- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is registering their drone?
Posted on 12/23/15 at 3:13 pm to therick711
Posted on 12/23/15 at 3:13 pm to therick711
quote:
limits of the commerce clause
1
Posted on 12/23/15 at 3:14 pm to jbgleason
quote:
This isn't a law, like car registration, that was written by an ELECTED representative and voted upon through our governing process.
The law is the one that gives the FAA the authority to regulate our air space in the interest of public safety. I sure as hell don't want your toy to bring down a 737 because congress wasn't in session to pass a new law.
Posted on 12/23/15 at 3:14 pm to Larry
Agreed. The only thing that gives me hope is Lopez and Morrison.
The point of all this was to point out that it is an incorrect methodology to say that the U.S. Constitution doesn't prohibit something so the federal government is entitled to do it.
The point of all this was to point out that it is an incorrect methodology to say that the U.S. Constitution doesn't prohibit something so the federal government is entitled to do it.
This post was edited on 12/23/15 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 12/23/15 at 3:19 pm to therick711
You're really trying to argue, stating the Commerce Clause, that airspace regulation is an intrastate issue? I must've skipped the day in Civic 101 about their ability to deem what is and isn't interstate activities. Good luck with that argument.
I, nor anybody else in this thread, stated the federal government has rights to any regulation simply due to its absence in the Constitution.
I, nor anybody else in this thread, stated the federal government has rights to any regulation simply due to its absence in the Constitution.
This post was edited on 12/23/15 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 12/23/15 at 3:22 pm to blkhawktiger
quote:
You're really trying to argue, stating the Commerce Clause, that airspace regulation is an intrastate issue? I must've skipped the day in Civic 101 about their ability to deem what is and isn't interstate activities. Good luck with that argument.
Actually, I'm not. This is the problem. You're wrong and you still don't know it. You keep saying that if something isn't prohibited by the constitution that the feds can do it. It was all over all of your posts in the first two pages. That is demonstrably and totally wrong. I was trying to explain to you why you are wrong, and you took it as I was making a value judgment on the ultimate legal question.
To be clear, you are wrong because the federal government is one of limited power. In order for it to require or prohibit any kind of conduct, the federal government must be specifically granted that power in the constitution, not, as you state, the opposite.
Now that we're clear on all of that, your mistake is not uncommon. That's sad, though.
Here are the examples:
quote:
people just seem hell-bent on making a Freedom Stand on every freakin issue. This isn't guns, which actually is specifically addressed by the Constitution, regardless of how it is interpreted today. It's at least in there.
quote:
Because you're operating an aircraft that is required to be registered....
Why would you register your vehicle?
Why drive with a driver's license?
Why drive with a license plate?
quote:
Don't think the Constitution touches on aircraft but I may be mistaken.
It's also doesn't touch on cars but everybody seems fine registering those things.
Your other issue was conflating what a State can require its citizens to do with what the feds can require citizens to do.
This post was edited on 12/23/15 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 12/23/15 at 3:29 pm to therick711
quote:
You keep saying that if something isn't prohibited by the constitution that the feds can do it. It was all over all of your posts in the first two pages.
Quote it then. Because I haven't said that at all and your saying I have doesn't make it so.
The federal government is one of limited power. Nobody disagrees with that. However, under the Commerce Clause that you referenced, they do have the right to regulate interstate activities, as well as the right to determine what is and isn't in the best interest of the public good when determining what qualifies as interstate and intrastate activities. It has been determined, rightfully so, that the operation of aircraft is an interstate activity. So, how do they not have the right to regulate airspace?
How are you now craw-fishing back on this?
Posted on 12/23/15 at 3:32 pm to blkhawktiger
quote:
as well as the right to determine what is and isn't in the best interest of the public good when determining what qualifies as interstate and intrastate activities.
The FAA does not have this power. That power is granted to Aritcle III courts. I haven't crawfished on anything. I've explained ad nauseum your mistake. Take a stab at why cars and planes are different. I've already explained it to you, but you have apparently not yet grasped the difference in power of states and the feds. I've done all I can do for you at this point.
Posted on 12/23/15 at 3:32 pm to therick711
Not one of those states I believe they have the power to regulate something that isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution.
Dear god, dude. Give it up. The Feds have the right to airspace and I've told you why.
Dear god, dude. Give it up. The Feds have the right to airspace and I've told you why.
Posted on 12/23/15 at 4:28 pm to Layabout
quote:
The law is the one that gives the FAA the authority to regulate our air space in the interest of public safety. I sure as hell don't want your toy to bring down a 737 because congress wasn't in session to pass a new law.
So your argument is that because a drone is in the air the FAA has a right to it? What about a birthday party balloon? What about when I save my hands over my head? Do I need to be outside when I do that or can the FAA get me in my living room? They arbitrarily place a ONE HALF pound limit on the requirement to register. Why not an altitude ability? You state the intent is for public safety. bullshite. The half pound $75 toy I got for Xmas goes about 40 feet in the air. A plane better not be 40 feet over my backyard. They are going to hit the trees. If this crap regulation had been written by an elected representative with some thought there would be some common sense limits on the registration requirements. BTW, operating a UAV near an airport WHERE IT IS DANGEROUS is already illegal under an actual statute.
This is simply a BS money making scheme by the FAA and they need to be reigned in.
Posted on 12/23/15 at 4:33 pm to jbgleason
quote:
So your argument is that because a drone is in the air the FAA has a right to it? What about a birthday party balloon? What about when I save my hands over my head? Do I need to be outside when I do that or can the FAA get me in my living room?
United States vs Causby in 1946 provides that a landowner has rights to airspace extending 83' AGL on their property.
And the shitty drone you bought may only go up to 40' AGL but there are dozens and dozens of affordable drones that can easily reach 1000' AGL and still several commercial models that can easily exceed a couple thousand feet.
Example: Drone at 1500-1700 feet
This post was edited on 12/23/15 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 12/23/15 at 4:48 pm to blkhawktiger
And you avoid my question. Why is my shitty toy being levied with a $5 fee when it poses zero danger? Why wasn't the listed altitude included in the requirement? WTF does the weight of the drone have to do with the registration requirement? Again, if I toss a brick into the air does that count? This is why we have a system where elected officials enact taxes. So we can vote their arse out of office when they do something this dumb. This regulation was ill conceived and stupid.
Posted on 12/23/15 at 4:57 pm to jbgleason
Can you toss a brick or your arms above 83' AGL?
You provided ridiculously common scenarios to question the FAA's authority of airspace regulation and I provided you the current altitude at which your airspace becomes their airspace. As to why the listed altitude requirement isn't a part of the registration requirements, that's because the limit for drones has been 400' AGL since 1995.
I'm sorry your fellow drone operators have trouble obeying the now 20-year-old altitude restriction that has led to this registration requirement. Just because they haven't publicized how they came to designate the weight doesn't make this "ill conceived and stupid."
Oh, and registration is free until January 20th. So, if you'd like to avoid the big bad government's corrupt money-grab, simply register in the next month.
You provided ridiculously common scenarios to question the FAA's authority of airspace regulation and I provided you the current altitude at which your airspace becomes their airspace. As to why the listed altitude requirement isn't a part of the registration requirements, that's because the limit for drones has been 400' AGL since 1995.
I'm sorry your fellow drone operators have trouble obeying the now 20-year-old altitude restriction that has led to this registration requirement. Just because they haven't publicized how they came to designate the weight doesn't make this "ill conceived and stupid."
Oh, and registration is free until January 20th. So, if you'd like to avoid the big bad government's corrupt money-grab, simply register in the next month.
This post was edited on 12/23/15 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 12/23/15 at 5:24 pm to loganfoster
If I have an AR Drone, do they have to be registered? I thought it was only certain drones.
Posted on 12/23/15 at 5:27 pm to DoUrden
We have two at work. Both will be registered. I'm not losing my job over something like this.
Posted on 12/24/15 at 2:41 am to jbgleason
quote:
So your argument is that because a drone is in the air the FAA has a right to it? What about a birthday party balloon? What about when I save my hands over my head? Do I need to be outside when I do that or can the FAA get me in my living room? They arbitrarily place a ONE HALF pound limit on the requirement to register. Why not an altitude ability? You state the intent is for public safety. bullshite. The half pound $75 toy I got for Xmas goes about 40 feet in the air. A plane better not be 40 feet over my backyard. They are going to hit the trees. If this crap regulation had been written by an elected representative with some thought there would be some common sense limits on the registration requirements. BTW, operating a UAV near an airport WHERE IT IS DANGEROUS is already illegal under an actual statute.
This is simply a BS money making scheme by the FAA and they need to be reigned in.
So much misinformation here that it's hard to know where to start. In simple terms here are the regulations:
"The proposed rules that have been a decade in the making would limit drones weighing no more than 55 lbs to flying no more than 100 mph at an altitude no higher than 500 feet. The FAA would ban their use at night and near airports. And, they could be operated only by someone with a certification who keeps the vehicle "in line of sight" at all times."
Posted on 12/24/15 at 3:04 am to Layabout
This is all interesting but what the frick is the point of owning a drone?
Posted on 12/24/15 at 2:10 pm to jonboy
quote:
This is all interesting but what the frick is the point of owning a drone?
For most people it's an expensive toy not much different from a model airplane. Practical uses would include giving you a set of eyes in hard-to-access places and let you inspect rooftops, water towers, dams, etc. Serious photographers and videographers use them to capture unusual perspectives not possible by any other means.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News