DOT to the rescue! (Multi rotor registration)

[Younggun]

People perceive guns as a threat too. Doesn't mean they have legal recourse if they choose too take certain actions against someone for carrying.

There are risks in everything we do. But depending on the situation, there is recourse when the risk is due to someone's action being taken against a person taking part in an activity. That is generally not ok. And in many cases the actor will be required to make the situation right, would suck to illegally blast a drone only to be ordered to replace it. Salt on an open wound type of deal.

Let's say your car breaks down and the only place you have to pull off the road puts your vehicle on my property. Do I have any right to set it on fire? It is on my property after all.




Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

People perceive guns as a threat too. Doesn't mean they have legal recourse if they choose too take certain actions against someone for carrying.

There are risks in everything we do. But depending on the situation, there is recourse when the risk is due to someone's action being taken against a person taking part in an activity. That is generally not ok. And in many cases the actor will be required to make the situation right, would suck to illegally blast a drone only to be ordered to replace it. Salt on an open wound type of deal.

Let's say your car breaks down and the only place you have to pull off the road puts your vehicle on my property. Do I have any right to set it on fire? It is on my property after all.




Sent from my HAL 9000

We're not talking about public space and people carrying. We're talking about private property, property I get to decide what I want on it or not. Guns on my property I didn't approve ARE a threat and I can (and will) take action.

Let's say I fire my gun over your property. The bullet doesn't touch it, just merely uses its airspace. It's just a hobby, I have no intention of the bullet landing on your property, but if it does I don't think I'm in the wrong and you shouldn't be able to do anything about it. It's just an object that was accidentally dropped on your property during the course of my activity. Is there not a law that says a bullet cannot exit your property line? If there wasn't a law would you then think it's ok to shoot over your neighbor's property line? Why is a drone any different? Don't say it's because bullets are dangerous it's not the same blah blah, it is and drones can be dangerous, too. Especially when people modify them as tech progresses or use the photography element to cause harm to someone's life. You're basically saying that law should protect you in trespass of your object on another's property.

If a car breaks down, it might end up on the side of the road, which technically isn't my property 10 feet from the road. I have no perception that's a threat immediately, but I might investigate. If a remote controlled car with a video camera ends up in the middle of the yard or is coming through the woods, we're at a different level and it's trespassing, regardless of the reason. I don't know the intentions of the car's operator, be it a threat or not, and wouldn't wait to find out.

I just don't understand the need to justify intrusion into someone else's property or space, whether it be in person or with inanimate tools. If I had a drone, and probably will some day when costs come down quite a bit, I wouldn't fly it over someone else's property without permission. Just because it's a hobby doesn't mean a thing. It's still your property invading another's. It's just not OK to do. I'd have no right to invade their space, vice versa.

You don't want to risk losing an expensive unit, that's understood and I wouldn't want to either. Then why risk it by flying it over someone else's land? Stick to you're own space, parks, public places, permitted use, etc. Why is that a difficult concept?

Going back to the boy, the ball, and the fence with a dog over it. If I lost the ball over the fence, I wouldn't blame the fence or the dog. I knowingly risked my ball and lost it. It's on me, life sucks, next ball doesn't get played with by the fence. The end! I'm responsible for my property and my actions with that property, no one else is responsible for it and the consequences are mine. Or do you think the dog should be put down, the owner fined, and forced to replace the ball?

 

[TheDan]

Media Release: AMA JOINS DOT TASK FORCE ON UAS REGISTRATION

Sounds kinda like they are about to pull a Bill Ruger.

How high do you believe that airspace ownership extends? At what altitude should airlines have to purchase a right of way to cross over property? What about smaller planes or CareFlite?
It's a serious question, I don't believe you want ownership at 30,000', but then again it wouldn't surprise me, lol.

It is an interesting question... I would think that common law homesteading rules should apply plus redneck law. If no one else is using that airspace and I build a 30 story building on my property that would be roughly 350ft high, then yeah I obviously own that airsapce. Add the redneck rule of "within shotgun range" to give it a 100yd buffer to whatever structures I have.

 

[Mreed911]

But one thing about the point is, if you didn't play near the fence the ball wouldn't be lost. It's a life lesson.

Are you THAT GUY? I hated you as a kid.

Yeah, we didn't think about the fence. Maybe it's the only place we have to play and we're just not well coordinated yet.

Please give me my ball back if I come to you, ask nicely, and apologize for the intrusion.

If I'm a little shit, give the ball back to my parents with a warning and a story about how I was a little shit... I promise it won't happen again when my dad gets done.

Is there not a law that says a bullet cannot exit your property line?

There is. The difference is a bullet's trajectory is set, so the law is effectively "don't fire in a direction that could cross property lines." For model aircraft, no such law exists yet, but it's easy to see why it soon will.

PS - Google Maps? WAY up there above your property and taking pictures for commercial use of your backyard (and perhaps your kids). Does that mean you should be able to shoot down their satellite when/if it's over your property?

 

[Younggun]

We're not talking about public space and people carrying. We're talking about private property, property I get to decide what I want on it or not. Guns on my property I didn't approve ARE a threat and I can (and will) take action.

Let's say I fire my gun over your property. The bullet doesn't touch it, just merely uses its airspace. It's just a hobby, I have no intention of the bullet landing on your property, but if it does I don't think I'm in the wrong and you shouldn't be able to do anything about it. It's just an object that was accidentally dropped on your property during the course of my activity. Is there not a law that says a bullet cannot exit your property line? If there wasn't a law would you then think it's ok to shoot over your neighbor's property line? Why is a drone any different? Don't say it's because bullets are dangerous it's not the same blah blah, it is and drones can be dangerous, too. Especially when people modify them as tech progresses or use the photography element to cause harm to someone's life. You're basically saying that law should protect you in trespass of your object on another's property.

If a car breaks down, it might end up on the side of the road, which technically isn't my property 10 feet from the road. I have no perception that's a threat immediately, but I might investigate. If a remote controlled car with a video camera ends up in the middle of the yard or is coming through the woods, we're at a different level and it's trespassing, regardless of the reason. I don't know the intentions of the car's operator, be it a threat or not, and wouldn't wait to find out.

I just don't understand the need to justify intrusion into someone else's property or space, whether it be in person or with inanimate tools. If I had a drone, and probably will some day when costs come down quite a bit, I wouldn't fly it over someone else's property without permission. Just because it's a hobby doesn't mean a thing. It's still your property invading another's. It's just not OK to do. I'd have no right to invade their space, vice versa.

You don't want to risk losing an expensive unit, that's understood and I wouldn't want to either. Then why risk it by flying it over someone else's land? Stick to you're own space, parks, public places, permitted use, etc. Why is that a difficult concept?

Going back to the boy, the ball, and the fence with a dog over it. If I lost the ball over the fence, I wouldn't blame the fence or the dog. I knowingly risked my ball and lost it. It's on me, life sucks, next ball doesn't get played with by the fence. The end! I'm responsible for my property and my actions with that property, no one else is responsible for it and the consequences are mine. Or do you think the dog should be put down, the owner fined, and forced to replace the ball?

There is no legal precedent to determine at what altitude I would be invading your space.

As for bullets, they really aren't. There is a reason a bullet can't leave my property but if I took off in a small airplane I could cross the property line. It's already illegal to use cameras in the manner you are bringing up. At the point they reach the level you fear, it won't matter if I'm over your property or mine. Light will still travel across your property line and hit the sensor. The property line will be irrelevant and it will be the laws already in place that matter, that and the fact that nobody really wants to see or cares what you are doing. If someone does, current law more than covers it. Peeping is illegal ya know.


You keep changing the situation around. When I bring up something applicable to the destruction of property on the basis of it being on property you sidestep.

I don't disagree that some cases may constitute trespassing, but the law is not on your side when it comes to use of force in that situation.

The hyperbole in your last paragraph is laughable.




Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Mreed911]

There is no legal precedent to determine at what altitude I would be invading your space.

Yes, there is. This is from Wikipedia, so you'll have to drill-down to the additional sources for more trustworthy information. Emphasis mine.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all public airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace above 500 feet.[SUP][1][/SUP]

Specifically, the Federal Aviation Act provides that: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."[SUP][2][/SUP] The act defines navigable airspace as "airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight…including airspace needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."[SUP][3][/SUP]
Property owners may waive (or purchasers may be required to waive) any putative notion of "air rights" near an airport, for convenience in future real estate transactions, and to avoid lawsuits from future owners nuisance claims against low flying aircraft. This is called a navigation easement.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

YG I'm glad you brought this up.


For a long time I've been thinking we should convert from the English measurement system of feet and yards to the Redneck system using various shotgun loads and chokes.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

PS - Google Maps? WAY up there above your property and taking pictures for commercial use of your backyard (and perhaps your kids). Does that mean you should be able to shoot down their satellite when/if it's over your property?

Yes. With my frickin lazer beam!

 

[Mike1234567]

One can discharge their firearms on their own property ONLY IF the project never leaves your property... at least in most rural areas. Shooting over another's property is unsafe... and illegal.

The idiot neighbors next door were shooting their .22LR rifle at an unsafe angle (far too shallow) at cans in their back yard (we all live on 2 acres). The A-hole argued with me that he knew what he was doing and to leave him alone. There's a home with 2 adults and several children directly in the line of sight where he was shooting. Yeah, he's a moron.

 

[Mreed911]

Not true. One can discharge their firearms on their own property ONLY IF the project never leaves your property. Shooting over another's property is unsafe... and illegal.

You didn't read the next line, his rhetorical question referencing this very law:

Is there not a law that says a bullet cannot exit your property line?

 

[Mike1234567]

You didn't read the next line, his rhetorical question referencing this very law:

[/I][/COLOR]

Woops... off to edit.

 

[Younggun]

Yes, there is. This is from Wikipedia, so you'll have to drill-down to the additional sources for more trustworthy information. Emphasis mine.

It's a mess. After some googling and flowing different links from articles and such I've found there is no direct answer to the question.

A Supreme Court ruling gives at least 83' under control of the property owner, but then nothing is said until the 500' mark is reached.


Personally, I feel that trespassing and photography laws cover the bases pretty well. It's just nailing down the height at which trespassing becomes applicable. I feel that 100' is too low. 200-300' is reasonable IMO.

What I fear is that mass fear will do the same thing it does in other areas. Punish only those who have no ill intent and leave those who are assholes and idiots still doing as they please. This applies to both sides of the coin.

The only beneficiary will be the Gov.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[TreyG-20]

You didn't read the next line, his rhetorical question referencing this very law:

[/I][/COLOR]

Lol

 

[Younggun]

YG I'm glad you brought this up.


For a long time I've been thinking we should convert from the English measurement system of feet and yards to the Redneck system using various shotgun loads and chokes.

Lol.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

Are you THAT GUY? I hated you as a kid.

Yeah, we didn't think about the fence. Maybe it's the only place we have to play and we're just not well coordinated yet.

Please give me my ball back if I come to you, ask nicely, and apologize for the intrusion.

If I'm a little shit, give the ball back to my parents with a warning and a story about how I was a little shit... I promise it won't happen again when my dad gets done.



There is. The difference is a bullet's trajectory is set, so the law is effectively "don't fire in a direction that could cross property lines." For model aircraft, no such law exists yet, but it's easy to see why it soon will.

PS - Google Maps? WAY up there above your property and taking pictures for commercial use of your backyard (and perhaps your kids). Does that mean you should be able to shoot down their satellite when/if it's over your property?

You didn't read, I specifically said there was another place to use the ball and it was a dog who eats the ball. It's a known consequence scenario. To reiterate, I know a consequence to an action, but still do it, isn't that my responsibility to accept that consequence?

Satellite is a similar issue and Google has to limit personal information released. They can not release identifiable photos of people or personal information. Same thing happened with their street view. It was a legala and personal rights issue.

There is no legal precedent to determine at what altitude I would be invading your space.

As for bullets, they really aren't. There is a reason a bullet can't leave my property but if I took off in a small airplane I could cross the property line. It's already illegal to use cameras in the manner you are bringing up. At the point they reach the level you fear, it won't matter if I'm over your property or mine. Light will still travel across your property line and hit the sensor. The property line will be irrelevant and it will be the laws already in place that matter, that and the fact that nobody really wants to see or cares what you are doing. If someone does, current law more than covers it. Peeping is illegal ya know.


You keep changing the situation around. When I bring up something applicable to the destruction of property on the basis of it being on property you sidestep.

I don't disagree that some cases may constitute trespassing, but the law is not on your side when it comes to use of force in that situation.

The hyperbole in your last paragraph is laughable.




Sent from my HAL 9000

I haven't sidestepped anything. My issue and point still remains the same. You brought up a broken down vehicle on the roadside to my property which is not relevant because it's not actively driving around my property, or photographing anything. This issue is not about encroachment of boundaries or neighbors building a fence slightly on your side, it's about a unit moving by remote control through my property with the capability to cause harm (photography, physical injury, property damage, etc.).

Also, there is some legal precedent. With a plane, you can't fly just fly through my airspace just because you're in a plane. You have to remain no lower than 500' with a very few exceptions, take off and landing is not part of those exceptions for private runways.

Answer these questions:

Why do you think it's ok to invade another's personal property for your own amusement or hobby?

Why do you think you have a right to access airspace but one does not have a right to protect it?

Why is it such a big deal for others to allow you to access their property with your property?

Why can't you stay on your property, public property, or on permission to others land?

You keep mentioning laws of this and laws of that. Laws do very little to protect or stop anything, they are an after the fact thing. Peeping is illegal, so it must not happen, right? Oh wait... We know that's not true. So some creep breaks the law, there are now photos of a young woman all over the internet, her life becomes very difficult and is embarrassed everywhere she goes. She becomes a different person, in a negative way, in an extreme, she commits suicide. People have committed suicide over this kinda thing (sadly). Good thing there was a law against it to protect it from happening in the first place! There probably is a better example, but that just came to mind.

You may not care what others are doing, but there are those that will and they will abuse it for more evil purposes. It's life. And by your "it really won't matter any way" point of view, say microwave technology becomes available where the general public can now see inside your home. So they should not fear homeowner retaliation? They can do it because they have the capability?

Accepting one's actions and responsibility is laughable? I guess I don't blame others for my decisions and actions and if that's laughable, so be it.

 

[Younggun]

Lol, putting down the dog is laughable. Calm down and read what I posted.

And you are right, laws don't stop things from happening. Yet you are concerned with the laws protecting your property rights. Like it or not, laws DO play a role.

Having the capability to do harm is not the same as doing harm, as a gun owner you should know that.

As far as invading property, it comes back to the height at which your property ends. That is the answer to your list of questions. I never claimed any right to hover in your back yard, or swoop through it, or even just above the trees.

You use cameras as the necessitating circumstance yet a property line offers no protection. Pictures were take. Across property lines long before the cameras could fly. And it's probably cheaper.


I've never claimed anyone should be able to take video or pictures of your backyard. Yet you imply it with your comment about microwave technology. But to carry that to your view of that we're the case you believe you should be able to retaliate simply because you see someone with a camera with such capabilities. See, you didn't say that, but I can easily twist your comment as you have done mine.










Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[TheDan]

I feel that 100' is too low. 200-300' is reasonable IMO.

So what about my 350ft sky scraper? You can fly right up to it and land on the roof since it's above 300ft?

 

[Younggun]

I can't land on it, lol.

Aside from that, I don't know. I'd imagine the buffer from the ground would also apply horizontally from structures that extended above that altitude zone.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

So what about my 350ft sky scraper? You can fly right up to it and land on the roof since it's above 300ft?

Must stay #8 birdshot w improved cylinder away.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

Lol, putting down the dog is laughable. Calm down and read what I posted.

And you are right, laws don't stop things from happening. Yet you are concerned with the laws protecting your property rights. Like it or not, laws DO play a role.

Having the capability to do harm is not the same as doing harm, as a gun owner you should know that.

As far as invading property, it comes back to the height at which your property ends. That is the answer to your list of questions. I never claimed any right to hover in your back yard, or swoop through it, or even just above the trees.

You use cameras as the necessitating circumstance yet a property line offers no protection. Pictures were take. Across property lines long before the cameras could fly. And it's probably cheaper.


I've never claimed anyone should be able to take video or pictures of your backyard. Yet you imply it with your comment about microwave technology. But to carry that to your view of that we're the case you believe you should be able to retaliate simply because you see someone with a camera with such capabilities. See, you didn't say that, but I can easily twist your comment as you have done mine.










Sent from my HAL 9000

No, height of violation didn't answer my questions. Why do you want to fly over other's property at all? Regardless of airspace. 100 feet or 1000 feet, what does it matter? Why be there at all?

I specifically said I don't want laws or regulation for the drones. Government laws makes things worse, not better. I don't want them to limit my rights and extend them to others. I want the freedom to deal with my property as I see fit.

Whether having capability to do harm or not goes out the window when you're on my property and trespassing (physically or through controlled property). I don't know whether you have the capability to do harm or not. That's the point and I prefer not to wait to find out.

I've mentioned cameras, property damage, and personal injury. You cannot photograph, cause injury, or property damage to me or my house unless you are on my property. Houses with fences the same. If you are circumventing any means, it's an issue.

You keep referencing retaliation at random. Someone on my property is not a random stranger in public. They have made a reasonable effort to enter my property. Their right to be there on my property does not exist, them having a camera, gun, whatever, exacerbates that. Public places is not an issue as I chose to be there, I have the option to not be there. It's public use.

The microwave example was to point out that just because someone has the capability does not mean it's ok for them to use it without repercussion. Not that you implied you wanted to take pictures.

What if I put up an RF jammer on my property that affected the ability for you to use the drone on my property but the signal jammed it on your property as a side effect? Would you be upset about that radio frequency invading your airspace?