Slashdot Mirror
FAA Sued Over Federal Drone Registry (technical.ly)
"Last December, the FAA rushed an arbitrary and ineffectual recreational drone-owners' registry into effect, mere days before Christmas and just in time to criminalize the flying of toys by thousands of children and hobbyists," argued The Daily Signal. Now Slashdot reader jenningsthecat reports on a promising legal challenge filed by a drone hobbyist who's also a lawyer, who is now "receiving financial help with his suit from the D.C. area Drone User Group (DC DUG).
In his Petitioner's Brief, John Taylor maintains that "(f)or the first century of American aviation and beyond, the federal government made no attempt whatsoever to regulate recreational model aircraft", and that "(t)he FAA seeks to revise history (PDF) when it argues its failure to register model aircraft, or otherwise treat them in any manner as 'aircraft,' in the past was the exercise of an 'enforcement discretion.'"
On a fund-raising page for the challenge, the group calls the federal registry "deeply concerning to users and prospective users of small unmanned aircraft."
On a fund-raising page for the challenge, the group calls the federal registry "deeply concerning to users and prospective users of small unmanned aircraft."
When you can't play with your toys in a safe manner you get your toys taken away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I don't think it should be.
What you think is irrelevant.
For instance I think the government should have you censored, strip away your right to vote and imprison you.
Yes
Just like all speech, all press, and all religion is protected.
If you don't like that, you need to amend the constitution.
Because they broke they law by passing unconstitutional laws and the court system decided to illegally turn a blind eye to it.
During World War II the us government illegally imprisoned Japanese americans. It was still illegal they just got away with it.
Laws like this wouldn't be necessary if people just knew how to fucking behave.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The gun is. The drone isn't.
The supreme court seems to think it's a big deal.
Why do you refer me as a parts per liter? Is this some new group I'm not aware of?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
The FAA has broad authority over anything that flies and they have a history of declining to regulate hobbyist model aircraft. But putting out an advisory circular saying "we won't bother you if you are a hobbyist and listen to the AMA" is kind of the opposite of "we don't have any authority over this activity". "Enforcement discretion" is pretty much exactly how I would describe this.
Like most executive branch functions, and like it or not, the precise manner and timing of how the FAA carries out their mandate is up to them. It's basically like how the cops usually won't bother people for having a broken tail-light or a few MPH of speeding, but can elect to pull over people at any time for those violations. In fact, even if the town has a policy of not pulling people over for always had to understand something about airspace and keep things safe. Pre-drone, the AMA served this purpose and their fields' placements and operating rules took care of this problem. But when you can unbox your drone, charge it for an hour or two, and then send it up to 3000' on the first try, there's no funnel through the AMA like there used to be to teach people those rules. The drone registry's main purpose is to act as another funnel so that people can figure out where and when it's safe to fly. And, if they don't play by the rules, that there's at least the potential for accountability.
The drone community has brought this on themselves entirely. As even the suit alleges, everyone was OK with the model airplane rules. Drones changed the game and forced the agency's hand here. That's what happens with disruptive technology - you might as well get mad about the regulation of automobiles because everything was fine with horses. But obviously cars are much easier to use (average experience and skill goes down) and go much faster (danger goes up). Drones are similarly easier to use, which explains their popularity, and can easily go much higher and from way more places.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
That's what the Jews said in the 1930's. It always starts out with 'registration'. And no, I'm not trying to troll anyone. If I was I'd post AC.
No liberty is absolute. Speech, for instance can be limited, either civilly (if you sign an NDA and then violate it), or criminally (revealing state secrets, or treason as some call it, is an example of how speech can be limited under criminal statute). The Founding Fathers intended liberties to expansive, but not absolute. In such a way, limiting some forms of gun ownership is no different than, say, laws against shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The problem is that there aren't convenient "air" borders between states, so this, like, say, radio frequencies, are an obvious place where the Federal government has a role. Perhaps you should review why it is exactly the Articles of Confederation were ultimately seen as near worthless and the Constitution that is in place tody was written.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Exactly. It is highly disingenuous to compare modern drones to the hobbiest model and miniature aircraft of the past. The hobbiests tended to be pretty sensitive to other peoples' feelings and to general notions of aviation safety. Part of it was, I suppose that the cost of such aircraft was fairly high, but it was also part of the gentlemen's agreement that went along with entering the hobby. Now when any beer-swilling asshole with a spare $200 can go and buy a drone with video camera on it, it simply isn't the same hobby at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It takes a special kind of cunt to compare registering your air-ready toy with German Jews in the 1930s.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So no, they cannot legislate for model aircraft. It isn't that they did not bother to legislate for model aircraft. IT'S THAT THE LAW DOES NOT LET THEM.
As a point of clarity, here, the FAA doesn't legislate anything. They regulate, with statutory authority FROM the legislature. Regardless the law that congress passed to prevent exactly this sort of nonsense is exactly why the Obama administration took advantage of what amounts to a loophole - they didn't use the FAA to require this absurd toy registration - they used the Department Of Transportation, which isn't explicitly mentioned in the law that prevents the FAA from requiring kids to be placed on publicly searchable federal databases for having the audacity to use 10-ounce plastic toys.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We need that airspace clear so we can sell it to the highest bidder. To hell with your recreational stuff, and your democracy protecting uses.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Section 331 of the 2012 FAA modernization act is a definitions section. Perhaps you meant section 336. You also left off a bunch of conditions:
- It has to be hobby/recreational
- It has to be according to the AMA's rules ("in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization")
- It has to be less than 55 pounds or signed off on by the AMA
- It has not interfere with manned aircraft
- If within 5 miles of an airport, you have to call the airport
- It has to be within visual line of sight
Also it says that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system."
So the section 336 exemption is followed exactly, except that the FAA says that if the drone is more than 0.55lbs it must be registered. The FAA probably argues that this is part of maintaining the safety of the national airspace system, and I think it's a case they will win considering it's based on weight. Their legal argument is basically that by codifying the Part 107 UAS rules, they have told everyone "we consider unregistered drones over 0.55lbs to endanger the safety of the NAS and will pursue enforcement actions against such persons" - which is basically all a regulation is. The plantiff's argument would have to be along the lines of "well technically the law says you can't do anything it doesn't say, and doesn't say anything about whether heavier drones can be required to be registered". Which is fair enough, but since registration is non-discriminatory (anyone can do it, the FAA won't tell anyone they can't) and free ($5 online but you can do it on paper), they'd have to argue that the registration requirement itself constitutes a burdensome regulation on top of what's allowed by the law - to which I say good luck.
Generally, laws about regulation either delegate a section of authority to an agency for them to figure out the rules, or (if the congress-folks are worried about the agency doing or not doing something they don't like, which is what happened here and with the more recent class-3 medical certification reform for manned aircraft) they lay out the shape of the rules that they expect the FAA to create. That's what the FAA did here, modulo that registration requirement. But it's up to the agency to create the laws that follow the outline in the law, and on general principle courts will yield to the regulating authority unless the disconnect is "big enough".
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
That happened way before drones, it stopped being a hobby when ready to fly models became available.
When you spent many hours building a model, you vaued it al lot more than an off the shelf item
I "registered" my drone as required and nowhere in the process was there anything to identify my drone. In other words, my drone isn't registered; I am registered as a drone owner. What good is that? If someone misuses their drone the FAA sends out a list of local drone owners?
Are you seriously comparing a MILITARY UAV capable of carrying multiple standard issue Air-to Ground Missiles, that is larger than a car, to a hobby drone that is smaller than a basketball?
Well, I guess if you want the fucking nutters to come out you talk about drones.
Which is why there is different levels of "scrutiny" for each of the amendments. Such as "Intermediate" Scrutiny or "Strict" Scrutiny.
Can you guess which one the 2nd Amendment falls under?
Those of us that fly real airplanes dont want to get your $200 toy stuck in our $20,000 engine.
Precisely! this IS more important than this and since passengers are at risk in real planes, they are even more important than this.
No, I don't think they are breaking the law, but nice touch beginning of your FAA quote a capital letter "T" and finishing it before the "if" :
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL — Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, 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, if — (1) etc, etc
No, actually you're wrong. There are limits due to the advance of technology - you can not have a bazooka, you can not have a sawed-off shotgun, you can not have military weapons, etc. The reasoning is clear to those who are not zealots - the technology is so far removed from the context of the originators that they could not forsee it, or the density of society that exists now.
There is no justification to own a gun.
It's my Constitutional right. No justification is needed.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Because ever since the National Firearms Act was passed back in the 30's, and the Hughes Amendment in the 80's, no one has had the resources nor standing to bring a successful suit against the government until now.
The government at all levels often creates unconstitutional laws but until someone can challenge it with an actual standing the only way to get a law is repealed is through the respective legislative body, however we all know anyone purposing a repeal of the Hughes Amendment, let alone the National Firearms Act, would be committing political suicide so that leaves the courts as the only practical avenue.
The problem is that the FAA (and other regulators around the world) have chosen to penalize the genuine hobbyist for the acts of the idiots. This is totally uncalled for and unfair. Imagine if, every time some dick-head decided to break the speed limit, *every* responsible driver was penalised as a result. That's the situation we have here with drones.
The regulators can't even define what a drone is accurately or consistently so instead of making even the smallest effort (such as differentiating between craft that have onboard GPS and an autonomous or semi-autonomous capability -- such as auto-land, return to home etc) they consider everything that flies without a pilot to be a drone.
This is just laziness on the part of regulators and gross unfairness towards the responsible members of a hobby that has for decades proven itself to be safe and family-friendly.
Ultimately, we have a bunch of suits who fly desks telling the rest of us (some like myself who've been flying model aircraft for over 50 years) under threat of severe fines and/or imprisonment, what's safe and what's not. Ludicrous!
It's not the registration that is the problem -- it's the contract that the FAA forces upon you when you register.
Section 336 clearly states that the FAA may make no new rules to control model aircraft so they've been clever as a fox. The FAA has no way to make new rules to control these craft so they conjured up a contract and called it "registration". In order to register you must agree to the terms of the contract which include restrictions that were not previously present -- such as not flying over 400 feet AGL etc. Once you've registered, you have agreed to that contract and breaching it (such as flying over 400 feet AGL) exposes you to legal action for breach of the contract. So, the FAA have created new rules by stealth in the form of this binding contract.
It's a crock and has been done solely to sidestep the decree of Congress. Nasty work!
Even nastier is how little has been done to highlight this fact. Thank goodness *someone* is taking them to court over this dirty dealing.
A gun is a constitutionally protected right. A drone isn't.
Arms isn't technically limited ti firearms, I guess you have to weaponize that drone!
The same foolish argument could be made about the 1st amendment and the technologies we can now leverage in exercising it. Reason out why freedom of speech doesn't just apply to hand operated printing presses and soapboxes and work down the list of explicitly enumerated rights.
I'm not agreeing but that's probably the first decent argument in favor I've heard.
In practice limiting human death is a motivating concern for law in a civilized society. There are no justifications for heavy weaponry outside of military conflicts. Abandon your closet fantasies of "take-over" because that would involve facing extreme distance remote drones and ICBMs. The state is a sanctioned body to control and limit the distribution of such large-scale weapons. Only they have a right to possess them for the purpose of their sacred duty of protecting human life.
In practice limiting human death is a motivating concern for law in a civilized society
What percentage of murders are committed in America with "Assault Weapons", or "Assault Rifles", or were ever murdered with "a Bazooka", or even the famously banned in California 50 BMG rifle, care to guess or look it up? Because if it's a really big percentage then you have a point, otherwise you're just making odd mewling sounds.
Talking points eh? Fuck off with that. I'm talking about serious weapons - those have no use in civilian hands.
So the section 336 exemption is followed exactly, except that the FAA says that if the drone is more than 0.55lbs it must be registered.
The fundamental problem here is that there can be no "except." Section 336 explicitly says the FAA has no power to regulate "model aircraft" as defined therein. The registration requirement is a regulation. Your theory that the "enforcement action" clause can be stretched to the point where it effectively nullifies the rest of Section 336 violates some pretty basic principles of statutory construction.
But it's up to the agency to create the laws that follow the outline in the law, and on general principle courts will yield to the regulating authority unless the disconnect is "big enough".
You mean like, for example, if the law explicitly says "the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft" and then the FAA does so? That's not a matter of degree or interpretation -- that's the executive thumbing its nose at the legislature.
You brought up "Bazooka" and "sawed-off shotguns", not I. If that's not what you're talking about then talk about what you want to talk about.
I'm not certain that's true, for instance a single shot firearm wouldn't qualify as a machine gun unless I misunderstand that part of the NFA.
Go learn to be an adult first, you need to start someplace not Fox News - they employ the worst of the blatantly false arguments and misrepresentation even worse than you do already in the name of increased ad revenues from rabid viewers. Also: go learn what a bazooka is. You're not going to hunt deer with it.
The Part 107 rules STILL leave out the use-case of volunteer non-profit search & rescue operations. By definition, commercial means that you are being compensated. The FAA's own example of accepting ball game tickets as a gift for flying illustrates this. Volunteer non-profit SAR groups aren't compensated for their work. Therefore, one would think that Part 107 doesn't apply yet many people believe that it does. SAR also doesn't have the luxury of waiting any length of time to look for someone nor do they have the luxury of waiting until daylight.
The 2nd amendment is not about hunting, it's about making sure the citizens of military age (AKA the militia) may own and carry weapons suitable for an infantry. Both a Bazooka and a sawed-off shotgun are (1) excellent examples of infantry weapons and (2) not for hunting. You have yet to field a single actual argument in support of your baseless assertions.
mod parent up, it is what the law actually says.
That's wrong. Under the US Constitution, the federal government has limited, enumerated powers, while citizens retain the infinity of rights and privileges that aren't explicitly limited in the Constitution. The Second Amendment doesn't give you any rights you didn't already have under the Constitution; the Second Amendment simply states, as a precaution, that this right in particular is protected, because the Founders already anticipated just the kind of undesirable expansion of federal powers that we have seen over the past century and a half. Both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights state that clearly.
That is, it is far from clear that the FAA has Constitutional authority to regulate air space at the federal level; it was created in a wave of federal overreach in the 20th century. Federal overreach on guns has been impeded because the Second Amendment put an explicit, secondary barrier in place.
European constitutions protect specific rights, the US constitution does not protect any rights.
What the US Constitution is doing is something much better: it enumerates a limited set of powers that the government has; all rights (current and future) that aren't limited by those powers are retained by the people.
That, at least, was the original idea. Legal practice has increasingly ignored that since the progressive era. But it's nevertheless what the Constitution actually means.
What you think is irrelevant. People no more have to justify to you why they want to own guns than why they want to have sex, with whom they want to have sex, why they want to own a car, etc. That's what living in a free society means: you decide what is important to you, not government or your neighbors.
The US Constitutions has no rights "baked into it". The US Constitution enumerates a limited set of governmental powers; all rights that aren't explicitly limited by enumerated powers are retained by the people (or the states).
My premise is simple: Fifth commandment just war is the only exercise of heavy weaponry that is permissible. Revolt is not in that category because the state is the sacred trustee of God's will to watch over all residents. Bullshit excuses like yours and attempts to deflect from weapons with exclusively military utility (restricted by nature) don't do anything but satisfy some fucked desire you have to be a keyboard-warrior version of a soldier without any valid training.
My premise is simple: Fifth commandment just war is the only exercise of heavy weaponry that is permissible.
If you lived in a theocracy that would be a valid point. Here in America we don't, so you don't. Is that really the best you got? Seriously?
My beliefs are my own, you can fuck off you won't change them. My policy on weapons is absolutely the opposite of yours for reasons that are infinitely more justified. I rest easy knowing you aren't old enough to vote, and hope education fixes your defects.
I think you don't understand what the insurance is covering.
Hint: It's not damage to itself.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well one of us seems to be descending into insults and appeals to imaginary invisible people, while the other is using facts and logic. I was old enough to vote for Reagan, by the way. Are you done being wrong or do you have more wrong to share? Or perhaps switch and have an actual logical argument?
No, you're too stupid. Fuck off.
Are you done being wrong ...?
No,
Fair enough - later!
You are a sad little man, go cry yourself to sleep.
Substitute WASP for black... Or conservative black...
I know it's too much to expect people to read the article, but I didn't expect people to be too lazy to read through a whole section of law they are using as an argument, or even finish reading the sentence they quote.
There are exceptions contained in the very sentence that you quoted from, but you stopped reading section 336 where it benefited your argument instead of quoting the entire section or even finishing the sentence which contains a "if" a mere 10 words later before stipulating the conditions for the prevention of regulation. Drones do not qualify as model aircraft according to Section 336.
"SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, 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, if-
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.-In this section, the term "model aircraft" means an unmanned aircraft that is-
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes. "
By a massive majority, they do not fly according to AMA's rules (336.a.2).
Many ignore provisions (a.4) and (a.5) as well.
That's a really desperate strawman attempt; this "debate" will be more interesting if you try harder... ;)
The gun is. The drone isn't.
Ya, fuck the Ninth Amendment. If a right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, then you do not have it.