Mine sounds like a noisy box fan, has a reliable range of maybe 100 feet, and can't carry anything but it's own toy-caliber camera.
And it's much less likely to hurt anyone or anything than a typical R/C aircraft is, since it's so easy to control.
Now, when you get up to something bigger and more powerful, sure, laws are needed.
And yes, the constitution DOES grant the power to regulate aircraft. Thank goodness.
"Drone" regulation (almost 99 out of 100 times what is meant is actually "quadrocopter", not "drone") is most certainly a state matter and there is no allowance for Federal regulation in the Constitution. This isn't a matter of interstate commerce and the ceiling for these smaller craft are below 1,000 feet. Of greater concern is the role of law enforcement and the military deploying "drones" for surveillance and spy craft without a warrant.
Drones will likely need much further regulation. As an earlier poster said, anthrax or other pathogens could easily be spread by drone. Further, explosives can be attached and can collide with a jumbo jet on takeoff. It will not be long before something horrible happens.
When drones are criminalized, only criminals will have drones.
Please spare me the gun argument. Man! THe US and its guns...
I guess if something is hard to enforce there should be NO ENFORCEMENT.
HEy, lets remove all traffic laws, vehicule registrations and pollution and workplace regulation, lets go back to the good all day were men were men... and everyone died young.
Why would those vehicules be any different than any other vehicules in the public space, especially large ones. They're not talking about toys here.
If some of these things fail, or hit someone, or spies on someone, who will get sued/prosecuted is pretty important.
Many of those drones can be automated and sent away, some people could have a whole fleet of marauding drones all over the place just collecting data!!
Please spare me the gun argument. Man! THe US and its guns...
I guess if something is hard to enforce there should be NO ENFORCEMENT.
HEy, lets remove all traffic laws, vehicule registrations and pollution and workplace regulation, lets go back to the good all day were men were men... and everyone died young.
Is that what you take away from it? Someone misses the point.
This is about one issue and that is that your government doesn't want you to be able to watch them. Governmentofficials do not want to be observed in public doing there public duties. There is a war on photographers and citizen filming and reporting on officials. Do you know most police officers think its illegal to film them in public?
There are plenty of things that are harmful in our society that kill or hurt thousands but are not banned or regulated much... this includes Cars, Guns, Alcohol, Slipping in the bath tube, bicycles and so on. While I am sure that drones can and will hurt someone in the future the deaths and injury's from non military drones and very rare and almost non existent.
The news said that 1000 complaint for were logged for drones in the USA for 2015. That's nothing... 20 a state? There are more calls for barking dogs or noisy neighbors ect. News makes it seem like drones are everywhere. I never seen one or know someone who has one?
Really, you think cars are not regulated! ARE YOU FOR REAL!.
Drone operators need to get their head out of their asses and live in the real world.
I'll wait on the actual regulations. At first glance this seems 75% over reaction and 25% genuine issue (those airport incursions and interfering with wildfire fighting aerial assistance in the West).
Why would those vehicules be any different than any other vehicules in the public space, especially large ones. They're not talking about toys here.
If some of these things fail, or hit someone, or spies on someone, who will get sued/prosecuted is pretty important.
Many of those drones can be automated and sent away, some people could have a whole fleet of marauding drones all over the place just collecting data!!
That's where I'd exp[ect the boundary to fall: below a certain size and weight the item is a "toy" and above there's more of a risk due to the mass or altitude etc. that it can reach... Similar to pilot's licenses: the degree of regulation varies with presumed risk, a sailplane pilot being subject to far different criteria than a four engine powered pilot, and then also: private versus commercial for hire.
Any officer of the government at any level who enforces this "law" (which isn't a law even), while armed, is a felon under US 18-242.
There is no power to regulate airspace, let alone hobbyists enumerated in the constitution. However, it is a crime to violate constitutional rights under color of law.
This shows how the government acting in a criminal fashion is so common that it doesn't even merit pointing out-- and most people just assume the government did it therefore it is moral/legal/right.
It isn't.
They are criminals.
Drones aren't so big a deal now, but this is just one of a million instances of criminality like this.
Also- eventually drones will be used to spy on us, and kill us (drones have already been used to murder american citizens by the american government, with %90 of the total people killed by US drones being innocents) ... but we of course will not be allowed to be "armed" with drones to protect us -- a violation of the second amendment.
Frankly, I think you're delusional. If people weren't so damned irresponsible, these regulations wouldn't be necessary, but they are. Having said that, I think all these claims about interference with aircraft might be somewhat paranoid and bogus because I've never seen anyone fly a drone that high and I've never seen amateur drone footage from such a height. (Obviously you wouldn't permit flying a drone near an airport or within a flight path and one would really have to be an idiot to do so, but people get caught all the time pointing lasers at aircraft, so there are plenty of morons out there.)
And the public is going to accept these restrictions, because they're paranoid about drones anyway. In spite of the fact that you can buy a drone from any electronics/photography store (even my local still-in-business Radio Shack has them), drones have already been demonized in the eyes of the public.
Violation of the second amendment? If you want to take the second amendment literally, then you have to include the phrase "A well regulated Militia,...." as part of its meaning (which the Supreme Court chose to ignore). And if you choose to take it literally, the framers clearly did not have drones in mind, so you have no constitutional right to them. Besides, a drone is not an "arm", unless it's weaponized, and if there's anything I don't want to see happen, it's anyone arming a drone.
As for spying on us, the Government doesn't need drones to spy on us. Cities already have video cameras everywhere and police departments and the military have helicopters and satellite imagery. And they're already illegally tracking our cell phone calls, etc. No drone is ever going to take out an American citizen on American soil. While I agree that the American people too often accept illegal Government actions, they don't "see" the Government spying on them, but they'd be very aware of such an attack. If that were ever to happen, the President responsible would be impeached quite quickly. But comparing the Government's use of drones to the public's use of drones is ridiculous anyway. They have nothing to do with each other.
At the state level, not federally. So no, your point doesn't stand.
Recheck who controls the airspace above a certain altitude ? That's federal, which is why even aircraft that solely fly within a state are federally registered.
So THAT'S the argument to not license ANY drivers or register ANY cars? Accidents happen anyway?
No, no it is not.
Is that what you got out of that?
No, the lesson you should have learned is that the reasons given (prevent accidents etc.) don't support the remedy. If the reason for doing something does not do what you claim, then the reason does not support what you are trying to do.
Violation of the second amendment? If you want to take the second amendment literally, then you have to include the phrase "A well regulated Militia,...." as part of its meaning (which the Supreme Court chose to ignore). And if you choose to take it literally, the framers clearly did not have drones in mind, so you have no constitutional right to them. Besides, a drone is not an "arm", unless it's weaponized, and if there's anything I don't want to see happen, it's anyone arming a drone.
The Supreme Court did not ignore "a well regulated militia." That statement in the 2A is not limiting, it is explanatory. That is a fact of grammar.
And in the days it was written "well regulated" meant "well trained" (cf. regulating a clock), and the militia was (and still is -- check the code on who is in the unorganized militia of the United States) almost every citizen man below a certain age. Not any government organization.
Yet we still have accidents and stuff caused by unlicensed drivers, unregistered cars, etc.
So are you proposing we have no laws because there is no law that is perfect? Should we have no criminal laws because even though it's illegal to kill or rob someone, we still have murders and robberies? Should there be no laws against speeding because some drivers speed anyway?
No law is perfect. Get over it. The fact that a regulation or law can't be perfectly enforced is no reason not to have the law in the first place. And unfortunately, in our society, we do need these laws and regulations (although perhaps not all of them) because left on their own, people behave really poorly.
I can understand the argument that in theory, drone regulation should be a state matter, not a federal matter, but I think it would be too confusing to have 50 different sets of regulations, even though we have 50 different sets of regulations for cars.
So are you proposing we have no laws because there is no law that is perfect? Should we have no criminal laws because even though it's illegal to kill or rob someone, we still have murders and robberies? Should there be no laws against speeding because some drivers speed anyway?
No law is perfect. Get over it. The fact that a regulation or law can't be perfectly enforced is no reason not to have the law in the first place. And unfortunately, in our society, we do need these laws and regulations (although perhaps not all of them) because left on their own, people behave really poorly.
I can understand the argument that in theory, drone regulation should be a state matter, not a federal matter, but I think it would be too confusing to have 50 different sets of regulations, even though we have 50 different sets of regulations for cars.
I think someone needs a lesson in logic.
A law against killing someone is not comparable to a law requiring a license or registration. One is regulatory and one is recognizing the abhorrence of an act of violence against someone.
A law outlawing certain bad actions is in no way comparable to a law that requires something that in and of itself is not "bad" or "wrong." There is nothing "wrong" with driving without a license except that the government says so. There is most definitely something wrong with murder, whether or not the government says so.
Additionally, see my point above. Trying to effect a law such as a license or registration by making claims that the law will not affect, does not support the law. Saying that bad things happen with drones, so we need to register drones is not supportable logically, since the registration won't cause the bad things not to happen. Saying, "don't fly within 1 mile of an airport or disaster area" is much more appropriate as a law to try and fix the "problem" than is requiring registration.
The purpose of registration is to know who has them so at a later date, when you don't want people to have them, you can go get them.
Canada is actually a good example of creating registries for things and the registry only ended up costing billions of dollars and had not the slightest effect on whatever it was they were trying to effect.
Namely the long arms registry (non handgun firearms registry). They required all long arms (rifles, maybe shotguns IIRC) to register. Billions of dollars later, they scrapped the whole thing because it had no effect on whatever they thought it would do for them, and cost a ton of money and effort to try and implement. All for naught.
No, the lesson you should have learned is that the reasons given (prevent accidents etc.) don't support the remedy. If the reason for doing something does not do what you claim, then the reason does not support what you are trying to do.
And so you're arguing, since car accidents happen, there's no need to register cars or license drivers because that won't "prevent accidents".
And I disagree. "prevent", not entirely, reduce, most arguably. And a registration program that includes an educational component just like when traffic regulations are reinforced at license application and renewal times, will prevent some accidents, or when at registration invitation or renewal vehicle safety items are checked for compliance with safety rules: functioning brakes, headlights, brake lights etc. No one is setting up to confiscate my car, lol.. That holds for motor vehicles, manned aircraft or anything else where "accidents" happen. At registration a bit of testing that makes sure people have knowledge of where and in what manner it is safe to operate those devices, like only outside a certain distance from airports or wildfire suppression activities is a proven way to add a measure of safety to user's operation: like traffic regulations being retaught.
Comments
"Drone" regulation (almost 99 out of 100 times what is meant is actually "quadrocopter", not "drone") is most certainly a state matter and there is no allowance for Federal regulation in the Constitution. This isn't a matter of interstate commerce and the ceiling for these smaller craft are below 1,000 feet. Of greater concern is the role of law enforcement and the military deploying "drones" for surveillance and spy craft without a warrant.
Drones will likely need much further regulation. As an earlier poster said, anthrax or other pathogens could easily be spread by drone. Further, explosives can be attached and can collide with a jumbo jet on takeoff. It will not be long before something horrible happens.
And registration will stop this exactly how?
And yet cars are registered and operators are required to be licensed: so, great point! Happy to see your support.
Yet we still have accidents and stuff caused by unlicensed drivers, unregistered cars, etc.
When drones are criminalized, only criminals will have drones.
Please spare me the gun argument. Man! THe US and its guns...
I guess if something is hard to enforce there should be NO ENFORCEMENT.
HEy, lets remove all traffic laws, vehicule registrations and pollution and workplace regulation, lets go back to the good all day were men were men... and everyone died young.
Why would those vehicules be any different than any other vehicules in the public space, especially large ones. They're not talking about toys here.
If some of these things fail, or hit someone, or spies on someone, who will get sued/prosecuted is pretty important.
Many of those drones can be automated and sent away, some people could have a whole fleet of marauding drones all over the place just collecting data!!
Please spare me the gun argument. Man! THe US and its guns...
I guess if something is hard to enforce there should be NO ENFORCEMENT.
HEy, lets remove all traffic laws, vehicule registrations and pollution and workplace regulation, lets go back to the good all day were men were men... and everyone died young.
Is that what you take away from it? Someone misses the point.
This is about one issue and that is that your government doesn't want you to be able to watch them. Government officials do not want to be observed in public doing there public duties. There is a war on photographers and citizen filming and reporting on officials. Do you know most police officers think its illegal to film them in public?
There are plenty of things that are harmful in our society that kill or hurt thousands but are not banned or regulated much... this includes Cars, Guns, Alcohol, Slipping in the bath tube, bicycles and so on. While I am sure that drones can and will hurt someone in the future the deaths and injury's from non military drones and very rare and almost non existent.
The news said that 1000 complaint for were logged for drones in the USA for 2015. That's nothing... 20 a state? There are more calls for barking dogs or noisy neighbors ect. News makes it seem like drones are everywhere. I never seen one or know someone who has one?
Really, you think cars are not regulated! ARE YOU FOR REAL!.
Drone operators need to get their head out of their asses and live in the real world.
That's a nice decision taken by US. It would keep the people very much safe.
I'll wait on the actual regulations. At first glance this seems 75% over reaction and 25% genuine issue (those airport incursions and interfering with wildfire fighting aerial assistance in the West).
Why would those vehicules be any different than any other vehicules in the public space, especially large ones. They're not talking about toys here.
If some of these things fail, or hit someone, or spies on someone, who will get sued/prosecuted is pretty important.
Many of those drones can be automated and sent away, some people could have a whole fleet of marauding drones all over the place just collecting data!!
That's where I'd exp[ect the boundary to fall: below a certain size and weight the item is a "toy" and above there's more of a risk due to the mass or altitude etc. that it can reach... Similar to pilot's licenses: the degree of regulation varies with presumed risk, a sailplane pilot being subject to far different criteria than a four engine powered pilot, and then also: private versus commercial for hire.
Yet we still have accidents and stuff caused by unlicensed drivers, unregistered cars, etc.
So THAT'S the argument to not license ANY drivers or register ANY cars? Accidents happen anyway?
No, no it is not.
Because a criminal would never steal a car without a license to drive or proper insurance...
So licenses and registration of any kind is unneeded right?
No.
Any officer of the government at any level who enforces this "law" (which isn't a law even), while armed, is a felon under US 18-242.
There is no power to regulate airspace, let alone hobbyists enumerated in the constitution. However, it is a crime to violate constitutional rights under color of law.
This shows how the government acting in a criminal fashion is so common that it doesn't even merit pointing out-- and most people just assume the government did it therefore it is moral/legal/right.
It isn't.
They are criminals.
Drones aren't so big a deal now, but this is just one of a million instances of criminality like this.
Also- eventually drones will be used to spy on us, and kill us (drones have already been used to murder american citizens by the american government, with %90 of the total people killed by US drones being innocents) ... but we of course will not be allowed to be "armed" with drones to protect us -- a violation of the second amendment.
Frankly, I think you're delusional. If people weren't so damned irresponsible, these regulations wouldn't be necessary, but they are. Having said that, I think all these claims about interference with aircraft might be somewhat paranoid and bogus because I've never seen anyone fly a drone that high and I've never seen amateur drone footage from such a height. (Obviously you wouldn't permit flying a drone near an airport or within a flight path and one would really have to be an idiot to do so, but people get caught all the time pointing lasers at aircraft, so there are plenty of morons out there.)
And the public is going to accept these restrictions, because they're paranoid about drones anyway. In spite of the fact that you can buy a drone from any electronics/photography store (even my local still-in-business Radio Shack has them), drones have already been demonized in the eyes of the public.
Violation of the second amendment? If you want to take the second amendment literally, then you have to include the phrase "A well regulated Militia,...." as part of its meaning (which the Supreme Court chose to ignore). And if you choose to take it literally, the framers clearly did not have drones in mind, so you have no constitutional right to them. Besides, a drone is not an "arm", unless it's weaponized, and if there's anything I don't want to see happen, it's anyone arming a drone.
As for spying on us, the Government doesn't need drones to spy on us. Cities already have video cameras everywhere and police departments and the military have helicopters and satellite imagery. And they're already illegally tracking our cell phone calls, etc. No drone is ever going to take out an American citizen on American soil. While I agree that the American people too often accept illegal Government actions, they don't "see" the Government spying on them, but they'd be very aware of such an attack. If that were ever to happen, the President responsible would be impeached quite quickly. But comparing the Government's use of drones to the public's use of drones is ridiculous anyway. They have nothing to do with each other.
At the state level, not federally. So no, your point doesn't stand.
Recheck who controls the airspace above a certain altitude ? That's federal, which is why even aircraft that solely fly within a state are federally registered.
So THAT'S the argument to not license ANY drivers or register ANY cars? Accidents happen anyway?
No, no it is not.
Is that what you got out of that?
No, the lesson you should have learned is that the reasons given (prevent accidents etc.) don't support the remedy. If the reason for doing something does not do what you claim, then the reason does not support what you are trying to do.
Violation of the second amendment? If you want to take the second amendment literally, then you have to include the phrase "A well regulated Militia,...." as part of its meaning (which the Supreme Court chose to ignore). And if you choose to take it literally, the framers clearly did not have drones in mind, so you have no constitutional right to them. Besides, a drone is not an "arm", unless it's weaponized, and if there's anything I don't want to see happen, it's anyone arming a drone.
The Supreme Court did not ignore "a well regulated militia." That statement in the 2A is not limiting, it is explanatory. That is a fact of grammar.
And in the days it was written "well regulated" meant "well trained" (cf. regulating a clock), and the militia was (and still is -- check the code on who is in the unorganized militia of the United States) almost every citizen man below a certain age. Not any government organization.
Yet we still have accidents and stuff caused by unlicensed drivers, unregistered cars, etc.
So are you proposing we have no laws because there is no law that is perfect? Should we have no criminal laws because even though it's illegal to kill or rob someone, we still have murders and robberies? Should there be no laws against speeding because some drivers speed anyway?
No law is perfect. Get over it. The fact that a regulation or law can't be perfectly enforced is no reason not to have the law in the first place. And unfortunately, in our society, we do need these laws and regulations (although perhaps not all of them) because left on their own, people behave really poorly.
I can understand the argument that in theory, drone regulation should be a state matter, not a federal matter, but I think it would be too confusing to have 50 different sets of regulations, even though we have 50 different sets of regulations for cars.
So are you proposing we have no laws because there is no law that is perfect? Should we have no criminal laws because even though it's illegal to kill or rob someone, we still have murders and robberies? Should there be no laws against speeding because some drivers speed anyway?
No law is perfect. Get over it. The fact that a regulation or law can't be perfectly enforced is no reason not to have the law in the first place. And unfortunately, in our society, we do need these laws and regulations (although perhaps not all of them) because left on their own, people behave really poorly.
I can understand the argument that in theory, drone regulation should be a state matter, not a federal matter, but I think it would be too confusing to have 50 different sets of regulations, even though we have 50 different sets of regulations for cars.
I think someone needs a lesson in logic.
A law against killing someone is not comparable to a law requiring a license or registration. One is regulatory and one is recognizing the abhorrence of an act of violence against someone.
A law outlawing certain bad actions is in no way comparable to a law that requires something that in and of itself is not "bad" or "wrong." There is nothing "wrong" with driving without a license except that the government says so. There is most definitely something wrong with murder, whether or not the government says so.
Additionally, see my point above. Trying to effect a law such as a license or registration by making claims that the law will not affect, does not support the law. Saying that bad things happen with drones, so we need to register drones is not supportable logically, since the registration won't cause the bad things not to happen. Saying, "don't fly within 1 mile of an airport or disaster area" is much more appropriate as a law to try and fix the "problem" than is requiring registration.
The purpose of registration is to know who has them so at a later date, when you don't want people to have them, you can go get them.
Canada is actually a good example of creating registries for things and the registry only ended up costing billions of dollars and had not the slightest effect on whatever it was they were trying to effect.
Namely the long arms registry (non handgun firearms registry). They required all long arms (rifles, maybe shotguns IIRC) to register. Billions of dollars later, they scrapped the whole thing because it had no effect on whatever they thought it would do for them, and cost a ton of money and effort to try and implement. All for naught.
Is that what you got out of that?
No, the lesson you should have learned is that the reasons given (prevent accidents etc.) don't support the remedy. If the reason for doing something does not do what you claim, then the reason does not support what you are trying to do.
And so you're arguing, since car accidents happen, there's no need to register cars or license drivers because that won't "prevent accidents".
And I disagree. "prevent", not entirely, reduce, most arguably. And a registration program that includes an educational component just like when traffic regulations are reinforced at license application and renewal times, will prevent some accidents, or when at registration invitation or renewal vehicle safety items are checked for compliance with safety rules: functioning brakes, headlights, brake lights etc. No one is setting up to confiscate my car, lol.. That holds for motor vehicles, manned aircraft or anything else where "accidents" happen. At registration a bit of testing that makes sure people have knowledge of where and in what manner it is safe to operate those devices, like only outside a certain distance from airports or wildfire suppression activities is a proven way to add a measure of safety to user's operation: like traffic regulations being retaught.