California Governor Vetoes Bill Banning Drones Over Private Property

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I know a lot of you are going to have something to say about this so let's get it all out on the table now, shall we? Do you agree with the governor vetoing this bill?

The bill, spearheaded by state senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, would have banned quadcopters from flying below 350 feet around private properties -- at least, not without the permission of the building's owner, anyway. It passed both the state Assembly and state Senate in August, prompting opposition from GoPro and advocacy groups with ties to Amazon and Google. Brown has now dismissed the bill, however, because of its potential to "expose the occasional hobbyist and FAA-approved commercial user to burdensome litigation."
 
Gotta say... Good. Last thing we need is more knee jerk laws coming into effect just because congress woman isn't happy about something she saw on Youtube one day.
 
This was about the only decent bill to come out of Sacramento this year, of course he vetoed it.

Of course he signed the other 999 bills that raise taxes, give unions and government employees more power, and lower the quality of life for the working middle class out here in California.
 
Gotta say... Good. Last thing we need is more knee jerk laws coming into effect just because congress woman isn't happy about something she saw on Youtube one day.

My thoughts exactly. Concentrate on real issues and not someone flying a toy robot around.
 
"expose the occasional hobbyist and FAA-approved commercial user to burdensome litigation."

Just. Wow.

F your property rights, Billy. Lil' Stevie over there might get in twouble for peeking in your house, and we can't upset Lil' Stevie mmmkay?

And exposing an FAA-approved commercial user to litigation... guess what, dummy? They're already exposed! Congratulations.
 
Unless I'm mistaken, California can't enforce such a law. They have no control over airspace and what flies in it. They can't limit what you do in airspace. That's the authority of the FAA and is controlled by the feds. An individual state writing laws about it is basically just media fluff since they don't have the authority to control airspace. The second it hits a court the judge would throw it all in the garbage because the state lacks the authority.

Then again, individual states do this sort of thing all the time ... try to write laws that they have no way to enforce just to make the public feel good. These rarely get enforced because the state knows that the courts will shoot it down.
 
Fuck you and your drones. You fly one over my house and i'll shoot your shit down.
 
oh yeah, lets expose the simple Joe in his backyard lest the billionaires be exposed instead...geez

I'm surprised so many people support the veto.
 
Just. Wow.

F your property rights, Billy. Lil' Stevie over there might get in twouble for peeking in your house, and we can't upset Lil' Stevie mmmkay?

And exposing an FAA-approved commercial user to litigation... guess what, dummy? They're already exposed! Congratulations.

Yes, but think it through. Less then 350'. Just how do we establish that said drone was less then 350' above mua's property?

The governor is right, this legeslation would have had all those old keesters filling claims against "Little Johneys" throughout California, he said she said is hard to prove for criminal cases, but in civil court it turns into "who is ready to go to court and spend real cash to deal with this". Litigate "Little Johney" into giving up his hobby cause he can't afford to prove he wasn't wrong.
 
Anything the government does to get the fuck out of the way of people being able to regulate themselves is a good thing. This legislation would have been a settlement lawyers wet dream.
 
According to the FAA the airspace above your property is their property, not yours. So this bill would have been shot down (no pun intended) with a federal challenge anyway. And by federal regulations drones already need to stay below 500' in most places (and the list of places they can't fly anywhere near grows by the week so if you live near those places you have nothing to worry about anyway). So California politicians want to open just 150' of vertical airspace to drones because some morons think drones have super high res cameras with zoom lenses that could only ever possibly be used for spying on them? Sounds like a lawyers wet dream to me.
 
Just. Wow.

F your property rights, Billy. Lil' Stevie over there might get in twouble for peeking in your house, and we can't upset Lil' Stevie mmmkay?

And exposing an FAA-approved commercial user to litigation... guess what, dummy? They're already exposed! Congratulations.
You don't really have property rights considering your air space, it's very muddled.
 
Just. Wow.

F your property rights, Billy. Lil' Stevie over there might get in twouble for peeking in your house, and we can't upset Lil' Stevie mmmkay?

And exposing an FAA-approved commercial user to litigation... guess what, dummy? They're already exposed! Congratulations.

This bill would effectively mean you can't fly remote controlled aircraft anywhere near private property, which is everywhere, and that would include your own property assuming you have neighbors, who could then sue you with legal precedent saying "you are breaking the law by invading my personal space".

Your dick neighbor could refuse to allow you to use one. This could be the same guy who runs his chainsaw at 7am on weekend mornings.....etc.

This was bad litigation.
 
Property Destruction, Discharging a Weapon in the city limits, reckless endangerment.

A John Wayne quote comes to mind....

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man."

"Fill your hand you son of a bitch!"
 
Just curious: How many people here are property owners? As in, you actually own real estate, not rent/board/couchsurf/live with parents/live in dorm?
 
I do, my house in Sierra Vista, a condo in Tucson, another house in Korea.

Stay out of debt, the difference is unbelievable.
 
Just curious: How many people here are property owners? As in, you actually own real estate, not rent/board/couchsurf/live with parents/live in dorm?

I do, and if someone starts flying a drone over my property, that drone will end up crashing, even if it needs a little help.
 
Yes, but think it through. Less then 350'. Just how do we establish that said drone was less then 350' above mua's property?

The governor is right, this legeslation would have had all those old keesters filling claims against "Little Johneys" throughout California, he said she said is hard to prove for criminal cases, but in civil court it turns into "who is ready to go to court and spend real cash to deal with this". Litigate "Little Johney" into giving up his hobby cause he can't afford to prove he wasn't wrong.

This is exactly the issue, good on you for an intelligent post, I have been upset with this forum's posters as of late.
 
I do, and if someone starts flying a drone over my property, that drone will end up crashing, even if it needs a little help.
I'm with you. Drones will be prone to fatal accidents when flying over my house.
 
Fuck you and your drones. You fly one over my house and i'll shoot your shit down.


I don't own a gun, but I just might get myself a professional slingshot. Or maybe a pellet gun or paintball gun, a frozen paintball would definitely do the trick.


I'd wager that these misdemeanor-class weapons would shield the property owner from any real consequences. Take me to civil court and sue for your damaged drone, whatever. You keep flying them near me and I'll keep taking them out.
 
This bill would effectively mean you can't fly remote controlled aircraft anywhere near private property, which is everywhere, and that would include your own property assuming you have neighbors, who could then sue you with legal precedent saying "you are breaking the law by invading my personal space".

Your dick neighbor could refuse to allow you to use one. This could be the same guy who runs his chainsaw at 7am on weekend mornings.....etc.

This was bad litigation.

I'm all for banning any and all private use of remote controlled or autonomous aircraft, and any law enforcement use without a warrant.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041847993 said:
I'm all for banning any and all private use of remote controlled or autonomous aircraft, and any law enforcement use without a warrant.

At least ones with cameras and or listening/radio/phone equipment on them.
 
I don't own a gun, but I just might get myself a professional slingshot. Or maybe a pellet gun or paintball gun, a frozen paintball would definitely do the trick.


I'd wager that these misdemeanor-class weapons would shield the property owner from any real consequences. Take me to civil court and sue for your damaged drone, whatever. You keep flying them near me and I'll keep taking them out.

The problem will be when this pendulum swings the other way and more laws start getting drafted to reclassify weapons and weapon discharging.

Drone fliers, stop being dicks. People that see drones, stop being dicks.

Do we really want our government to handle more things with laws that aren't well thought out? How about instead of banning or shooting down peoples stuff, we try to find a middle ground? No I shouldnt be flying around in your yard causing trouble and noise and should be in trouble for doing so, but also you should not be shooting my drone down when i pass over your yard at 200ft trying to get good photos of the landscape during a sunset.

If I wanted pictures of your daughter, i would use my dslr with zoom lens from a window and you would never see me, i wouldnt use a fisheye lens on an action camera on a drone that sounds like a lawnmower right over your yard.
 
The FCC (and your neighbords on WiFi) wouldn't like it, but using a device that blankets the 2.4Ghz band with noise ought to bring it down...
 
If I wanted pictures of your daughter, i would use my dslr with zoom lens from a window and you would never see me, i wouldnt use a fisheye lens on an action camera on a drone that sounds like a lawnmower right over your yard.

Well, the difference is this.

We have long had the expectation of privacy in our own homes or on private property not visible from outside said private property.

So, put up a fence or a dense hedge and you have the expectation of privacy when you are in your yard.

Jerks with quadracopters override that expectation of privacy.

If you brought a ladder, and used it to climb up and take pictures over my fence, we'd have a problem. The same should apply for any flying camera equipped vehicles.
 
Fly it low enough over my yard, and it might just have a baseball related accident.

Sorry, your drone just happened to take a line drive to the face. Wasn't intentional. Promise.
 
Is there any law against shooting it with a paint ball gun?

Any intentional destruction of property is typically illegal.

It's unclear what liability there would be if the drone had an "accident" over your property though.

Surely a person has the expectation of freedom of movement of themselves (and their baseballs) over their own property?
 
Zarathustra[H];1041848031 said:
Fly it low enough over my yard, and it might just have a baseball related accident.

Sorry, your drone just happened to take a line drive to the face. Wasn't intentional. Promise.

Yea if it is low enough you can reach it, the operator is already violating tons of regulations.

I was at the park once and some ignorant joggers ran from behind me toward it and i was forced to nose dive it into the ground to avoid touching a person. Luckily I build them pretty sturdy and all it did was dig up some dirt :)
 
Have fun explaining yourself to the authorities then :)

I'm sure, that within a certain altitude, he'd be in his own right to shoot down anything over his property. Especially if it's loitering/hovering over his property.
And truthfully, while I don't condone people destroying other people's property, if something is doing anything else other than overflying my property from a safe altitude, I'd be willing to consider it trespassing, thus property owners could well be within their right to remedy the situation.
 
I don't own a gun, but I just might get myself a professional slingshot. Or maybe a pellet gun or paintball gun, a frozen paintball would definitely do the trick.


I'd wager that these misdemeanor-class weapons would shield the property owner from any real consequences. Take me to civil court and sue for your damaged drone, whatever. You keep flying them near me and I'll keep taking them out.

A frozen paintball won't even fly straight, it will corkscrew off like a pitcher's best screw ball.

Regardless, you could use a feather, but if the owner of the drone, you know, the guy armed ith a camera, if he has proof you damaged his property. You'll be the one paying.
 
Back
Top