Oregon Drone Bill Would Claim the 'Airspace' Above Your Shoestrings

[sailingaway]

Can the air near your shoes be considered "public airspace?" In Oregon, at least, it soon might be.

A new bill making its way through Oregon's state senate would establish something known as "Airspace of Oregon" which the state could use to regulate drone use by agencies and private citizens.

Proponents of the bill are trying to get ahead of a nationwide push to set rules for unmanned aerial vehicle use by civilians, which some advocates worry could intrude on personal privacy.

[RELATED: Time to Think About Drone Legislation?]

"The use of drones domestically will raise significant new privacy issues which cannot be addressed by current law," says Becky Straus, legislative director of ACLU's Oregon office. "We are not and should not be a surveillance state. Drones should never be used for mass surveillance. Law enforcement should only use them when there is individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing."

But experts say it's unclear whether Oregon would be allowed to regulate ankle-level airspace at all, since it's typically covered by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Though the bill says that "Oregon Airspace" would be "the space above the ground that is not part of airspace governed by federal law," Mitch Swecker, director of the Oregon Department of Aviation says it's not that simple.

"I don't know that we can establish an Oregonian airspace," he says. "It's premature and early in the process, but the FAA controls all airspace."

A 2002 attempt by Huntington Beach, Calif., to ban banner-towing airplanes was thrown out in court after the FAA said it had ultimate control over airspace.

Allen Kenitzer, a spokesperson for the FAA Northwest region, which includes Oregon, told U.S. News that he could not comment on pending legislation, but that "federal airspace" can start as low as 500 feet above the ground in some parts of the country.

more at link:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...ur-shoestrings

[fr33]

The shoestring thing seems distracting. As if they would have a hard time commissioning some drones to serve under the FAA. Just some paperwork, I'd imagine.

[Anti Federalist]

We are not and should not be a surveillance state

[Carson]

I think we had a reason in mind that kept the airspace above the ground clear of vehicles to a certain level ...

[sailingaway]

I think we had a reason in mind that kept the airspace above the ground clear of vehicles to a certain level ...

In old property law if you owned property it was from the core of the earth to the height of the heavens. When airplanes came around they made it 'useable' space, then whittled away at it.

[fr33]

In old property law if you owned property it was from the core of the earth to the height of the heavens. When airplanes came around they made it 'useable' space, then whittled away at it.

I wish it was to the core of the earth because that would be better than that darn thing called "mineral rights". Sure, not all properties' mineral rights are owned by others, but the whole thing seems like a scam for former owners of the property to hold on to dirt under the topsoil.

[satchelmcqueen]

yep

In old property law if you owned property it was from the core of the earth to the height of the heavens. When airplanes came around they made it 'useable' space, then whittled away at it.

[Carson]

In old property law if you owned property it was from the core of the earth to the height of the heavens. When airplanes came around they made it 'useable' space, then whittled away at it.

I remember sort of figuring once that if you could hit a helicopter with a rock it was fair game. Almost got it. It did leave. It was over a fire near my father-in-laws house and it looked to me like the wind was just feeding the fire. Everything ended up okay property wise.

[Carson]

I wish it was to the core of the earth because that would be better than that darn thing called "mineral rights". Sure, not all properties' mineral rights are owned by others, but the whole thing seems like a scam for former owners of the property to hold on to dirt under the topsoil.

A lot of mineral rights are held by the government, I'm thinking. I've never gotten a check for any of the oil, minerals, oil, gravel, lumber, or any of the rest.

I do think I should be. In Alaska they do. It is called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

Take a look at the yearly figures and multiply them by the number of members in your family.

[oyarde]

I still claim my air space.

[fr33]

A lot of mineral rights are held by the government, I'm thinking. I've never gotten a check for any of the oil, minerals, oil, gravel, lumber, or any of the rest.

I do think I should be. In Alaska they do. It is called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

Take a look at the yearly figures and multiply them by the number of members in your family.

Yes I think it's probably going to vary how it works depending on the area. In our "neck 'o the woods" pretty much every piece of land we've bought doesn't include mineral rights because they are retained by former owners of the land for quite a few years. But land my parents have owned long enough finally had the mineral rights transferred back to them.

[Philhelm]

Where's Chris Kyle when you need someone to knock down some drones?

Edit: I'm sorry. I have an irreverent pathology. I just can't help myself.

[Anti Federalist]

////