Stone Harbor NJ Bans Drones
- Thread starter bkushner
- Start date
I would need to see the ordinance to understand its scope before commenting. Generally, a city or locality cannot regulate air traffic over its jurisdiction. They can, however, legislate the ability to take off or land on city or municipality property. So, theoretically, the local board could pass an ordinance that bans the take off, landing or operation of a drone from public property in their jurisdiction. As to rather it would hold up in court is an open question. So far as I know, no one has challenged one of these local bans in court so far.
This would be an interesting test case, assuming a local lawyer is willing to take it on.
This would be an interesting test case, assuming a local lawyer is willing to take it on.
Looks like vacation home area. Probably an annoyance factor hiding in there somewhere. Easily solved if you want to fly that area by moving to the west a little for a takeoff point. Probably would only make matters worse. Hopefully not a lot of drone folks there with 1k invested that must go elsewhere to have a little fun time. Yes, unfortunately more of that to come.
At some point someone will have to fly in one of these areas to get this to court to get this matter settled once and for all. I know potentially there would be a claim of Privacy Law but if no videos are taken and someone is just flying I would believe the burden of proof is on the state or city to show how you invaded their privacy if there is no pictures or videos then this would be hard to prove also anyone out there in a boat could take almost the same pictures that you could take in a drone. One day this will be an interesting case it is a shame there are no attorneys willing to challenge this
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
I would like to know why it was even brought up in a council meeting to start with .
Drones don't come anywhere near good DLSRs nor pro video equipment. I can go on a hill and Identify my house from 3 miles away with my 22 MP DSLR. I could NEVER do that with my P3A.
300 MM lens on a 22 MP DSLR can identify someone 100 yards away. Nearly impossible to identify someone at 100 feet away with a Phantom.
Unfortunately, the general public doesn't know this and the media is working their darndest to make sure of that.
The part that scares everyone is that you can fly right up on someone and take pictures from 20' up and (the key part) they are helpless to stop it. When people feel helpless they lash out.
Also if you walked up on someone with your DSLR taking pictures they would likely get bent then as well
I would lean towards the noise was the motivating factor. Most people hear them first, then worry that they were invaded in some way.
you assume everybody has a drone without a great camera there are drones out there that have a very good cameras equal to your DSLR you don't see them everyday but they do exist
If the city or municipality has already passed the ordinance, then they would not have to make a privacy claim. They would seek to enforce the ordinance. It would be up to the defendant then to make a claim that the ordinance is unlawful. That’s the real issue, as the defendant would be facing fines and court costs and would have to be willing to put in the time and cost necessary to fight the issue through the courts. That’s also why we, as a community need to fight these actions before they pass. Once in place, it’s time consuming and expensive to fight them.
all well and good saying how your Phantom can't see anything whilst your DSLR can - what if someone is flying a drone with a DSLR (or more usually mirrorless cam such as the GH4/5 - they are classed as drones so the privacy can become a huge issue - it's almost impossible to make laws that apply to one and not the other.
Agreed. While the FAA wants drone pilots to avoid people on the ground, drone pilots should also want to avoid flying over or near populated areas. All it does is help provide fuel for the flames of drone phobia.
If you watch some of the videos posted by irresponsible drone operators you can understand why this was bound to happen.
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 241
- Reaction score
- 94
- Age
- 59
No, just another badly worded overreaching nimby drone law:
https://ecode360.com/documents/ST2163/source/LF1056464.pdf#search=drone drones
Good news. The "N" in "NAS" stands for "National." No local or regional government can control the NAS. I went in circles with a park ranger over this. She finally conceded that she could not legally stop me from flying over the park. Gooooooooo NAS!
Like the National Parks, it is my understanding that local governments CAN restrict pilots from launching and/or landing in certain areas, but they can not ban you from flying over their pseudo "restricted area(s)."
Thoughts?
Last edited:
The FAA has made it pretty clear that they regulate airspace, not local government, so presumably this is going to be about takeoff/landing. Local government can certainly regulate things like that on public property - the interesting question is whether they can effectively regulate it on private property within their jurisdiction. Can this law, for example, legally prevent a pilot from launching from private land within the Borough?
I always wondered about that, but NYC is a big Class B/C/D airspace. So all bets are off in that area.
D
Here is the ordinance https://ecode360.com/documents/ST2163/source/LF1056464.pdf
95% is standard FAA stuff. The other 5% contains things like:
Words like "vex, annoy, disturb, frighten" are so broad and could be invoked for any minutia. To not allow photography of someone in public that hasn't consented is totally opposite the laws in place, AFAIK.
And lastly:
Once again, an ordinance directly in opposition of federal laws (FAA NAS control).
Links mentioned are from _2005_... So nothing new here.
This is part of the ordnance:
"No person shall use an unmanned aircraft within borough limits to engage in the business or the activity of filming, still photography production, taking or producing motion pictures on movie film or electronic video tape for educational, entertainment or other commercial purposes without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the appropriate federal, state, and municipal authorities. "
So looks like they think they can ignore the US Constitution. This ordnance simple reeks of civil violations. But again, the links are from 2005 and the article states something was passed in 11/2018. So who knows what that is.
This is part of the ordnance:
"No person shall use an unmanned aircraft within borough limits to engage in the business or the activity of filming, still photography production, taking or producing motion pictures on movie film or electronic video tape for educational, entertainment or other commercial purposes without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the appropriate federal, state, and municipal authorities. "
So looks like they think they can ignore the US Constitution. This ordnance simple reeks of civil violations. But again, the links are from 2005 and the article states something was passed in 11/2018. So who knows what that is.
Similar threads
