MIssissippi Bill Introduced about UAV

[dnthomas]

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2015/html/HB/0300-0399/HB0347IN.htm

 

[dnthomas]

They have reintroduced it this year. Basically prohibits you from using your camera on a drone.

 

[Meta4]

That appears to be a particularly nasty one.
It doesn't have the wording that Texas used which said it was illegal to use the drone for surveillance.
This appears to be an attempt at an outright ban of affordable recreational aerial photography.
It would be interesting to hear the proposers justify that.
It's not illegal to take all the photos you want from a Cessna or a helicopter.
Why do these ignorant hicks want it to be illegal from a drone?

 

[tcope]

I could only get part way through that bill before I simply gave up reading such crap.

"Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to capture an image using a drone, as defined by this act."

Again... don't think this idiot even knows what the US Constitution is. He's certainly never bothered to read it or he' have read the First Amendment.

"2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to:
(a) Any person who is conducting professional or scholarly research and development and acting on behalf of an institution of higher learning, if such person is a professor, employee, or student of the institution; or under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction of or on behalf of the institution;"

It appears the idiot who drafted this is apparently friend with a school professor who flies drones. After all... no one can fly a drone with a camera but why not employees of a school. Certainly they should be be allowed their First Amendment rights.

These people just scare me. This is the kind of people who are in charge.

Email sent to many of these idiots. Let the silence begin.

 

[dirkclod]

I havn't read this one yet but we had one voted down last year .
Back ta work

 

[Meta4]

According to this article from June 2015, HB 347 died in committee.
Sounds like what Dirk's saying above.
Mitchell: Look! Up in the Sky! Something New to Regulate!

 

[LuvMyTJ]

That link is from last year. Is there a new bill?

 

[dirkclod]

Well that woke me back up

 

[dirkclod]

That link is from last year. Is there a new bill?

I have not seen one .

 

[dirkclod]

They have reintroduced it this year. Basically prohibits you from using your camera on a drone.

Where did you see this was brought back up ?

 

[dirkclod]

Found it /
Mississippi Legislature
2016 Regular Session
House Bill 582
House Calendar | Senate Calendar | Main Menu
Additional Information

| As Introduced

Description: Drone Regulation Act; create.

Fiscal Note: No fiscal note conducted

Background Information:
Disposition: Active
Deadline: General Bill/Constitutional Amendment
Revenue: No
Vote type required: Majority
Effective date: July 1, 2016

History of Actions:
1 02/08 (H) Referred To Judiciary B

Judiciary B*

Principal Author: Morgan

Title: AN ACT TO CREATE THE "DRONE REGULATION ACT"; TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR SUCH ACT; TO REGULATE THE USE OF DRONES IN THE CAPTURING OF IMAGES; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

Information pertaining to this measure was last updated on 02/09/16 at 16:19
End Of Document

 

[dnthomas]

I was told by a member of the house that the guy was reintroducing it this year. To his credit he contacted me as he had seen some pictures and video I posted. He was concerned about the photograph ban. He told me he really liked some sunsets I had taken, he was concerned as he interpreted the bill to mean I could, potentially, be prosecuted unless I got permission from all land owners whose land was in the photo. He wanted to address drones by simply putting some language in the existing Voyeurism statute. I don't have a problem with that if you are flying low and hanging outside Windows that's a problem.

 

[dirkclod]

I was told by a member of the house that the guy was reintroducing it this year. To his credit he contacted me as he had seen some pictures and video I posted. He was concerned about the photograph ban. He told me he really liked some sunsets I had taken, he was concerned as he interpreted the bill to mean I could, potentially, be prosecuted unless I got permission from all land owners whose land was in the photo. He wanted to address drones by simply putting some language in the existing Voyeurism statute. I don't have a problem with that if you are flying low and hanging outside Windows that's a problem.

Well ..Hopefully it won't go through this time ether .

 

[dnthomas]

Here is the bill as introduced this year

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/pdf/HB/0500-0599/HB0582IN.pdf

 

[dirkclod]

Those links in my post are hot and this I don't understand
SECTION 5. The provisions of this act shall apply unless preempted by applicablefederal law or by regulations adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration.

 

[dirkclod]

Here is the bill as introduced this year

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/pdf/HB/0500-0599/HB0582IN.pdf

Sorry we posting at the same time .

 

[Meta4]

I don't see anything substantially different in this year's version.
Those pushing this need to read that article I mentioned above Mitchell: Look! Up in the Sky! Something New to Regulate!
... and think about what they are really trying to do.

Dirk ... they are saying that if there's a clash with what the FAA or the feds are doing, the feds win.
This might be in response to the FAA's recent advice to states not to try to regulate airspace,

 

[dnthomas]

Anyone have any example of a "good" bill ? By good I mean not so oppressive on UAV's I would like to give them something to consider if they as me for an alternative. I do believe existing statutes would take care of their concerns which seems to be using the UAV for "peeping tom" purposes

 

[dirkclod]

Well last year there were 11 I believe signed it but just 1 this time and I don't think it will fly this time ether .

 

[dirkclod]

Anyone have any example of a "good" bill ? By good I mean not so oppressive on UAV's I would like to give them something to consider if they as me for an alternative. I do believe existing statutes would take care of their concerns which seems to be using the UAV for "peeping tom" purposes

Last year another member and myself sent all of them e-mails everyday with something he wrote up and we will do it again this time .
Expect a message in the next few days