Good thing the Roelegal site has a general disclaimer, because some of his "facts" are in error. (Besides the glaring error of calling Pirker's Ritewing a "blimp").
In the Pirker decision, the full NTSB board only decided that model aircraft are aircraft for the enforcement of 14 CFR 91.13 - 'Careless or reckless operation' only. No other rules were discussed in the decision of the NTSB.
The "Law Enforcement Guidance for Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations" that the FAA issued early this year is a horrible document that gives law enforcement carte blanche to decide what aviation operations are illegal, and encourage the confiscation of suspected aircraft. They call it "collecting evidence". And they have done it several times. I don't understand why the Roelegal website used it in discussing the commercial operation of a model aircraft.
There is no FAA rule against flying a personal drone for compensation unless you have a Sports Pilot or Private Pilot certificate. No one, including a few aviation attorneys, has been able to quote what FAA rule (other than 14 CFR 91.13) would be indicated on any Civil Penalty Letter for a commercial operation without a pilot's certificate. But if you do have a sport or private certificate the FAA can initiate certificate action for violating 14 CFR 61.113 - 'Private pilot privileges and limitations-Pilot in command', or 14 CFR 61.101 - 'Recreational pilot privileges and limitations'.
