Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'News' started by Jorgejim90, Jan 18, 2016.
Cali-dronication: Yet Another Golden State Drone Bill Blooms - DRONELIFE
Would you expect anything less from the leaders in that state....Drones will be causing cancer in that state soon.
This is nuts -- I mean really nuts. Is that guy for real with some of the statements he has made in the article you linked Jorgejim90. Really shows his intelligence off doesn't he. I guess all part of the requirements to become a politician.
Some of his idiotic quotes..........
1. Require “inexpensive” insurance policies sold at the point-of-sale; (who ever heard of "inexpensive insurance" - should find out if he is related to someone in the insurance industry)
2. His personal belief that such insurance will cost “$1, or so" (man oh man - keep it up Einstein and show us more proof of your lack of any smarts - as if we need further proof - village idiot)
3. Mandate that drones of a certain size, and equipped with GPS capability, feature automatic shut-off technology that would activate if approaching an airport (wow - out of touch or what - does he know anything at all about the capabilities of these things - anything?)
Let's hope that gets shot down (no pun intended 'Drone Slayer") by the FAA who states they and they alone mandate and regulate the use of air space (and not some legislator/assemblyman who is trying for his 15 minutes of fame)
Best of luck Californians - no doubt more of these types in the closet fighting each other to come out and show their vast knowledge and intelligence regarding this hobby. Really irritates me - clowns!
Thanks for the post and link to the article - I needed a good laugh today.
Hey Assemblyman Gatto, make yourself useful and go contemplate/ponder this question will ya - "does a one legged duck swim in a circle"?
Governor Brown surprised me last time with his veto of the drone bill. He stated there are already laws regulating such activities.....rightly so.
That guy Gatto gets even more ludicrous (if that is possible).............
“One could imagine the auto industry balking at the idea of registration requirements at the turn-of-the-century, but the industry survived,” Gatto said in justifying his latest bill. “As technology evolves, so must our laws in order to protect our citizenry. This is a sensible measure that will increase public safety and encourage responsible use of drones in California.”
Wow that is some "justification" and comparison isn't it - as once said - "Stupidity combined with arrogance, lack of knowledge and a huge ego - will get you a long way"!
Hmmm - let's see - you have abbreviations for President (Pres), Senator (Sen), Governor (Gov) - wondering, what would it be for Assemblyman Gatto - ummm - oh ya (***). Just sayin!
Ok done my rant on this guy - overboard I know, just irritates me! Your Governor will definitely trash this also! Safe and happy flying.
I'm from California, not concerned in the least. They can't stop people from rolling through stop signs, how are they going to enforce drone rules? (rhetorical question)
I'm from California also and we have some real loons for politicians. You never know what they are going to approve. Ugh! Don't get me started. Happy flying everyone.
I don't understand. The current federal bill makes you place your number on the drone for identification.
Haven't read the whole article yet but it would seem to me that there is no difference. I have used a label maker and put it on my drones. What more?
You must be new here.
The automobile industry and the evolution of automobile registration/laws/licensing is probably the most common analogy you will find when it comes to UAVs.
It is often used by both sides.
I think the registration is only if something happens, then they can getcha! Throw ya in jail and ruin your life forever. You are right, they can't enforce anything really.
From the state and local regulation of unmanned aircraft PDF sheet. Page #2 states
"Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the operation or flight of aircraft. If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating UAS in the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling the airspace and flight patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow. A navigable airspace free from inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system. See Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007), and French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989); see also Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012) (“Where Congress occupies an entire field . . . even complimentary state regulation is impermissible. Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any 3 state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards.”), and Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 386-87 (1992)."
Before any laws are enacted they must consult with the FAA before enacting any new UAS laws and any local or state laws requiring registration can not be done due to congress enabling the FAA to control and regulate the air space.