Jared O. February 6, 2014 at 9:44am

What I was really thinking is how lame Rep. Jeff M...orris (D) must be for even trying to pass something like this. Seriously?! If you want your privacy so badly, you might try just closing the curtains. Forget the drones, there could be kids watching...

Jared O. February 6, 2014 at 9:21am

If I'm reading it right, it looks like your okay to fly FPV anywhere as long as you're not recording the video (ie. don't hit record on the GoPro).

Section 2.1: A sensing device is not an "active sensing device" when it is capable of acquiring personal information from its surroundings, but this functionality is dormant or has not been activated.

Am I missing something?

BacklashRC February 5, 2014 at 6:57am

"me", I cannot disagree with your first point, but I do disagree with the rest.

2. Exisiting laws dont prevent the goal of the legislation, but I think what you were likely trying to say is that existing laws "already accomplish" the goal of this legislation.

3. States are given the authority to govern their own airspace in specific instances. The FAA has excluded, for now at least, the use of recreation UAV's from their regulation. Some states have decided to pick up where the FAA has left off. Though I am not a legal expert, I would not bet against a State's authority to regulate portions of their own airspace when the regulation does not conflict at the federal level.

4. HB2178 does not prohibit flying from, or over, public property. It also no longer prohibits the operator from flying over private property, even without the owner's permission, as long as the operation of the UAV does not interfere with the landowner's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Ron Isaksen, you mentioned that the bill is being reconsidered by the TED committee tomorrow morning at 8AM. Where are you getting this information? The schedule for the legistature does not have a record of the committee's intent to meet tomorrow. The URL that lists the bill's progress does not mention the meeting either.

Dave Moore February 4, 2014 at 10:05pm

Nevermind, found it on another post. Glad there are people out there watching this, Thank you.

Dave Moore February 4, 2014 at 9:50pm

Can someone savy in legislative speak, come up with wording we can send to these so called representatives?

me February 4, 2014 at 9:29pm

Here is the status page for the bill:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2178&year=2013

And the updated text after the bill passed the committee:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%2...

Some things to consider.

1) The use of UAS does not change the ability of someone to observe others on property. That is a function of flight parameters, sensors, etc. I could fly a manned aircraft and capture the same imagery if I had the right sensor.

2) Existing laws prevent the goals of this legislation.

3) This is likely illegal, federal law supersedes it. That said, if it passes someone has to fight it.

4) No flying over or from any public property

Blogs

Washington State Drone Ban UPDATE! .....ALERT

Comments