Slashdot Mirror
FAA Drone Rules May Already Be Outlawed By Congress (hackaday.com)
szczys writes: New FAA rules about drone registration and operation are now in effect. So far the talk has centered around registering your aircraft, and about the weight restriction. But all of this may be moot since the US Congress made a law in 2012 prohibiting these types of rules: "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." Even if the rules hold up under this law, it is not all doom and gloom for drones. The FAA rules could have been much more stringent, and in general they do make sense. Brian Benchoff walks through the regulation, comparing the new rules to the FAA's existing pilot rules, and juxtaposing the threat drones make to full-size aircraft in flight with those risks associated with bird strikes.
Waiting for the FAA to ban birds from flying around helos and airplanes...
I can remember when the Feds wanted everyone with a CB radio to have a license, too.
If the FAA model aircraft database is public, then what's to stop someone local from looking up your name, address and registration number and sticking that on their model aircraft instead of their own name ?
That way, they can fly in a reckless manner and if their aircraft crashes, it's an innocent person the authorities are going to be looking for.
I already got a letter from my flying club saying to hold off on registration. Here's the AMA website report: http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...
Really? You're going to get in the way of emergency responders, then complain that something is being put in place to dissuade that?
Woah there hold up, *I* never got in the way of any emergency responders. But *I* am now expected to register and pay of fee, so yea I am going to complain. Also the registration process does not collect any serial numbers or any other details so there is still no way to actually tie a drone to a responsible owner. Which means that people who do register are really just being added to another special government list.
As the TFA states this action by the FAA is probably not even legal, like so much of the other stuff this Administration does. So if they in fact breaking the law themselves that is another VERY VALID reason to complain.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Maybe if all of these idiotic drone owners didn't ruin it for everyone, we wouldn't need these at all.
This is it in a nutshell.
Quadcopters are a disruptive technology in the sense that the old paradigm, of expensive, difficult-to-fly, easy-to-destroy RC aircraft has shifted to cheap, somewhat-easy-to-fly "drone" RC aircraft. Additionally, the scale-model-of-real mentality has been replaced with a whatever-works mentality. This shift is helped by the reduction in weight of batteries and the reduction in size of high quality video camera and storage technology.
When one couldn't take high quality video for extended periods of time, when one had a lot of money tied up in an RC aircraft, and when that aircraft was difficult to fly, people who engaged in the hobby generally had a bit of etiquette, even if pragmatically due to flying over someone else's property was a good way to lose the expensive toy. It appears that quadcopter enthusiasts are less inhibited by this.
As to the language of the law as described in the article summary, the word "model" was used. The implication in the past has meant "scale model", ie, a reduced-size version approximating a real machine. Since quadcopters don't have full-scale human-pilotable equivalents, these are not "model aircraft" by the strictest definition of the terminology. They are a new thing, and even if the new laws do not apply to scale-model fixed-wing or scale-model helicopters, the argument can be made they apply perfectly well to quadcopters and other small RC aircraft.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Guns are an ENUMERATED RIGHT. What part of 'shall not infringe' is unclear to you?
Good-bye
It says guns exactly 0 times. What it says is Arms.
Yes, you are correct.
during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
And then you say all this other stuff that is not in the document at all.
You know what else was under "arms"? Cannons. Lots of shippers owned them, too. Make no mistake, any pro-gun-control interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is, no matter how well-meaning, historical revisionism and rationalization.
You have the right to bear arms - during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
It says no such thing. Your reading comprehension and understanding of the constitution is completely childish.
Those are the terms that must be met according to the documents.
No, they're not. The point is that THERE ARE NO TERMS. The government shall not infringe - as in, not place conditions on, not interfere with, not limit - on that basic right. The Second Amendment is saying that despite the inevitable need for a standing military (even at the militia level), the existence of such is not an excuse for the government to prevent individual citizens from keeping and bearing their own arms.
I guess I am the only sane person capable of correctly parsing the english language?
No, you're just making stuff up. You are parsing it exactly 100% backwards.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.