Don’t Let Local Anti-Drone Laws Keep you from Flying!

This sign in most cases is a paper tiger

Newton, MA—The City Council of this city enacted a highly restrictive ordinance over both commercial and recreational drones.  The most draconion parts of that law was just declared invalid by a federal judge.  

Among other things the council like many state and local governments recklessly went about regulating or restricting most drone activities such as:  

1.  Registration requirement for all drones with the city.

2.  Obtain “permission” from public or private property owners before any flights..

3.  Outlaws beyond line of sight flying.  

State and local politicians are either oblivious or antagonistic to the reality that they have zero jurisdiction over the airspace.  This is the mandated responsibility of the FAA.  They pass laws that result in arrests, search warrants and confiscation of property because of their arrogance and or ignorance. 

Article Six of our Constitution makes it quite clear that in case of a conflict between state and federal law, federal is always supreme.  Congress created the FAA and gave it  exclusive jurisdiction of the airspace.  

People victimized by these tyrannical laws have two ways to attack this monster:

1. If arrested they can furiously litigate the bad law in court.
2. By simply suing the offending government agencies seeking to enjoin their over-reaching laws.      

Of course if arrested, the local courts and prosecutor’s will offer you sweetheart deals in exchange for guilty pleas.  Unlike City Councilmen they have a better understanding of these bad laws.   I consider plea bargains in these cases as a nasty form of extortion.  

It will cost you a lot more money to litigate to win.  Rolling over and accepting a permanent criminal record is always the wrong answer here!

There are now two Federal Court cases affecting drone operators:  

1. Taylor vs. FAA.  This precluded the FAA from requiring registration of drone used for recreation. This new requirement was in serious conflict with existing Federal law.
2. Singer vs. City of Newton.  This case struck down the most egregious portions of the ordinance.  The plaintiff only challenged those portions of the law that affected him.

The Singer case does not really apply as a mandate nation wide however the case can be cited to various courts dealing with the same issues. The arguments made by Singer and the Court’s decision are very compelling.  

My guess is many local judges will bow not to the law but to the politicians that appointed them.  You could stand to be fined, jailed or placed on probation. 

Unfortunately what’s been left out of this argument is our Constitutional right to photograph and publish under the First Amendment. The media organizations should have challenged the bogus laws long ago.   

We also must deal with ignorant drone industry trolls that want to regulate recreational drone operators into non-existence.  The only acceptable motivation for regulation is safety.  The facts are despite millions of them out there no drone has crashed into conventional aircraft, been involved in death or serious injury.  Additionally no drone has been involved in any significants property damage.  

Many more windows are broken by softball players and golfers than drones!.  

This anti-drone hysteria continues.  It must be fought through education, litigation and safe flying.  Stand up for your rights while you still can!

Here is a copy of the Singer Ruling:
https://www.scribd.com/document/359718558/Singer-vs-City-of-Newton-Drone-Ruling