Yes, GoodNuff, I am sometimes wrong but I always acknowledge it when I find the error. I am very careful to quote sources of my information.
State and local governments have considered legislation that purports to regulate drone flight, but if challenged in court, any such laws would be considered preempted by the federal government's intent to "occupy the field," and therefore be invalid. By federal statute, "[t]he United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States" (49 U.S. Code § 40103(a)(1)). The passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, (Senate Bill, Section 607(g)) confirms the federal government's intent to continue to "occupy the field" of flight, thereby invalidating (through preemption) any state or local laws that purport to regulate it. [I forgot where I found this, it may have been Dronelaw.com].
Paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 40102 of Title 49 of the United States Code gives the FAA exclusive responsibility for the National Airspace System which, according to the FAA starts as soon as the aircraft is airborne.
I do not advocate breaking laws, even if the law is indefensible. Unless you have lots of money.
The National Park Service is the only national public property administrator that has a blanket drone prohibition today, but the other services (Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service) do not. There are, however, wilderness areas in all of those jurisdictions where taking off or landing an aircraft is prohibited. As are any motor vehicle or motorized boat, so access to these areas is pretty difficult. Here is an interactive map showing the Wilderness Areas in the US:
http://www.wilderness.net/map.cfm
The NPS drone ban may also be indefensible (if you have enough money to challenge it).
Here is an example of the Yosemite Park Rangers making up rules on the fly. (They obviously don't believe in the First Amendment).
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fe...sts-drone-footage-to-keep-it-off-the-internet