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.

Comments

Big Government

[Anonymous Coward]

I love reducing government restrictions by creating new ones.

Re: Big Government

[Reverend Green]

Yay for less freedom!

Awesome thing is, reducing domestic freedom and funding more war have huge bipartisan support:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

Soviet Union, we're catching up! Soon we'll be just as unfree as you were. Fuck yeah, go America!

Re: Big Government

[Anonymous Coward]

In January he signed an EO stating that for every new regulation, two old regulations must be revoked. So, what are the two in this case?

Re: Big Government

[thaylin]

That he came within 1% without winning in a seat that has been controlled by conservatives this long doses in deed speak well towards dems platform.

Re:Big Government

[Freischutz]

I love reducing government restrictions by creating new ones.

They're not restrictions if they only affect people you don't like, if you were a Republican you'd know that.

Re: Big Government

[MachineShedFred]

Net neutrality
Clean air act

Wasn't that a bargain?

Re:Big Government

[Anonymous Coward]

http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/05/dont-register-anything

Re:Big Government

[Hylandr]

+1 Informative

Re: Big Government

[zlives]

yup you can also register you guns and use them the same exact way as you do today... not so sure about tomorrow.

Re:Big Government

[MercTech]

Thank you lawsuit happy crybabies.
Previously, as long as you abide by FAA regulations on hobby aircraft; there was no law requiring registration.
Since a few people decided to sue over using unregistered hobby aircraft for money making commercial purposes; now the hobby market has to register ALL hobby aircraft.

Thank you scammers for screwing up a decent deal.

Re: Big Government

[shentino]

This isn't a new regulation created by a federal agency.

This is a new law enacted by congress.

Huh

[fyrewulff]

I thought he was all about the deregulation? *crickets*

Re:Huh

[olsmeister]

He is all about deregulation. For corporations.

Re:Huh

[hawguy]

Trump says he will build a wall. He does. Bitching ensues.

Trump says he will reduce regulation. He adds one. Bitching ensues.

People that hate him are giving him every reason to do whatever he pleases without concern for consequences.

It's almost as if people don't like what he's doing whether he pre-announced (well, pre-tweeted) it or not.

Technically he didn't fulfill his promise on the wall since he promised that Mexico was going to pay for it.

Re:Huh

[SvnLyrBrto]

Not just technically. He flat-out hasn't built that wall. All that exists are a handful of exorbitantly priced prototypes, and the existing border fence.

The wall is just not going to happen. Almost all of the cost estimates are ludicrously low-balled. And the most realistic of the lot barely covers materials; omitting:

1) Labor: You need to find lots of people willing to move to, and work in, some of the most miserably hot and middle-of-nowhere parts of the southwestern desert states. And the companies employing that labor have to sacrifice any future business in, at the very least, California; the richest and most populous state in the US. California is especially profitable for construction firms; since everything has to be built to earthquake spec. That's a lot of potential profits to be asked to sacrifice. Plus, a few other states, and a good number of cities as well, are also working on laws banning any company that works on the border wall from bidding on government contracts. So 45 is going to have to pay a premium and princely sum for that labor.

2) Logistics: You have to get those aforementioned materials and people to the construction sites. The people have to be fed, sheltered, and amused. And it's not like you can pour the concrete in El Paso and truck it 8 hours somewhere. Concrete plants will need to be built in situ; adding to the expense. Oh, and you'll need to build roads to many of the construction sites as well.

3) Legalities: A lot of people, across four states, three federal circuit courts (Including, yes, the 9th.), and who knows how many counties, are going to fight the wall. Exempting the law from EIRs has been bandied about already. But you can bet that expensive and time-consuming lawsuits will ensue if 45 tries. And quite a lot of the land needed for the wall, worker housing and support, and roads and such, is private property. The mucilaginous morass of eminent domain suits alone brings a gleeful giggle to my throat. And it won't just be Cards Against Humanity's xmas project to buy land specifically for the purpose. It won't just be liberals either. Do you think for a second that ornery southwestern, and especially Texan and "sovereign citizen", rancher types are going to take kindly to the feds stomping in and taking their land from them? Hell, 45 will be fortunate if they ONLY fight back with expensive and time-consuming lawsuits. Remember, those Bundy peoples' feuding with the federal government didn't start with Obama. They've been at it since Bush #1.

Oh, and congress still has to allocate the money for the wall... not the fantasy-land sums 45 and his people have tossed around, but the real costs taking into account all of the above. You can take it to the bank that if the Democrats take either house in 2018, that's just not going to happen. And even a good number of republicans are ambivalent about the wall. It's a boondoggle that's going to waste a fantastic amount of money for no benefit; so any that genuinely believe in fiscal responsibility or small government are out. Some of them represent districts that will contain those soon-to-be-pissed-off victims of eminent domain attacks. And hispanics are still the fastest growing demographic in the US. I imagine at least a few republicans will look at what happened in California when former governor Pete Wilson decided to hitch his wagon to the "How I hate the Mexicans, let me count the 187 ways." train.

Re:Huh

[dwillden]

This is a law, passed by Congress by attaching to the NDAA. HE didn't do anything, but sign the bill. Not signing it would have been a much bigger issue as it would have held up funding for the military.

If anything complain about the congressional practice of attaching off-topic issues to must pass bills to slip them into law. Both parties are guilty of doing this.

Re:Huh

[thaylin]

And how much is it, I cannot find anything. we pay a total of 320m in aid total to mexico. That is total. The estimate to do the wall is 6-7 billion, and that is very low, but lets take it

That means if you take away ALL aid, not just border security it would take roughly 20 years to make up for the wall. And that is not taking into account the hit on our credibility in the international community either.

Re:Huh

[aquacrayfish]

Isn't the whole ethos of the Trump movement to push back against Washington? This looks more like rolling over and playing along.

Re:Huh

[atrex]

I'd just as soon he not sign it. We spend far too much on the military as is. China and Russia combined spend less than half what we spend. We already spend more than the next eight countries (including China and Russia) combined.

Re:Huh

[cthulhu11]

Company bans would easily be worked around: they'd just create an LLC or whatever to work on the wall, keeping them technically clean.

Good Luck...

[BlueStrat]

...Enforcing that.

Make the "drone cops" wear propeller-beanies.

Strat

Re: Good Luck...

[Reverend Green]

Oh, c'mon. We already have a full fledged police state in place. What's one more teeny tiny regulation atop the millions of laws & regulations already enforced on the people? Plus it will help feed the Gulag. We need that if we want to beat Stalin's record for biggest Gulag of all time. Who doesn't want that?!

Saw it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the start. Trump is going to make the US just like Nazi Germany.

Re:Saw it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Nazi, I would love that. Right now, we are a stateless people. The US as a Nazi country would be Valhalla.

Re:Saw it coming

[Z80a]

Trump is a corporate cock sucker, not a nazilike person.
If he gets his way US will probably become a corporate feud thing, where companies are literally kingdoms and enforce their shit on population with hired "knights" etc..
If you want an empire that enforces their ideologies on other countries etc.. that's still Germany, but with a different rhetoric and tactics etc..

Re:Saw it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is a corporate cock sucker, not a nazilike person.
If he gets his way US will probably become a corporate feud thing, where companies are literally kingdoms and enforce their shit on population with hired "knights" etc..
If you want an empire that enforces their ideologies on other countries etc.. that's still Germany, but with a different rhetoric and tactics etc..

The word you're looking for is "Oligarchy". About time the US joined the rest of the Americas in a long established continental tradition! Kudos!

Greetings from Brazil!

Re:Saw it coming

[ShanghaiBill]

Trump is a corporate cock sucker, not a nazilike person.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Re:Saw it coming

[HornWumpus]

And of course to put the quote in context, you're going to mention that private, non-government, corporations didn't exist in Italy at the time? The only corporations would now be called NGOs?

Of course you were.

Re: Saw it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I've often thought that Trump could be accurately compared to Mussolini, and we all know how that turned out.

What I would like to know the actual restrictions... For example would my 6 year old son need to register his $30 toy that calls itself a drone on the box? Or is it restricted to stuff with cameras or stuff that carry a payload?

Re: Saw it coming

[ShanghaiBill]

What I would like to know the actual restrictions... For example would my 6 year old son need to register his $30 toy

If it is under 0.5 pounds (227 gm), it doesn't have to be registered. Many toy drones weigh less than that.

Or is it restricted to stuff with cameras or stuff that carry a payload?

I don't see anything about cameras, but any payload would count toward the weight limit.

Re: Saw it coming

[cayenne8]

If it is under 0.5 pounds (227 gm), it doesn't have to be registered. Many toy drones weigh less than that.

Is that with or without the battery'?

Re: Saw it coming

[Reverend Green]

You're thinking corporate like business corporations.

Mussolini style fascists were thinking corporate like the body ("corpus") of society.

Historic Fascism was totalitarian, but otherwise had little in common with the increasingly totalitarian Financialism we suffer under today.

Re: Saw it coming

[dbraden]

Not under the current rules if it is under 55 pounds in weight, which I'm guessing it is.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/gettin...

Re: Saw it coming

[ScentCone]

I've often thought that Trump could be accurately compared to Mussolini, and we all know how that turned out.

How it turned out for Italy and for Mussolini is irrelevant because your thought that the two could be "accurately compared" is laughable on the face of it. Now, if you want someone that was all about getting government more in bed with large businesses and lining up that complex of power to be more intrusive in your life, then you should definitely have voted for Clinton. I imagine you did. You must be relieved that she didn't get the opportunity to put judged on the Supreme Court, since she explicitly pointed out that knew she'd be looking at a hostile legislature, and would be looking to seat justices who could help her forward her agenda. So, yeah, dodged that bullet, right?

Re:Saw it coming

[AmiMoJo]

Trump gets advice from people like Steve Bannon, who if not a confirmed Nazi certainly shares their views on many things. Of course he is out now but that's where Trump the politician comes from.

Re: Saw it coming

[thaylin]

You mean like Trumps first SCOTUS appointee? I would take a clinton appointee over that guy any day. Sorry someone who wants to destroy the constitutional protections for his on religious views needs to be disbarred.

Re: Saw it coming

[Cederic]

What's wrong with quoting Mussolini? What's fascist or corporatist about these?

Better to live a day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep

It's good to trust others but, not to do so is much better

There is no revolution that can change the nature of man

Every anarchist is a baffled dictator

Youth is a malady of which one becomes cured a little every day

You may not agree with any/all of them, but they could all come from Gandhi, Churchill or Lincoln. They happen to be quotes of Mussolini.

Re:Saw it coming

[Cederic]

Ironic homophobic insults from someone opposing alleged nazism there.

No wonder you posted anonymously, I wouldn't put my name to that juvenile idiocy either.

Re: Saw it coming

[BlueStrat]

Not under the current rules if it is under 55 pounds in weight, which I'm guessing it is.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/gettin... [faa.gov]

Hey, great! That means we just build a bunch of mini-drones each under the registration weight limit which can dock together in flight and form a huge drone weighing hundreds of pounds and capable of carrying serious payloads.

Strat

Re: Saw it coming

[ScentCone]

You mean like Trumps first SCOTUS appointee? I would take a clinton appointee over that guy any day.

There you have it. You don't want someone who is a constructionist, you want someone who treats the SCOTUS like an alternative legislature. That's one of the reasons that millions of people who can't stand Trump still voted for him: because Hillary Clinton displayed (as you're doing) pure contempt for the checks and balances written into the constitution. Gorsuch is an absolutely essential antidote to the people Obama sat, and we just avoided decades of craziness by not having Clinton seat more of the same. She came right out and said wouldn't name any body with a lot of experience on the bench, and thought it was time to put on the Supreme Court people who "know what different people are going through" blah blah blah. In other words, the last thing she wanted were justices dedicated to the constitution. She wanted surrogate legislators to adhere to her political agenda and use the court as a place not to test laws against their constitutionality, but instead as a place to go get things done that she knew she couldn't get through non-compliant representatives elected to office. Trump will be long gone in a few years, but the constitution will still be there, and we need judges who actually understand that it's only to be meddled with through amendments, not political subservience.

Re:Saw it coming

[peppepz]

private, non-government, corporations didn't exist in Italy at the time?

What? Private, non-government corporations were *the main sponsors* of Mussolini at the time. Entrepreneurs were freaking out because of the strikes and factory occupations by the workers in the 20s and welcomed his ascent to power as the best insurance against further disruption of their economic interests and of the established social order.

Re: Saw it coming

[jdschulteis]

Whatever maximum unregulated weight they set will spur development of highly capable machines that weigh just under the limit.

Another

[no-body]

mental jackpot achieved by your beloved POTUS.

Re:Another

[Anonymous Coward]

meh, obama did the same, except it was something like any aircraft over half a pound.

Re:Another

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it was a legitimate process this time. So much of what Obama did was regulatory fiat or abuse of executive power; no legislative process, no legitimacy. Trump has had a field day wiping out years that crap. This is a law, voted on by law makers. Unless the courts have an issue with it then it's not subject to whomever happens to get elected president next time or who gets appointed to run the FAA.

Net Neutrality is another example if this fake governance. If Google and friends want their views to prevail they can take it to Congress and find some time (and money) for a few Republicans and maybe indulge their Valley Values politics a bit less. Wouldn't that be nice.

As for this law itself; well, I'm never happy to see yet another license and another fee. The added friction could be a benefit in that it segregates the "drone" market into that which requires a registration and the toys; perhaps the chuckleheads the lack the necessary judgement not to cause an incident with their drone will be inclined to stick with the toy sized stuff.

Re:Another

[serviscope_minor]

At least it was a legitimate process this time. So much of what Obama did was regulatory fiat or abuse of executive power; no legislative process, no legitimacy.

Are you banging on "Obama is bad for signing so many executive orders despite signing fewer than the Republican president before him" drum?

Net Neutrality is another example if this fake governance.

"fake" is not simply "something you don't like".

Re:Another

[dwillden]

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.

Re:Another

[Trogre]

The added friction could be a benefit in that it segregates the "drone" market into that which requires a registration and the toys; perhaps the chuckleheads the lack the necessary judgement not to cause an incident with their drone will be inclined to stick with the toy sized stuff.

Could do - this law only applies to drones between 0.55 and 55 pounds (250 g and 25 kg), so well covers the "enthusiast" hobby market.

Re:Another

[thaylin]

you mean like Trump has been using EOs to legislate via fiat as well? Or does not not fit when trump does it. I mean the EOs that most of your side takes issue with is when Obama lessened regulations, or delayed them, yet when Trump does it, its A OK

Re:Another

[thegarbz]

At least it was a legitimate process this time.

hahahahaha. Yeah a non-relevant line attached to a bill dealing with funding of national defense on the threat of a shutdown if it doesn't passes is totally legitimate.

You haven't drunk koolaid mate, you've been taking LSD and magic mushrooms to come up with that line.

Re:Another

[squiggleslash]

^ This is what Republicans really think and tell each other is true.

Register drones, but guns?

[J053]

So, register all drones. What about guns? I don't see how the 2d Amendment prohibits gun registration (it talks about the right to "keep and bear" arms, not "keep and bear anonymously"), so if everyone has to register their drones, why shouldn't they have to register their guns?

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Register a gun?

You realize if you register a gun then the government knows who has guns and they'll come for you *first* when SHTF.

I think the only places you have to "register a gun" (whatever that means) in the US is Massachusetts and New York, and I think one county in New Mexico.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[misexistentialist]

try registering mothers who abort their kids and you'll find out that large sections of the Constitution were written in invisible ink

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[J053]

And why would I register a drone?

If it's unregistered, you don't know I have it - so if you don't know I have it, why would I feel compelled to register it? You wouldn't know either way.

And let me guess, you're going to charge or tax me for the privilege of registering it. Right?

You fail.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[J053]

Also Hawaii - newly-purchased firearms must be presented to the local Police along with bill of sale/receipt. They do record serial numbers. Also, Hawaii is a "may grant" state as far as carry permits are concerned - and the local cops never grant permits without a compelling reason. Makes one feel safe walking around knowing that people you meet on the street are, most likely, not armed.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[J053]

You're not asking permission, simply informing of the fact.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[ShanghaiBill]

And why would I register a drone?

My Mavic Pro required registration before it would work.

My AR-15 assault rifle worked great straight out of the box. It is registered with no one.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[PopeRatzo]

try registering mothers who abort their kids and you'll find out that large sections of the Constitution were written in invisible ink

I'm curious: why would you want to register women who get abortions? Is there some compelling reason for this or are you just splashing in a kiddie pool of Breitbart piss?

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[ShanghaiBill]

I don’t see anything in the first amendment that prohibits speech registration.

I think the phrase "no law" precludes that.

Here's the full text, since you have apparently never actually read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[markdavis]

Gun registration is the first step that enables the government to enact later confiscation (a pattern seen in other countries). That is why the push back against it is so strong.

Since you mention the Constitution, there are lots of things NOT protected by the Constitution that don't require registration- knives, bear traps, fertilizer, chainsaws, etc. Drones fly around and are recovered/intercepted remotely and registration could be used to trace back to the owner. There are already methods in place for doing so with [legal] guns that are recovered. With probable cause and the appropriate approvals, law enforcement can query all the registered sellers' databases. This method allows supervised, individual, and reasonable tracing but without the government having direct access to the databases, which could be (and likely would be) severely abused.

I am not in favor of registration of drones (nor guns, nor most legal things), but if it is to be done, perhaps there are ways to do it that do not give too much power to the government.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[markdavis]

>"Makes one feel safe walking around knowing that people you meet on the street are, most likely, not armed."

You do realize that nothing of the sort is true. Walking around, the people you meet that are good, law-abiding people end up being the ones without guns because of such regulation and it yet the bad criminals are likely armed because THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW. How does that make anyone "safe"? Oh, right, it is about illogical/irrational "feelings" and not reality or facts...

Try examining just how "safe" so-called "gun-free" zones are, and perhaps you won't feel so safe anymore. It so happens, those areas are precisely the LEAST safe and the ones that crazy people hit first.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Gussington]

My AR-15 assault rifle worked great straight out of the box. It is registered with no one.

Can I buy it off you? Where I live we aren't allowed thing like that...

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about "guns". It says "arms".

If drones can be used offensively, then they're a type of arms and should be protected under the 2nd amendment. If they can't, then what's this about?

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[drinkypoo]

so if everyone has to register their drones, why shouldn't they have to register their guns?

You don't have a constitutional right to fly drones. Having to register guns can be seen as a restraint. Having to register drones can be as well, but again... you don't have the right to fly drones. That's a privilege.

I hemmed and hawed but I registered when it was free the first time. It's not like you register your drones, you register your self. Then you put your registration ID on your drones. I didn't want there to be any question about whether my AMA insurance would cover me if one of my aircraft started a fire.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Altrag]

What if my drone has a gun on it? Do I have to register it or not? Oh the confusion!

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Whibla]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are Free Speech Zones purely local or state level legislation then?

I can't help but think that when protesters are corralled into specific areas out of sight of visiting dignitaries and politicians they don't really have the right of assembly, or freedom of speech.

Genuine question, by the way. I'm not particularly conversant with US law.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[drinkypoo]

The constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", it says "arms". If a drone can be used offensively, then the right to use it should be protected in exactly the same way as the right to use a rifle.

It seems a reasonable argument to me, but that's not the way it's fallen out.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Alypius]

Private sales are handled by the States. In Washington, for example, it used to be legal for private sales without a background check; lots of people traded their guns or sold them to friends, etc. It's not like some dude is selling them out of the trunk of his car. But I-594 passed a few years ago and now about the only exception is transfers between immediate family members.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[bugs2squash]

put a halo on it, there's probably a religious exception for the christian supremacists.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[omnichad]

you don't have the right to fly drones. That's a privilege.

You have the right to do anything that isn't illegal. That's how our government is set up. I don't even see how the federal government has the power to regulate this - this is a state's rights issue.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Tulsa_Time]

Because it is a constitutional right.

According to your logic it would be ok to require you to register your mouth.

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[Reverend Green]

Contemporary US law is very easy to understand. The whole of our jurisprudence can be concisely summarized in a single maxim:

"Fuck you, pleb, that's why!"

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[Reverend Green]

Lick those boots!

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Holi]

Can your registration be denied or delayed?

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Alypius]

Gun registration was used to great effect in NOLA just after Katrina when the police went in and rounded up guns from people's homes.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[ScentCone]

Makes one feel safe walking around knowing that people you meet on the street are, most likely, not armed.

You've got it exactly backwards. It makes one recognize that, as usual, the people most likely to be armed are the criminals who simply don't give a rat's ass about the law ... while the careful, law-abiding people who do care are stripped of that same ability.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[ScentCone]

You've got that exactly backwards. The millions of members of the NRA are a big part of the block that got him elected over Hillary Clinton, who is aggressively hostile to your constitutionally protected rights.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[ScentCone]

I don't even see how the federal government has the power to regulate this

Because congress long ago gave the FAA statutory power over the national air space. It's not complicated.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[ScentCone]

What if my drone has a gun on it?

If your drone has a gun on it, and you fly it, you are a felon. Next question?

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[markdavis]

Procedures vary state by state, but all are required to minimally perform background checks. There are three primary citizen protections in the process:

1) When you legally attempt to purchase a gun from a dealer, a Federal background check is run to make sure you can legally purchase a gun. The gun seller does NOT send information about the gun nor the serial number during the check. But the dealer is required to hold onto that information for a long time (many years). So it is not a registration scheme, per-say.

2) You are correct that the government does know who legally purchased guns through dealers. However, individuals can give/transfer/sell guns to other individuals, legally, as long as they (in good faith) are transferring to someone legally allowed to have one. This last part is what makes it impossible for the government to know the whole picture. That is why I said it is the first step- the second step would be to outlaw any type of private gun transfer.

3) The last protection is that the background checks that the government process are not allowed to be computerized. By law, they can only be stored on paper and not in machine-readable format. This prevents them from turning the background checks into a searchable, mass, pseudo-registration scheme.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[TharMonk]

The "Free Speech Zones", where they corralled protesters into fenced in cages blocks away from the event they were protesting, were, when challenged, generally found to be unconstitutional by the courts. The US itself is a free speech zone. (Yes, I'm neglecting to mention the "Time Place Manner" restrictions, which allows the government some leeway to regulate speech, as long as they apply it evenly, without regard to the content of the speech. I'm ignoring that, because "Free Speech Zones" have traditionally been used to silence protestors, by keeping them away from the events, while supporters are allowed nearby.) These were massively expanded under W, and, I'm sorry to say, encouraged, rather than removed, by Obama, from whom I had expected better.

The legal sleight of hand that occurred here is that most of them were "recommended" by the Secret Service, who generally inform the local police about matters of security when presidential folks are around, and the police generally follow their recommendations. In this case, the local police who herded the protesters up said "We were just following the orders of the Secret Service, don't blame us," and the Secret Service basically said "not our fault... we just recommended it, but that recommendation carries no legal weight."

In short, yes, the civil rights of the protesters were infringed, and no, no punishment was meted out for doing so.

Wikipedia's article, under the ACLU Litigation section, sums it up pretty well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[cats-paw]

Really. the moderators couldn't even spend 1 minute to show that you have purposely worded that to push a right wing talking point.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/...

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[AbrasiveCat]

So, register all drones. What about guns? I don't see how the 2d Amendment prohibits gun registration (it talks about the right to "keep and bear" arms, not "keep and bear anonymously"), so if everyone has to register their drones, why shouldn't they have to register their guns?

What if I have a gun on my drone, will I still have to register it? Or would this be a violation of my rights to form a militia?

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Kjella]

I can't help but think that when protesters are corralled into specific areas out of sight of visiting dignitaries and politicians they don't really have the right of assembly, or freedom of speech. Genuine question, by the way. I'm not particularly conversant with US law.

Making freedom of assembly some absolute right to occupy any public property at any time, in any way would be chaos. You could block off a freeway, block a store front or simply make people unable to get out of the house in the morning. So the courts have decided there can be limits on the time, place and manner of protest like that you may protest outside the store front but not block people coming or going. Unfortunately the moment there's some small concession given that restrictions are permitted the door is open to abuse. The test for content neutrality is fairly easy, would you have been equally punished for a different message? If so, it's an illegal restriction on content. That doesn't stop anyone from blocking all forms of demonstrations where they don't want them though.

I think there's been put too much emphasis on protester versus spectator. Like, if this is an public space open to the general public when they're making no statement at all then they should also be allowed to peacefully protest without being sent to a particular "troublemaker" zone. Unfortunately the courts haven't really seen it that way, if the police asks you to go to a "Free Speech Zone" you don't get to say no even if there's good reason to believe they're singling you out because you are protesting. It's hard to make a balanced patch to the legal framework though.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Altrag]

So guns are only cool if I'm directly holding it? Good to know. Does it count if I have a tether on it? Or is there a maximum number of inches that the gun can be away from me before its a felony? Is it more or less illegal to have a gun in my truck than it is on my drone and if so, why?

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[jimtheowl]

I personally don't care if you have as many guns it takes to make yourself feel like a man, but it is not what he's saying. He said that doesn't "have to ask ANYONE'S permission to have guns". Fine, but why is permission needed to have a drone?

About what you are saying, some criminals are not necessarily criminals until they have an emotional fit, and then use a gun because they have easy access to it. You seem to assume that people are born a criminal instead of becoming one, but like this delusion that "they'll come for you *first* when SHTF." it just fits your narrative. I suppose that image about the whole army coming to get you provides a certain sense of worth and self importance. Sorry, but it is not going to happen.

I probably should not give them any ideas, but perhaps drone manufacturers should just incorporate guns into drones so all of a sudden they will become sacred too.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[geekymachoman]

> You have the right to do anything that isn't illegal. That's how our government is set up. I don't even see how the federal government has the power to regulate this - this is a state's rights issue.

To quote George Carlin; If it can be taken away, it's not a right .. it's a privilege.
All you got is bunch of arbitrary privileges, and those change by the day. That is... you have less every day.

This is general, not just for drones. But call it what it is.. it puts things in perspective, and shows you your place.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[ScentCone]

So guns are only cool if I'm directly holding it?

Depends on what you're doing with it while you're holding it. That might also be a felony. Likewise with "in your truck," depending on where you're driving and under what circumstances. That's one of the reason we need the concealed carry reciprocity law just passed in the house, so that you actually CAN know that you won't be capriciously prosecuted because you changed zip codes in your car while not changing your behavior one bit.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[djinn6]

Congress can do whatever it wants, but if it's not mentioned in the constitution, it's an illegal overreach. The regulation itself might be reasonable, but they need to do it the proper way, through a constitutional amendment.

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[houghi]

Drinking age is a state law. The states are just blackmailed into setting it at 21.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[DNS-and-BIND]

States rights is a code word for racism. Anyone who advocates for states rights is a racist and it has been this way in American politics for decades. How's it feel to be a racist, Richard Spencer?

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[slacker001]

Your AR-15 isn't an assault rifle because it doesn't have selective fire. If it somehow does, then you'd be required to have a federal stamp, so it would be registered with the government.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[omnichad]

So when the constitution was drafted, they proposed a limited federal government for racism? No. The original vision for our country is more closely modeled by the EU than it is by our own government.

The federal government was never supposed to have power over hobbies and mundane intrastate day-to-day. Murder isn't even illegal under federal law (except against federal officials) - that's a state power.

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[ScentCone]

You're confusing demonstrated hostility with the ability to get it done ... something that has been (barely) blocked by legislators and judges many of whom hold office specifically because of support from those millions of people. Obama expressed continual frustration that in the wake of various murder sprees he was unable to get laws changed (though he was pretty careful to avoid the subject of the proposed laws never actually calling for anything that would have prevented any of the tragedies he liked to try to use for leverage), and Hillary Clinton was more than happy to tell a journalist that, sure, she'd consider an Australian-style confiscation process. Both Obama and Clinton regularly referred to places like California as models ... where, of course, a new law is set to make lots of people into criminals for owning and failing to give up things they legally purchased. Happily, the courts may once again inject some rationality. We'll see.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[geggam]

If your drone has a gun on it, and you fly it, you are a felon. Next question?

Incorrect. You are a felon if you are caught flying a drone with a gun on and and convicted, until then you are just another schmuck ignoring the law.

Or as we call it in the US... business as usual.

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[the_bard17]

New York State tried forcing registration of assault weapons. It failed miserably: https://hudsonvalleyone.com/20...

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[omnichad]

What are you talking about? There are still differences between the powers enumerated to the state and to the federal governments.

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[nwaack]

I personally don't care if you have as many guns it takes to make yourself feel like a man

Based on the rest of your post it kinda seems like you actually do care quite a bit.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[phantomfive]

I don't see how the 2d Amendment prohibits gun registration

It doesn't. People who oppose gun registration (who are knowledgeable) say registration is a bad idea, but the constitution allows it. Note that Hawaii requires guns to be registered.

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[jimtheowl]

Why? I can disagree with one's opinion despite the fact that his position doesn't really affect me.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[DigitalSorceress]

If you want to have an unregistered quadcopter, build your own ... it's not like parts/kits aren't available.

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[Obfuscant]

Fine, but why is permission needed to have a drone?

It's not. Next strawman?

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[Falconhell]

I can highly reccomend an Australian style confiscation/ buy back, that is if you want to send your children to school and have them come home at night safely. Guess you just dont care about the lives of innocents, as long as you can overcompensate your genital inadequacy.
Even those that initially were agaist it here mostly support now.
No t to mention the usual but Hillary/Obama tactic, eventually you RWNJ will have to take responsibility without trying to shift blame.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Obfuscant]

The federal government was never supposed to have power over hobbies

They aren't regulating it because it is a hobby, and they regulate even the non-hobby aspects of UAS. They regulate it because it is flying an aircraft and takes place in the national airspace.

Trying to argue that the national airspace should be regulated on a state-by-state basis is just nonsense. Anything where you can cross fifteen states in a three hour flight needs one set of regulations. Given that determining the state boundaries requires relatively high precision navigation equipment (GPS or INS) it would be hard to know which rules you were flying under. (Yes, GPS is common, but not mandatory. Lots of aircraft still use VOR or even ded reckoning when flying. Those VOR receivers are required to be within a couple of degrees, which is one reason why those nice, clearly drawn airways are actually four miles wide. Technically, if you are deviating to one side or the other of one of those airways you could be in two different sets of regulations for the airspace, IF it were a state function. For states with irregular boundaries, you could be switching from one set of rules to another every few minutes.)

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Obfuscant]

It seems a reasonable argument to me, but that's not the way it's fallen out.

UAS can be used "offensively" in the same way an automobile can be used offensively. If basing a second amendment claim on "offensive use" was reasonable, then all those pesky state laws about automobiles would be unconstitutional, too.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[omnichad]

Class G airspace is not regulated except for drones (or at will be soon). Just because something is capable of flying higher shouldn't really be relevant unless you actually intend to fly that high.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Obfuscant]

Class G airspace is not regulated except for drones

The fact that it is Class G means it is regulated. How can the FAA designate a class of airspace that it has no control over?

Also, whether the airspace is Class G or not, the FAA has regulations over aircraft flying in any airspace. For example, you may not fly faster than a certain airspeed below 10,000'. There are also restrictions on how low you can fly irrespective of class of airspace. At the most basic level, you still need a pilot's license to fly a manned aircraft in Class G. Claiming that Class G "is not regulated" is a bit disingenuous.

Just because something is capable of flying higher shouldn't really be relevant unless you actually intend to fly that high.

Higher than what? Ground?

Sorry, but there are all kinds of precedent for regulations about things you are capable of doing but don't intend to. Regulations have to be general enough so they don't expand to a million pages, with specific people's names attached, like because "omnichad" doesn't intend to fly higher than 1200' we don't need to define those airspaces for him.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[omnichad]

How can the FAA designate a class of airspace that it has no control over?

Anyone can name things. I call it Class Frog. Just because I can.

Airspace is regulated in part to prevent interference with military aircraft. Outside of that and interstate commerce, there's not really anything in the Constitution giving the FAA (or the federal government at all) the authority to regulate airspace that can't conceivably be needed for national defense activity.

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[nwaack]

Generally if one's position doesn't affect you, you don't use multiple put-downs when explaining said position.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[suutar]

I would think that would make the criminals feel much safer.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Obfuscant]

Anyone can name things. I call it Class Frog. Just because I can.

But as a regulatory agency, the FAA cannot.

Airspace is regulated in part to prevent interference with military aircraft.

Irrelevant and not true. A few regulations deal with military operations areas, but the vast vast majority of them have nothing to do with military uses, and it is not a reason why regulations exist.

This still leaves all the regulations that still apply in Class G, so claiming Class G is unregulated is untrue. It is "uncontrolled" because ATC (air traffic control) is not involved with it at all, but "unregulated" is just nonsense.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Alypius]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09...

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[ScentCone]

that is if you want to send your children to school and have them come home at night safely

The principal threat to children at school is in a handful of specific urban areas where local drug gangs and imported organized crime organizations (like MS-13) fight it out for turf in the area, and recruit from those schools using violence to intimidate kids into joining (or dying). The groups in question consider things like your idea of a gun confiscation from those on record as having purchased them to be absolutely hilarious. Because they don't care to give theirs up, and are thrilled when the households the prey on are known to be easier victims. The overwhelming majority of such crime takes place in liberal-run cities that, in practice, have already made the possession of guns essentially impossible ... for law abiding citizens. The notion of causality you're putting forth, as you surely know, is complete BS. The solution is the control of crime and criminals, not inanimate objects.

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[jimtheowl]

The straw man is in your mirror.

Read at least the title of the article: "Trump signs law forcing drone users to register with FAA".

Re: Register drones, but guns?

[jimtheowl]

If you want to believe that, be my guest.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[Lost Race]

So rich and poor alike are free to rent the city for a day, eh?

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[shentino]

If Pandora's box wasn't already opened you might be right. But it is, so the next best thing is to make sure that good citizens get to join in the Mutually Assured Destruction game that the bad guys and the cops alike are already fully armed for.

If you had a way to disarm the bad guys BEFORE you disarmed the civilians, maybe.

Re:Register drones, but guns?

[shentino]

Sing it with me.

"Interstate commerce"

Re:Drones as weapons

[BlueStrat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_rNnErg-oM
ISIS was already using them against the Syrian army, it's not theoretical anymore. For attacks like the one in this youtube video, but also in combat operations.

I'm sure the terrorists will register their home-brew drone-bombs like they registered to fly airliners before 9/11.

This isn't about terrorism, foreign or domestic, nor about safety.

This is purely government frightened that individuals with video/camera drones will expose their wrongdoing for all to see. ^That^ right there frightens them FAR more than all the crazy fringe groups and ISIS terrorists because "...can't stop the signal, Mal."

Strat

Why not make it legal to shoot them?

[mschuyler]

I would suggest making it legal to shoot those little fuckers out of the sky. If people behaved with them it would be great, but they don't. People don't want government spying on them but have no problem flying their drones over to the neighbor's pool to see if the can pick up a few nude bathers. Let me use the drones as target practice and I'll be fine.

Re:Why not make it legal to shoot them?

[ScentCone]

I would suggest making it legal to shoot those little fuckers out of the sky.

All of these regulations treat drones as aircraft. You shoot at an aircraft under an circumstances, you are open to a federal felony conviction. Have been for many decades. Let me guess, you'd also like the right to shoot at people driving by your house with the car radios too loud, right? Or anyone standing in the street with binoculars? Just shoot 'em, right?

Re:Why not make it legal to shoot them?

[Baron_Yam]

>you'd also like the right to shoot at people driving by your house with the car radios too loud, right?

If I were American, I'd support a constitutional amendment to that effect. It would need to be more general, though. Why can't I ALSO shoot those assholes when they pull up next to me at a light?

Re:Why not make it legal to shoot them?

[andydread]

you have no clue about hobby drones. Here's a fucking clue. These are not military drones with massive zoom lenses in order to resolve someone naked in a back yard swimming pool without being right up in the damn face. How far away can you resolve someone naked with your cell phone type camera or a gopro? Geez what a fucking troll moron.

Tourists/vistors...?

[Vylen]

Ok .. and do tourists, visitors to America, people on work visa's, etc, do they need to register their drone if they decided to bring one with them on their trip?

How is that going to work?

Re:Tourists/vistors...?

[SeaFox]

They would never believe someone from another country would have a legitimate reason to bring a drone in. They're just assume you're a terrorist since you're at the airport with one.

Re:Tourists/vistors...?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of countries in Africa straight out ban drones. You are not allowed to bring one into the country, without prior authorization, period. If you do there is gigantic fines and/or jail time. In these cases it is due to poaching, but USA customs could impose similar restrictions for anyone entering the country. It is your responsibility to ensure that your portable annoyance is allowed to exist in the country you're entering.

Re:Tourists/vistors...?

[Gussington]

Ok .. and do tourists, visitors to America, people on work visa's, etc, do they need to register their drone if they decided to bring one with them on their trip?

How is that going to work?

' Don't be stupid. Visitors won't be allowed in either soon.
I feel that American is truly great now. How about you?

Re:Tourists/vistors...?

[Altrag]

Its actually not a big step up. Customs is almost certainly going to be asking you about it anyway so its not really a huge extra burden to punch that into a database. And there's not even much worry about (additional) invasion of privacy since America's border authorities already treat non-Americans as barely even having basic human rights never mind the stronger rights that Americans are granted (which is actually unconstitutional -- "inalienable" doesn't mean "only for people we like".. but another thing American authorities are happy to overlook.)

Re:Tourists/vistors...?

[cyn1c77]

Ok .. and do tourists, visitors to America, people on work visa's, etc, do they need to register their drone if they decided to bring one with them on their trip?

How is that going to work?

They don't need to register their drone if they want to extend their vacation in Guantanamo.

But didn't you hear? Trump's building a wall, so they won't be coming anyway.

Re:Tourists/vistors...?

[Altrag]

Its not about being a drone, its about being electronic equipment. Having it taken apart might be _more_ troublesome as the customs officials may not recognize the parts individually and get concerned that its bomb components or something.

Easier to just go to Walmart after you get here and spend the $200 or whatever it is these days for a decent quadcopter if you really need to have one in the US.

Re:Tourists/vistors...?

[Trogre]

Probably the same as when they bring their cars - can't drive them without local plates.

Re:Tourists/vistors...?

[thegarbz]

Probably the same as when they bring their cars

Something that fits in a handbag is the same as something weighing 1.5tonnes? Did you bump your head recently? Maybe time for a checkup at the hospital.

Re:Tourists/vistors...?

[Trogre]

Not even slightly.

But under this law they will be *treated* much the same, ie as motorised vehicles that can be harmful if used incorrectly.

I suspect this is part of the thought process that lead to this. Particularly the need for a unique identifier (a "plate") to be on show at all times.

wtf is a drone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a $10 Chinese quadcopter a drone? TFA doesn't explain what it is.

Re:wtf is a drone?

[ScentCone]

Any aircraft over 9 ounces, was the previous rule. Likely will be the same standard if the FAA uses this new authority to put the process in place legally (as opposed to illegally, the last time around). So, yeah, that little pink plastic RC copter from the mall toy kiosk is seen by the FAA as an aircraft, and the person operating is is subject to the full weight of the FAA's power to fine and bring other charges for mis-use.

Re:wtf is a drone?

[ScentCone]

Right, this is the sort of thing that pissed off a lot of people when the FAA's perspective on the matter got poisoned during the last administration. But no, this pertains to powered flight.

Re:Good.

[HornWumpus]

Was a craze, that's already fading, drones are so last Christmas.

Soon it will just be us RC modelers again. They'll quietly drop the regs, like the FCC stopped requiring CB licenses after that sillyness went away.

We can get back to flying plus jets over you house at 6 AM. You'll love it.

Not legal

[Anonymous Coward]

1) $5 fee is a tax and he cannot create his own taxes = needs act of Congress.

"But the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which landed on Trump’s desk Tuesday, would restore the FAA’s registration system for civilian drones."

2) No, it would say that the bit in the law that says "FAA cannot regulate model aircraft" is invalidated by Trump. FAA cannot regulate model aircraft because the FAA is legally prohibited from doing so by section 336, not because it didn't have authority, but because LAW PREVENTED IT. Trump cannot waive laws, he needs to go ask Congress for that.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. ...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....

(Where model aircraft are unnamed planes flown in line of sight for hobby/recreational purpose.)

FAA's Registration was a trick, people were supposed to register and in the process, they were accepting FAA's authority to regulate them by civil process. Which is why the courts blocked it.

Re:Not legal

[Cederic]

1) $5 fee is a tax and he cannot create his own taxes = needs act of Congress.

Who the fuck do you think passed the

2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which landed on Trumpâ(TM)s desk Tuesday

Trump cannot waive laws, he needs to go ask Congress for that.

Did he even need to ask, or did they throw that bit in for free and he's merely acceded to them?

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT

I think you'll find that sec. 336 has been superceded by SEC. 1092 of the more recent act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Re:Good.

[HornWumpus]

'plus' should be 'pulse', duh.

Reinstates an 2015 policy

[Hal_Porter]

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.

Re:Reinstates an 2015 policy

[Anonymous Coward]

They shouldn't be able to do this. Laws should only have a single purpose. Tacking and packing bullshit into bills to sneak them into law is an abomination.

Re:Reinstates an 2015 policy

[omnichad]

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

I hope they qualified "owner" a bit. Otherwise any manufacturer or retailer with unsold inventory is going to have a lot of paperwork to do.

Re:Reinstates an 2015 policy

[tricorn]

As long as you don't fly it outside, you don't have to register.

Re:Reinstates an 2015 policy

[Cederic]

I'm confused. This law is about national security and includes a lot of text about unmanned aircraft, how to assess, train and safely use them in the US, and how to assure they safely share airspace with other aircraft.

The registration fits very neatly into that last point. So this fits within the single purpose of the law, and I don't know why you consider this bullshit.

Re:Reinstates an 2015 policy

[omnichad]

That remains to be seen. The bill only tells the FAA to do "something" and leaves it pretty vague: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Re:Reinstates an 2015 policy

[tricorn]

If it restores the regulations that were struck down, no, it only requires registration if it's flown, and the FAA has no jurisdiction indoors.

I don't see the specific language referring to this in what you linked, where does it say "do something"?

Re:Reinstates an 2015 policy

[omnichad]

If you wait for it to load and don't scroll, it will eventually jump down to the relevant section anchor (Sec. 6002). It's a really slow loading page, though.

Literally the only thing it says in the bill is to tell the FAA that they should regulate it in some form. It doesn't restore anything or designate what that regulation should do.

Re:Reinstates an 2015 policy

[tricorn]

The part you linked to is talking about FAA cooperation for unmanned aircraft sense and avoid technology (something the FAA has already been working on, search for "UAS ADS-B regulations", for example).

The part being discussed isn't showing up in the version you linked to, which is odd (it's the "as passed" text), the "enrolled" version has the relevant section (search for "Restoration Of Rules").

(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.

The regulations being restored only affect flight, not ownership. It also seems that those regulations can not be made more restrictive (with respect to hobby/recreational use) without additional legislation from Congress, since the original law exempting non-commercial light unmanned aircraft is still in effect, and the court case still stands. As written, this legislation ONLY restores the original exact regulations, which means the FAA can't change them.

Re:Reinstates an 2015 policy

[omnichad]

That is admittedly a very difficult document to CTRL+F.

Yay Freedom!

[rthille]

#MAGA.

Oh, for fucks sake, I can't even do the sarcasm thing anymore...

How do I do that if I'm only visiting...?

[mark-t]

Serious question... I don't live in the USA, am I now prohibited from bringing my recreational drone over the border?

Re:How do I do that if I'm only visiting...?

[Gussington]

Serious question... I don't live in the USA, am I now prohibited from bringing my recreational drone over the border?

All foreigners will be banned so this will cease to be an issue...

Re:How do I do that if I'm only visiting...?

[Cederic]

It's a fair question, and probably depends on the wording from the FAA. I'd suggest you write to them requesting guidance on how to assure conformance with the law.

You may need to register, or you could gamble on getting safely out of the country before they find out whose drone just crashed into an apartment building.

Re:How do I do that if I'm only visiting...?

[mark-t]

You may need to register, or you could gamble on getting safely out of the country before they find out whose drone just crashed into an apartment building.

That's not terribly likely in my case... my drone has a range of only about 100 meters or so. Because of this proximity, it's both unlikely I'd crash it into someone else's property, as well as unlikely I'd be able to get away without being caught even if it did, because I'm so close that it will probably be pretty obvious who was controlling it.

Re:How do I do that if I'm only visiting...?

[mark-t]

There's this feature on a lot of drones sold today called "return to home". They automatically activate when going out of range or if the battery starts to get low. Of course, there are probably people who go flying their drones outside in weather that is too violent for the drone to be safely navigated. I am not one of them.

Re:Good.

[Hal_Porter]

Sorry- but this is draconian and how you end up with people like Adolf Hitler in power murdering jews and others and another other police state.

Yeah, the Weimar Republic was notorious for its strict drone registration requirements.

Re:surprised?

[vux984]

Did you mean Agenda 21 ?

he probably just heard of the slaughterbots

[maybe111]

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

How hard to declare it applies to cameras?

[gurps_npc]

Look, there is a lot of very good reasons to regulate drones. Their cameras are both an invasion of privacy and also allow people to control them from very far away.

But there is no reason at all to include model aircraft that do NOT have cameras on them. The lack of a camera means you can only use them within visible range.

Re:How hard to declare it applies to cameras?

[Alypius]

That's not at all true. If I took the camera off of my 'copter, I still have the GPS datalink to my controller enabling BVR flight. You're not *supposed* to fly BVR, but the lack of a camera is not the limiting factor.

Re:How hard to declare it applies to cameras?

[ScentCone]

No, the camera-less aircraft can still be an aviation hazard. That's the point. NONE of this has anything whatsoever to do with privacy protection. Just like the local news helicopter's subject to all sorts of FAA rules about its specs, maintenance, operators, flight plans, etc., but the fact that it carries very powerful cameras is completely outside the FAA's purview, which is exactly how it should be.

Re:How hard to declare it applies to cameras?

[tricorn]

You're required to fly it with visual contact (direct visual, naked eye), either the actual operator or a spotter, regardless of any video or data links.

Re:How hard to declare it applies to cameras?

[Cederic]

I could easily build an autonomous aircraft that could fly from here to France and doesn't have a camera onboard. Indeed, it'd be easier without the camera as that would reduce the weight.

Should I be allowed to endanger millions of people by unleashing my shoddy software controlled aerial robot over the skies of London and its major international airports, or should I comply with relatively sensible laws?

Re:How hard to declare it applies to cameras?

[andydread]

bullshit. the cameras on hobby grade drones can't resolve much of person from a distance. People look like ants from 100 feet up in the air. You have no clue what you are talking about and obviously don't own one. how about educating yourself on the topic before you spout garbage. These are not military drones you know? Christ - smh

We'll see what happens

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:We'll see what happens

[cayenne8]

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.

Well, the point of worry here is...that this was snuck through attached to another bill, and no one noticed before it was too late.

The time to petition and call legislators to protest over this was BEFORE this new law was snuck through.

The federal govt has no reason to know I have a drone. As long as I fly it legally, they have no need to know of my property.

Re:We'll see what happens

[omnichad]

As long as I fly it legally, they have no need to know of my property.

Then keep flying and fight the law in court. If you're using it on private property and below 700 feet, I say it's a violation of your fourth amendment rights to even know. Furthermore, this would probably be a state's right, not an enumerated federal power.

Re:We'll see what happens

[SuperKendall]

The time to petition and call legislators to protest over this was BEFORE this new law was snuck through.

That was *A* time to call, to be sure.

But there's still another chance to convince the new FAA head that it's a bad idea to try and register every single drone.

I'm a bit surprised no-one has pointed out there's a way you could paint such a move as an action of lobbying - I'm sure DJI would not be happy with this kind of regulation, at all. Where are all you people who believe Trump is controlled by the Chinese and/or Russia?

Re:We'll see what happens

[Holi]

DJI was all for it when the FAA originally put out the rule. Not sure why their position would change.

Re:We'll see what happens

[ScentCone]

No, the FAA's got statutory power to regulate the airspace - from an inch off the ground on up - across the entire country. Having each state regulate the airspace differently would be absurd. The only reason this particular matter came up was because congress - in 2012 - explicitly set aside recreational model aircraft as not being subject to any further regs. This appears to change that law, and has nothing to do with the FAA's broader statutory authority.

Re: We'll see what happens

[fazig]

I don't know who looks more delusional to me.
Here in Germany we have dozens of political parties, six of which have prospects to be elected into the parliament. I find all of them very poor in pragmatism and rich in ideological nonsense.
Looking at the two party system that has been in control of the US for a long time, and especially at people who subscribe to either side while (often) rejecting the other for the sake of opposition. Identity politics at its worst. It's miraculous that despite of this or perhaps as a result of this you've still got a functional country.

Re: We'll see what happens

[mnemotronic]

Why are you still stuck on Hillary? "Popular support"? What's there to support? A book tour? Sheesh. The election is over. Gone. Done. Past tense. Everyone with half a brain has moved on. Hillary is way, way out of the picture now and will only get further, except for people who to raise the Evil Hillary Boogity-Boo every five minutes. That woman is living in your head, rent-free.

On second thought, I'm in favor of the trump camp believing that Hillary is about to return and become Evil Queen of Amerika. Here she comes and she's after your guns! Look out! It's Hillary! Bengazzi! Uranium! Vince Foster!! Ooga-Booga! Meanwhile the DNC will quietly and efficiently prep a real candidate for 2020. I say this in jest of course; the DNC is so fjnorked up it couldn't find a dogcatcher candidate for Dogpatch. The 1% elites own the RNC and the RNC controls the vote. Everyone else is meat for the grinder. And now if you'll excuse me, it looks like it's time to take my meds.

Re: We'll see what happens

[Reverend Green]

In this case, you can take "Hillary" as a metonym for the authoritarian fake-progressive wing of the Democrat party.

Re: We'll see what happens

[dwillden]

Rep MIA Love (R-Utah) has been pushing such a bill for two years now. Her "One Topic per Bill" bill is gaining support but slowly.

Re: We'll see what happens

[dwillden]

As opposed to the mess such parliamentary style governments get into as the parties have to form and maintain strange coalitions with parties that they mostly disagree with in order to get enough votes to form a government. But should something disturb that often fragile coalition the government collapses and another awkward coalition assumes control.

There are many problems with the two party system we have in the US, but at least we have a stable government that won't collapse at the wrong tip of a hat.

Re: We'll see what happens

[thaylin]

How did that obamacare kill bill work out?

Re: We'll see what happens

[Cederic]

Why can't US politicians table amendments to bills so that you can vote, "Yes, I support this great bill, but only if we remove that unnecessary stupidity"

In the UK every single act of parliament has a number of amendments suggested, examined and frequently voted on. This is how the most egregious clauses in the legislation get removed (usually; sometimes they get added).

Re: We'll see what happens

[fazig]

Well, like I said, I find all of the political parties here idiotic. And every 4 years I get to choose the one that I think will cause the least harm to my country. It's silly, yes. But not as silly as the constant animosity and bickering between Democrats and Republicans looks from the outside.

Re:We'll see what happens

[someothername]

I am sorry, that is a poor analogy - car would be more like airplane. An hobby RC airplane or helicopter is not required to be registered with the FAA, why should a hobby RC drone? My hobby go cart, or RC car / truck do not require registration then why the hobby drones? They are really no more capable, just popular.

Re:We'll see what happens

[Quantus347]

Just spoke with some somebody who registered under the FAA system before the judge threw it out, this isnt (or at least wasnt then) a property registry at all. The rule simply required the Operator to register have a registration number and to place that number on any drones they fly. It's so that if the drone ends up somewhere it should not be, like (an airport runway, a prison, or maybe the white-house lawn, authorities have a way to trace it back to it's owner.

But it is the same Operator number on every drone you fly; the government knows that you are a drone operator, and you you do something illegal they can figure out it was your drone. But they dont know anything about the type or number of drones you have or anything, only that you are flying them, or at least are interested enough to get your name added to the list. And the fee was only something like $5, so we arent talking about a prohibitive monetary barrier.

Re: We'll see what happens

[MachineShedFred]

They basically do. It's just that some amendments are added by unanimous consent so there isn't a recorded vote. If they had a voice vote for every amendment, no bill would ever pass because the one crank Senator that doesn't like something would just sit there hanging amendments about anything and everything as a back-door filibuster - a simple "debt ceiling" bill would take weeks because of all the tea party types hanging amendments like Christmas ornaments just to stall after deadlines because they want the world to burn.

No thanks. The process they use now is far from perfect, but it could also be far worse.

Re: We'll see what happens

[Cederic]

A cross-party group agree which amendments are discarded without a vote, and which go to a vote. This helps where, e.g. someone adds something completely pointless, or indeed adds 400 amendments.

It's also common that there'll be 20-30 similar amendments and the committee will group them into one.

Bad legislation still gets passed, but it feels a more workable system.

Re:We'll see what happens

[omnichad]

from an inch off the ground on up

So cars are in regulated airspace. And yet cars are registered with the state.

The FAA has never tried to regulate that low of an elevation, for intrastate vehicles. Their authority has yet to be challenged.

Re:We'll see what happens

[andydread]

exactly and we know this buffoon doesn't read anything he signs.

Re:We'll see what happens

[cayenne8]

You have no right to a drone moron.

Actually, I do....in the US, the government does NOT grant or give you rights, you are born with them. We then make laws saying or limiting rights, but yes my right to do just about anything is inherit unless regulated or made unlawful by laws passed by the lawmaking entities.

Re:We'll see what happens

[Asgard]

Why would someone intent on dropping a drone into a prison place their # on the device? Yeah it'll help for someone who has a flyaway / failure that ends up on someones lawn, but not for someone _intent_ on doing such a thing.

Re: We'll see what happens

[apoc.famine]

There should be a law against sneaking through unrelaed laws, but if would never get through...

Well, duh, just sneak it in an unrelated law!

Re:We'll see what happens

[ScentCone]

The FAA has never tried to regulate that low of an elevation

Sure they have. Try, for example, flying a drone one inch off the ground on the sidewalk in DC. Got $10,000 (just to get started) for the FAA-enforced fine you'll face?

Re: We'll see what happens

[the_bard17]

FAA is bundling fixed wing and helicopter RC models into the drone category as well. Hence the outrage from the folk who have been responsibly flying their fixed wing and helicopter models for years, without any need for gov't oversight.

We also question the usefulness of the registration. Each model is not registered, just the owner. Each aircraft should be labeled with the owner's info, so it would be easy to spoof someone else's info onto a given model. The likelihood of the registration info surviving ingestion into a typical turbine engine is unlikely as well, rendering the issue moot.

Re:We'll see what happens

[omnichad]

The federal government has direct jurisdiction over D.C. I'm not sure that's a good example.

Re: We'll see what happens

[CBravo]

All countries basically signed the ICAO treaty, stating "A person shall not act as a flight crew member of an aircraft unless a valid licence is held". It does not state your 1200 feet rule (although air rules are often much more relaxed below 1200 feet).

Re: We'll see what happens

[CBravo]

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/...

Re:We'll see what happens

[ScentCone]

The federal government has direct jurisdiction over D.C. I'm not sure that's a good example.

No, the DC government has jurisdiction over the city, and the feds have some jurisdiction over specific properties ... but it's the FAA that enforces the 30-mile-wide DC FRZ.

The DC Flight Restriction Zone (which prohibits operating even a toy drone at ANY altitude within the FRZ unless you have an impossible to get waiver) is an FAA affair. Unless you're firing up your 9-ounce toy drone inside a building, you're subject to FAA enforcement and huge fines the moment the device is a millimeter off the grass or your driveway, in an area that includes not just downtown, but past the beltway and well into the 'burbs in Maryland and Virginia. It's the FAA that does regulate that air an inch off the ground, and they have fined people for using it in conflict with the FRZ they've established. They've shut down decades-old model airplane clubs in the hills of Virginia across the river, miles away from DC using that same agency-level regulatory authority. And it doesn't matter if you keep your quadcopter hovering 10mm or 100m off the ground.

Re: We'll see what happens

[Hylandr]

The FARAIM describes the Legal minimums for aircraft as 500 Feet Above Ground Level ( AGL ) .

Ultralights and other non-licensed pilots are required to remain below 500 feet,

Every aircraft is required to maintain at least 500 feet from people, property or other objects, etc.

Re:We'll see what happens

[AK Marc]

Having each state regulate the airspace differently would be absurd.

Yeah, it's not like there are different traffic laws for road users in each state. And a drone is inherently intrastate, so shouldn't be subject to interstate regulations.

Re:We'll see what happens

[AK Marc]

Congress is the DC government. They just delegate to subordinates with a structure and titles similar to regular cities, so I can see how you are confused, but you need to go read the Constitution about DC again.

Re: We'll see what happens

[Obfuscant]

The FARAIM describes the Legal minimums for aircraft as 500 Feet Above Ground Level ( AGL ) .

I think that is a bit simplistic statement. How do aircraft ever land if the legal minimum is 500 feet AGL?

Actually, there are various minima for various operations. Helicopters can go lower, and all aircraft have the ability to land legally.

The truth is, the FAA has authority to regulate airspace from the ground up. Around airports, controlled airspace goes to the ground. Some airspace is above 700', some is 1200', but some is surface up.

Arguing that the FAA has no authority to regulate below 500' is a losing argument.

Re:We'll see what happens

[Obfuscant]

Why would someone intent on dropping a drone into a prison place their # on the device?

Why would someone who was ignorant of airspace restrictions put their number on a drone? Because they aren't planning on breaking the law, they just did.

You are aware that laws do not stop people from being law breakers, I hope. Laws are deterrents, not prevention.

Yeah it'll help for someone who has a flyaway / failure that ends up on someones lawn, but not for someone _intent_ on doing such a thing.

Not all flights in the wrong place are the result of "flyaways". Sometimes it is just the intent to "hey, look what I can do" without thinking it through. Like people who don't think about the consequences of flying their UAS in a wildfire zone because it would be cool to get aerial photos of the conflagration.

As someone else pointed out, it was a $5 registration -- which you got back if you registered before a certain cutoff date -- and it doesn't record what you own or how much you fly it, it only gave you an operator's registration code.

The alternative was much more onerous. It's very hard to get an N number for a Phantom 3 -- but I know people who had to do that.

Re:We'll see what happens

[ScentCone]

Congress is the DC government.

That's a silly and completely inaccurate over-simplification, and you know it. Regardless, the topic at hand is whether or not it's the local jurisdiction vs. the FAA that regulates air space. It's the FAA. The fact that you can't fly your toy quad copter in suburban Maryland or Virginia (let alone downtown) is NOT a matter dreamed up by or enforced by authorities in MD, VA, or DC. Want to run a food truck in one of those places? Yeah, you're dealing with local agencies. Want to take a drone photo of your food truck from 15 inches or 15 feet in the air, below tree-top level? That's the FAA stopping you from doing that, not any local authority.

Re: We'll see what happens

[Obfuscant]

FAA is bundling fixed wing and helicopter RC models into the drone category as well.

Read FAR 1.1, the definition of aircraft: "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." Is a "helicopter RC model" intended to be used for flight in the air?

For the guy who tried claiming that automobiles exist above ground level and the FAA doesn't regulate them, well, are they intended to be used for flight in the air?

Hence the outrage from the folk who have been responsibly flying their fixed wing and helicopter models for years, without any need for gov't oversight.

When RC was a technical hobby that cost a lot of money and time to learn how to do, not as many people did it, and they weren't doing stupid things with their expensive toys.

Today you can buy a $500 UAS with GPS/gyro stabilization that takes no time at all to learn how to fly. Just one example. If you take your hands off the controls of the standard RC helicopter, it crashes. If you take your hands of the controls of a Phantom 3 it just ... stops and hovers.

That sea change in technology means a lot of people are now playing in your hobby, and things that don't need regulation because only a few people are doing it sometimes wind up needing regulation when lots of people with no training or experience show up. E.g., if only one person ever drives down an ocean beach, the damage will be minimal, if any. If a thousand people show up to do it, they can decimate the ecology and damage the beach. Regulation in the former case is probably not necessary. In the latter case it, and enforcement, can be the only thing between the beach being there and it not.

Each aircraft should be labeled with the owner's info, so it would be easy to spoof someone else's info onto a given model.

Sure. Just like I could paint someone else's N number onto the tail of my Cessna and go buzzing a major sporting event. The law cannot stop all stupid or evil people. It can allow identification of those who are ignorant and need some education. If I wanted to be evil and avoid detection, I'd tape over my N number. But the guy who was flying banners over a local football stadium during an NCAA top level game did get caught because he was just stupid.

The likelihood of the registration info surviving ingestion into a typical turbine engine is unlikely as well, rendering the issue moot.

The typical UAS does not have a turbine engine. But as a standard practice, I put my FAA reg number on the battery, so if the LiPo catches fire when it crashes, the FAA number goes up second. Oh, wait, you are assuming that the only reason to have an FAA ident on a UAS is to catch those that wind up ingested in a 747's engine. Ha. If only.

Re: We'll see what happens

[Hylandr]

Considering the complexity of the FAR-AIM designating minimums it's adequate enough when discussing powered flight by real aircraft with the general public.

However for the curious:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffi...

Chapter 3 is the section on 'airspace'

Combine that reading with real-time aircharts with NOTAMS and ATIS :

https://skyvector.com/

Re: We'll see what happens

[Obfuscant]

Considering the complexity of the FAR-AIM designating minimums it's adequate enough when discussing powered flight by real aircraft with the general public.

Not when it misleads the general public into thinking that the FAA has no regulatory authority below 500'. It's a fine general comment when talking about how low they should see an airplane flying over their heads (which is actually higher in populated areas), but not when talking about how low regulated airspace goes.

Re: We'll see what happens

[Hylandr]

Fair enough point,

In that respect I see this new law going back to the courts to be debated. Again.

Re: We'll see what happens

[suutar]

arguably, the need for a coalition and the fragility are features, not defects. Everyone talks about wanting less regulation, about "The best government is that which governs least", but nobody really appreciates the value of deadlock and disfunctionality in keeping a solid unified group from running roughshod over a nation.

Re: We'll see what happens

[Obfuscant]

In that respect I see this new law going back to the courts to be debated. Again.

The reason the DC court overturned the original registration system was because congress said something about not regulating "model aircraft". (Most UAS are not models, they are functioning aircraft in their own right.) This is now a law saying the FAA can do that. Yes, the courts will be involved because people don't want the regulation; the reason the last one was overturned is now not relevant.

Re:We'll see what happens

[Boronx]

I'm born with the right to a sky without unregulated drones in it.

Re:We'll see what happens

[Asgard]

Those are valid points; I just dislike the prison / white house examples because someone intent on doing that would not place the number on their device. So in other words, requiring registration will make it easier to enforce against nuisance and ignorant flight but have little effect on intentionally bad flight.

Re: We'll see what happens

[mnemotronic]

... metonym ...

I learned a new word today. "metonym n. a word used in a metonymy." Make that 2 new words.

Re: We'll see what happens

[shentino]

Honestly the way things are going with the nation these days, let them.

I would LOVE to see the FAA duke it out with the USDA when those subsidy-receiving corn farmers have their pet gravy train derailed.

*ironically and right on topic, gets out the POP corn*

Re: We'll see what happens

[shentino]

SCOTUS would probably declare such a bill as unconstitutional.

Meta-bills that attempt to screw with the legislative process itself tend to run afoul of SCOTUS shooting them down on constitutional grounds.

That said, having such a bill turned into a constitutional amendment would definitely be welcome.

Re:We'll see what happens

[shentino]

That is because governments who operate roads that are publicly funded with taxpayer dollars DO have a legitimate interest in enforcing safety and registration rules.

If you were driving it legally on a public road you need a license and need to abide by the traffic code of the jurisdiction with control of the road in question.

Re: We'll see what happens

[shentino]

I dunno, if it's a corn row you might get some opposition from the USDA when it angers the agricultural lobby.

Re:speaking as a nazi

[Alypius]

World jewelry?

Let's be real...

[PopeRatzo]

Show of hands: Who here believes Trump knows what the fuck he's signing? Seriously.

Re:Let's be real...

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely not.

But to be fair, just a tiny bit over 99% of our politicians admitted to never reading the bills they sign into law.
Only 2 out of over 300 were able to give a sentence about a bill relating to what it was about.

If reading a proposed law before making it an actual law isn't a requirement, then certainly understanding a bill can't be of any importance either.

Re:Let's be real...

[Alypius]

We have to pass it to see what's in it.

Re:Let's be real...

[ScentCone]

He signed a law that clarified the FAA's statutory authority on a matter that his predecessor acted out without the legislature (again, as he did on so many other things) and got smacked down by the courts for operating outside of the constitution's boundaries (again). This sets the state for the FAA to arrive at rules in this area that aren't directly illegal, like the last one under Obama.

Re:Let's be real...

[PopeRatzo]

He signed a law that clarified the FAA's statutory authority on a matter that his predecessor acted out without the legislature

And now you have to register your toy drone.

Are you tired of winning yet?

Re:Let's be real...

[ScentCone]

No, now I have to do no such thing until the FAA decides what the rules are, using the proper process this time. I don't have to like it. But at least it's being discussed constitutionally, instead of by whim and a pen, as Obama did it. The rules can come and go, now, per the judgement of the person appointed to run that agency. Constitutionally. Yes, shifting the functioning of the government back onto a more constitution-observing footing IS winning.

Re:Let's be real...

[goose-incarnated]

He signed a law that clarified the FAA's statutory authority on a matter that his predecessor acted out without the legislature

And now you have to register your toy drone.

Are you tired of winning yet?

You sound bitter that, in this regard, he is continuing his predecessor's intentions. This started off as an Obama -administration initiative.

Re:Let's be real...

[serviscope_minor]

Obama

I strongly suspect that if President Trump walked up to you and kicked you square in the balls, you'd find some way of blaming it on Obama.

Re:Let's be real...

[goose-incarnated]

Obama I strongly suspect that if President Trump walked up to you and kicked you square in the balls, you'd find some way of blaming it on Obama.

Are you seriously disputing that this originated with Obama? Surely even if you are that dense you'd have the good sense to pretend not to be.

Re:Let's be real...

[PopeRatzo]

Why are you acting like Trump is different from everyone else who came before him?

Trump has said he doesn't like to read. He was preceded by Barack Obama who was Law Review at Harvard Law School and a law professor. Trump has "one of the great brains of all time" and "the best words" and Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.

One is capable of reading a law and one is not.

Re: I could stand on fifth avenue and shoot someon

[sjames]

And if we assume that what you are implying is 100% true and then a whole bunch more stuff as well, that excuses Trump how?

Simple enough

[bobstreo]

Tie some helium balloons to your drone.

  Presto, Chango, it's a Blimp, not a drone.

Re: I could stand on fifth avenue and shoot someo

[Anonymous Coward]

The Clinton murder stuff is the worst kind of batshit crazy, but sir, that was still pretty fucking funny.

Re:Drones as weapons

[sjames]

ISIS also uses guns. Lots and lots of guns. Do you see where things get interesting yet?

And the problem here is?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has had a consistent issue with a neighbour overflying and filming my female housemate while she sunbathes in our own back yard, it's hard to object to this. If the drone had to display an identification number, I'd be able to identify him and report him to the police, and if it has none, the police would have recourse to remove the damn thing from the airspace over my backyard and actually punish the peeping tom. And more importantly, the penalties the culprit will suffer when caught while be FAR greater, since LAPD have so far shown absolutely no interest in doing anything about it whatsoever - because they know it'll require effort and paperwork and the guy will never suffer anything more than a wrist-slap fine, if that. And before anyone suggests the obvious, bear in mind I live in urban LA, where the use of firearms to take out an overflying drone is distinctly frowned upon by local law enforcement - to a FAR greater degree than being a peeping tom is, apparently. I am seriously considering some kind of net launcher, though, I have to admit.

Re:And the problem here is?

[Alypius]

I would recommend against anything that would interfere with safety of flight; you could be liable for injuries. I do know of reports where people get large-presentation laser pointers (the near-industrial kind, not the cat toy) that have been used against airborne cameras and wind up frying the CCD...just sayin.

Re:And the problem here is?

[Cederic]

If it's happening that often, you can't visually track the drone to its landing spot and go and have a discussion with the person stood there holding a controller?

overflying and filming my female housemate

You know for sure that the drone is filming her?

Slashdot is a hotbed for drone dereregulation?

[Jarwulf]

I'm confused. On the posts before on this topic for the last few years there seemed a mild consensus for pragmatic regulation of drones. And you'd generally have several pages of detailed reason based calm discussion. Now all of a sudden every poster on this thread is passionately against drone laws and hurling nothing but ad hominins about how Trump is a monkey? The quality of discourse here really has plummeted.

Re:Slashdot is a hotbed for drone dereregulation?

[backwardsposter]

Well....but Trump signed this one!

Re:Slashdot is a hotbed for drone dereregulation?

[Ogive17]

Then you have a very poor memory if you think this began when Trump took office.

Re: I could stand on fifth avenue and shoot someon

[ScentCone]

Excuses him from what? From taking many steps to reduce the overall regulator burden and the number of law-like non-laws that Obama "penned" into place, not counting the ones that the Supreme Court took away from him as plainly unconstitutional?

Paper Airplanes

[darkain]

Time to get my paper airplane collection all registered, as they're Model Airplanes! :-O That's going to get expensive as fuck really quick tho at $5/plane

Re:Paper Airplanes

[tricorn]

You register once, not for each aircraft (until they get larger). You don't need to register paper airplanes under 250gm (that would be pretty much all of them), nor ones that are not remote controlled.

Re:Maybe there's a loophole

[ScentCone]

That's already very well covered. Mount a gun on your aircraft and you are set up to earn yourself a federal felony. Period.

Re:Huh, (the wall)

[AbrasiveCat]

Folks, Haven't you figured this out. The President is going to have a Mexican company build the wall, and then stiff them. Then they will have paid for it. It is how he operates.

Everyone go get a drone license

[mnemotronic]

Even of you don't own a drone, pay the $5 and get a license. Stick it on your windshield or bike or a random bus. Have it tattooed on your arm, because

model aircraft owners are required to ... display a unique drone ID number at all times.

Flood the system with bogus drone IDs.

Am I the only one who thinks "The Bogus Drones" would be a good name for a group? Yea, Ok. time for meds again.

Promoting responsible operation

[slomike1]

Great news, Too many idiots with more money than brains.

Re:Huh, (the wall)

[BronsCon]

So... that will play out one of two ways. Either the work will be garbage, proving the ineptitude of Mexican construction workers and failing to keep them out; or the work will be good, proving the value of Mexican construction workers, and we'll forever regret erecting an additional (literal) barrier to their entry into our workforce.

There's no winning scenario for them, there. Or for us, it would seem.

Re:Huh, (the wall)

[dcollins117]

Folks, Haven't you figured this out. The President is going to have a Mexican company build the wall, and then stiff them. Then they will have paid for it. It is how he operates.

He'd have to find someone dumb enough to fall for that first. Among the murderers and rapists and some, I assume, are good people. But they aren't as stupid as Trump.

Re:Drones as weapons

[BlueStrat]

Sure it's more to do with idiots flying into people's head or planes. They SHOULD register this, and MORE. They should need to be licensed to fly them.

Safety or freedom.

Choose.

We already have plenty of laws against endangering people or property, creating a public hazard/nuisance, 'peeping Tom' laws, disturbing the peace, etc etc etc. There are another entire set of criminal laws dealing with any sort of endangerment to an aircraft. There are literally more laws than they've been able to count, and they've tried multiple times. This is akin to the early patent trolls locking up common tasks etc in patents by filing and receiving patents on nearly identical prior (usually expired) patents by adding "...with a computer."

I mean, you can already be charged with a plethora of serious federal charges with potentially decades of prison time for doing something only minimally stupid/dangerous with a drone with the laws we already have on the books.

How much 'illegaler' do you want to make it? Do we boil them in oil *before* we hang them, or after? And, where the hell does the beheading come in, before or after the flogging?

Should I submit a Slashdot poll?

Strat

Not a model anyway...

[TheConway]

In all cases that I'm aware of including the definition of the word, a model is supposed to be a representation of something. It may be an aesthetic ideal, or cosmetically identical while being non-functional or in the case of model aircraft, partially functional but shrunk down in size. In what way is a quadcopter(We all know that's what is being referred to) a 'model' of anything? As far as I can tell, pretty much all commercially available 'drones' are a complete and finished product that does everything that it's designed to do. The only way they could be classed as 'models' is in cases like the Millennium Falcon quadcopter, where it clearly is a partially functional representation of something else.

Re: I could stand on fifth avenue and shoot someon

[sjames]

WOW, that was a whole bunch of backflips you did there to avoid saying The Donald just created new regulations.

Re:DIY drones?

[Cederic]

I'm fairly certain that with a lithium ion battery, a raspberry pi, and some motors you could just make your own

Car.

How do they propose locking down something that seems a 12 year old could make

Through enforcement of the law.

What exactly would they do to this theoretical DIY'er if caught with such an offending device? What will they do in a few years when it is even more practical and easy to just build one yourself?

Undertake enforcement action.

Wait, am I still talking about cars or have I reverted to drones? Seems to me the answers are the same for each.

Drone user registration

[Geeky Don]

How is that different from a driver's license or pilots license or firearms registration or...?

Just wait until the non-flying, disposable drones

[Carcass666]

A big problem with this type of regulation is that they are relying on the FAA because drones fly. What's the plan when, inevitably, somebody creates a small, cheap robot with a camera that silently walks or crawls instead of flies? Even if they cost $1,000's - I would imagine paparazzi-types will snatch them up. Yes, there are trespassing laws, but once could build technology that would be very difficult to trace (ex. records on embedded storage instead of phone-home, broadcasts encrypted over cordless phone spectrum, etc.).

Of course, once Amazon and Google release their version of "friendly helpers" (Alexa on legs) to help you buy more stuff (and collect more of your personal telemetry), we're all screwed anyway...

drones are a menace

[cjonslashdot]

I am libertarian and hate unnecessary regulation; but drones pose a huge threat to aviation - both commercial and sport aviation. Imagine hitting one of those things in the windshield of your airplane at a few hundred miles per hour. Death is the certain result. And now every kid has a drone.

Drones that are able to fly above 100 feet should be required to have transponders. Sport amphibious aircraft fly at low altitude when landing on a lake.

Perhaps registration is not needed; perhaps what we need is to require the manufacturers to embed transponders in the things, and have a $100,000 fine for flying a drone without a transponder or a defective transponder. Something needs to be done.

Re:drones are a menace

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

Pretty sure you're nothing like a libertarian

Re:drones are a menace

[cjonslashdot]

Yes friend, I am libertarian. But there are many different interpretations of the term. For example, I believe in _personal_ liberty, free of government intrusion, but I do not believe in liberty for aggregations of power: organizations - corporations, unions, non-profits, government agencies, etc. Collections of people are not people, any more than a plant is a cell.

That said, there are limits, as with anything. People need protection from aggregations of power, and they also need protection from each other. That's why we have a police force: it is a lesser of two evils calculation.

One thing I have learned in my 61 years is that extremes do not work: the key is to have the right balance. Where people differ in in where the right balance lies ;-)

Re:drones are a menace

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

But what if a single person is as powerful as an organization? So you believe in liberty for those without power and restrictions on liberty for those with power? Obviously this is just communism/marxism. What I'm asking is, how do you tell what needs restriction and what needs to be left alone? What are the core principles? Balance is itself an extreme - it requires organization and rule and measurement more than any other state of being, is this not true?

Re:drones are a menace

[cjonslashdot]

Good point - essential point. US Supreme Court decisions that have equated paid advertising with free speech were wrong, IMO: free speech is the ability to speak one's mind: that is not the same thing as paying others to say things.

This is not communism. I am not a communist: I believe in freedom, whereas communism puts the state above freedom, even telling people what jobs they should have.

Your implication that it is hard to decide what should be restricted - the balance - is a tough process: it requires a guiding philosophy. I completely agree with you on that. In the end, everything comes down to having good judgment. Look at the terrible court decisions that happen every day. People have limits: people will make bad choices, there is no way to prevent that. But we can have a philosophy that guides people, to reduce the bad choices. I think the philosophy needs to emphasize personal freedom, while also emphasizing protection from others - other individuals as well as companies, governments - any organization or source of power. Power is what individuals need protection from, no matter its source. I do not advocate that the state protect us from ourselves.

What do you think?

Re:drones are a menace

[slashdotiscompromisd]

I think the highest principle is competition, or more abstractly, embodying natural law in our society. Society should exist to preserve and evolve every natural process we can describe with science. Science should have the goal not of serving society necessarily but of increasing knowledge of natural systems whether or not such knowledge is convenient for certain political agendas or economic interests.

There's a certain critical point when an industry becomes too consolidated and it locks up too many resources and hurts society as a whole, even the owners of that industry.

We're living in a dream world of astronomical wealth in which the consequences of all the problems the higher-ups cause are suspended because they use their wealth to cover it all up. They scorn natural law. They lock up whole systems of industry, they disrupt ecological systems, they destroy social systems intentionally....They believe they should be immune to competition. They have too much power and feel zero responsibility. They are going to be the death of us all as they kill the planet's ecosystem and suppress all solutions, all so they can hold on to their power long enough to see the impending end of the world.

Re:drones are a menace

[cjonslashdot]

Yes, agreed. I think this is natural for our species, however: greed. Not everyone of course, but enough that we will always see what you describe. That's why we need protection. It is hard to get those protections: the people with the locked up wealth do their best to hold on to their situation. I also agree about competition. The challenge is to preserve fair markets, which are made unfair by consolidation.

Re:Good.

[HornWumpus]

Link: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/ho...

Their wrong doing is already exposed

[rsilvergun]

seriously. Goldman Sachs runs the Whitehouse and has for 20 years. They shut down Occupy WallStreet using elements of the Patriot Act to organize local police and the FBI. There's a mountain of evidence that voter suppression and outright hacks and not a peep from anybody. And then there's the whole Russian interference. I cop just shot a man who was begging for his life with an AR-15 and got off scott free. And lord, anybody remember Dick Cheney and his blatant war crimes? Christ, if I want to look at the local level what about all the bribes paid to make red light cameras happen? I could go on and on and on and on...

There is zero attempt hide their corruption. This has nothing to do with that. This is about keeping numbnuts from taking a drone to a football game and crashing it into the stands not as an act of terror but an act of sheer, drunken 'hold my beer and watch this' stupidity.

Re:DIY drones?

[JesseMcDonald]

Wait, am I still talking about cars or have I reverted to drones? Seems to me the answers are the same for each.

You can build you own car without getting permission from anyone, and drive it as much as you want on private property with the consent of the property owner. Vehicle registration is only required if you want to drive the vehicle on public roads. The rules being proposed for drones are much more restrictive. If they'd stop messing with people flying over their own property or with the owner's permission (up to, say, 400' AGL) they wouldn't get nearly as much opposition.

Re:Maybe there's a loophole

[tempo36]

Well darn. So much for not infringing on my rights to form a militia. Guess I'll keep my day job.

Re:Maybe there's a loophole

[tempo36]

Guess I spoke too soon. Looks like this has actually gotten think time in legal circles.

https://www.usnews.com/news/ar...

Re:Maybe there's a loophole

[ScentCone]

Well darn. So much for not infringing on my rights to form a militia. Guess I'll keep my day job.

You've never actually read the constitution, have you?

Re:Maybe there's a loophole

[ScentCone]

Looks like this has actually gotten think time in legal circles.

As have the parental rights of gray aliens who come here on UFOs and impregnate human women. Also, legal circles have debated whether or not Bigfoot should enjoy the same legal protections as other native Americans. Yes, "legal circles" contemplate all sorts of things. This is already well settled. Airborne guns are in routine use by military and law enforcement, and are allowed by civilians only under very, very specific circumstances requiring a lengthy permit process (culling herds using a sharpshooter in a helicopter, for example).

Re:Drones as weapons

[BlueStrat]

Your own fantasies frighten you. It couldn't possibly be that there have been numerous issues with amateur hour drone pilots flying into things, into people, shuttling down airports for flying in their airspace, You need a license to drive and you have to register your car. Why are drone pilots more special than commuters?

Let's try your argument with a different piece of technology:

"Your own fantasies frighten you. It couldn't possibly be that there have been numerous issues with amateur hour script-kiddies hacking/cracking into businesses, into people, shuttling down websites with botnet DDoD attacks, You need a license to drive and you have to register your car. Why are computer owners more special than commuters?"

Huh. That's odd. Doesn't sound nearly so reasonable now. Go figure.

Strat

look, a new regulation!

[jay age]

So which 2 old regulations did he cancel then?

That's what he promised...

All kinds of stupid.

[MotherErich]

Register your drone: ok. Register your car: ok. Register your gun: HOW DARE YOU IMPEDE ON MIGHT 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!

Re:Good.

[HornWumpus]

Good luck with your quarter watt pirate AM station. Hint: Nobody listens, nobody cares.

That's not CB. 'CItizens band' has a meaning.

The diaper heads aren't looking to attract unwanted attention and generally don't like 'godless commies'. I suggest you look elsewhere.