Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gary
Social climber
From A Buick 6
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2015 - 02:41pm PT
|
Above 400' you own nothing...
Then how are 1000+' buildings allowed?
Christ almighty! You guys are going to make me research this?
"Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" is a basic principle of common law.
And lastly, the earth hath in law a great extent upwards, not only of water as hath been said, but of aire, and all other things even up to heaven, for cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum, as it is holden.
US v. Causby
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/256/
A servitude has been imposed upon the land for which respondents are entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
By "A servitude" they are saying the property is serviant to the public aviation easement. Much like the public highway easement most property in this country is subject to. If you own property, your property extends to the centerline of the road it fronts onto. If the local government abandons that road you would then have full control of the property out to the centerline.
On the other hand it states:
It also argues that the landowner does not own superadjacent airspace which he has not subjected to possession by the erection of structures or other occupancy.
It then states:
(d) Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it.
Griggs v. Allegehny County:
Held: the County has taken an air easement over petitioner's property for which it must pay just compensation as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Regulation 60.17, entitled "Minimum safe altitudes," provides:
"Except when necessary for take-off or landing, no person shall operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:"
"(a) Anywhere. An altitude which will permit, in the event of the failure of a power unit, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface;"
"(b) Over congested areas. Over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements, or over an open-air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet from the aircraft. . . ."
"(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In such event, the aircraft shall not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. . . ."
They seem to be treating anything over 500 feet as an easement.
Under 500 feet there is no easement. Flying under 500 feet is treated as a "taking". Drones cannot fly above 500 feet. If a drone flies over your property it is trespassing.
Thus is my proclamation.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2015 - 03:05pm PT
|
It seems that one of the main problems that is created, is anonymity.
This could be solved by a process of marking every drone with an internal ID that can only be gotten to by destroying the drone. Record the ID upon sale.
Then, when the offending drone is destroyed, one can ID the owner. Police to then follow.
I would think that the progressive use of EMP technology will be able to bring the drones down quickly:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Then you ID the owner.
|
|
ladyscarlett
Trad climber
SF Bay Area, California
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2015 - 03:51pm PT
|
I heard a rumor that someone figured out how to rig a 9mm to a drone, be able to aim and fire with pretty good accuracy.
Wow, I thought Black Ops all over would take those people into the fold before they put their knowledge on the web...
Hrm
Cheers
LS
|
|
ladyscarlett
Trad climber
SF Bay Area, California
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2015 - 04:46pm PT
|
Huh?
:O
Cheers
LS
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2015 - 07:49pm PT
|
Drone gunz? ... pffffffffffffft ... gimme a flamethrower anyday
Totally legal.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2015 - 08:28pm PT
|
For something like the search for Mathew they could be a huge asset. there are some problems though.
Short operating time.
Recharging batteries.
wind sensitivity
The weight of packing in a drone would be minimal. Everything to make it work for an extended search might be a challenge.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2015 - 09:17am PT
|
So if I throw a net over the thing then I didn't shoot it down and you're gonna have to
trespass to get it back, like it is gonna remain on my property.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2015 - 09:18am PT
|
yeah, i saw that legislation piece. it's a good idea. also need to arm commercial airliners in some way shape or form.
Federal prison is a homecoming... alright... whatever floats your boat bro...
good luck with that net. most of the time they'd never be close. but if you did succeed at least you wouldn't end up doing hard time. I'd hate to see that.
though any video a drone might capture of you trying to get it with a net would be entertaining to watch.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2015 - 09:21am PT
|
me? you're the one bitching and moaning left and right every time there is a sighting by a commercial airline.
hypocrite much?
Edit: though perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I'm not suggeting arming them with guns. A scrambler would do the trick. is that something you might agree on?
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2015 - 09:24am PT
|
yeah, I was not clear. apologies.
but good luck getting them outlawed. But if that is your stance I encourage you to write your representatives.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2015 - 09:33am PT
|
stop trolling me! LOL! I'm fairly certain i've made my stance clear on the interactions of dou chebag flying toys and manned aircraft.
glad you wrote your reps.
I want this for the Monterey UW shootout next month
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2015 - 09:40am PT
|
Also for discharging a firearm with in city limits.
This must also be dependent on where you live.
There is no law state wide in SD for discharging a firearm in cities, and as far as I know there are no cities in SD that have adopted this law either.
The state does have a law for reckless discharge of a firearm that could be applied within cities, they must show recklessness though.
I just saw that video of a drone with a pistol mounted on it.
Thats great news for those that haven't thought of that yet...not.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2015 - 09:47am PT
|
the 18 year old with the armed drone is in deep sh#t IMHO. The FBI is investigating. That story has been making the rounds. Speaking of rounds I ran across a video of some guys who mounted an M-16 an a 1 meter class octo. Wonder why they are not in jail. maybe they are.
|
|
Trashman
Trad climber
SLC
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2015 - 10:24am PT
|
Latest on the 18 yo is he's falling through the same loopholes that allow for toys to be treated as aircraft cited in the gizmodo; tech getting ahead of legislation.
Good news is all these responsible drone owners are doing a good job of ensuring that legislation will come quickly(and hopefully in a over reactive fashion).
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2015 - 10:40am PT
|
not just the good/responsible operators. Anyone that writes their representatives is helping to get legislation in place (or amended).
On the flip-side for commercial use we have the FAA and their foot dragging. Seven years later we still do not have regs in place. But they are ramping up quickly the 333 exemption process so for those of us who are trying to do everything "legally" it's a painful process that is taking less time. and I put legally in quotes because as per anything else the FAA touches it's a big grey area. We'll be seen as legal - but that doesn't mean others are illegal. FML
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!