Don’t Let Local Anti-Drone Laws Keep you from Flying!

This sign in most cases is a paper tiger

Newton, MA—The City Council of this city enacted a highly restrictive ordinance over both commercial and recreational drones.  The most draconion parts of that law was just declared invalid by a federal judge.  

Among other things the council like many state and local governments recklessly went about regulating or restricting most drone activities such as:  

1.  Registration requirement for all drones with the city.

2.  Obtain “permission” from public or private property owners before any flights..

3.  Outlaws beyond line of sight flying.  

State and local politicians are either oblivious or antagonistic to the reality that they have zero jurisdiction over the airspace.  This is the mandated responsibility of the FAA.  They pass laws that result in arrests, search warrants and confiscation of property because of their arrogance and or ignorance. 

Article Six of our Constitution makes it quite clear that in case of a conflict between state and federal law, federal is always supreme.  Congress created the FAA and gave it  exclusive jurisdiction of the airspace.  

People victimized by these tyrannical laws have two ways to attack this monster:

1. If arrested they can furiously litigate the bad law in court.
2. By simply suing the offending government agencies seeking to enjoin their over-reaching laws.      

Of course if arrested, the local courts and prosecutor’s will offer you sweetheart deals in exchange for guilty pleas.  Unlike City Councilmen they have a better understanding of these bad laws.   I consider plea bargains in these cases as a nasty form of extortion.  

It will cost you a lot more money to litigate to win.  Rolling over and accepting a permanent criminal record is always the wrong answer here!

There are now two Federal Court cases affecting drone operators:  

1. Taylor vs. FAA.  This precluded the FAA from requiring registration of drone used for recreation. This new requirement was in serious conflict with existing Federal law.
2. Singer vs. City of Newton.  This case struck down the most egregious portions of the ordinance.  The plaintiff only challenged those portions of the law that affected him.

The Singer case does not really apply as a mandate nation wide however the case can be cited to various courts dealing with the same issues. The arguments made by Singer and the Court’s decision are very compelling.  

My guess is many local judges will bow not to the law but to the politicians that appointed them.  You could stand to be fined, jailed or placed on probation. 

Unfortunately what’s been left out of this argument is our Constitutional right to photograph and publish under the First Amendment. The media organizations should have challenged the bogus laws long ago.   

We also must deal with ignorant drone industry trolls that want to regulate recreational drone operators into non-existence.  The only acceptable motivation for regulation is safety.  The facts are despite millions of them out there no drone has crashed into conventional aircraft, been involved in death or serious injury.  Additionally no drone has been involved in any significants property damage.  

Many more windows are broken by softball players and golfers than drones!.  

This anti-drone hysteria continues.  It must be fought through education, litigation and safe flying.  Stand up for your rights while you still can!

Here is a copy of the Singer Ruling:
https://www.scribd.com/document/359718558/Singer-vs-City-of-Newton-Drone-Ruling

NAU Shooting, Just Who is or Are the Victim/s Here?

Flagstaff, AZ—Overnight on the campus grounds there was an altercation between several male students.   The details of the altercation remain very elusive. We know four young men were shot, and one lad is being held right now by police for investigation.

Right now, the dead lad and his pals are being spoken about through tears and a way too early eulogy.   Can’t we simply wait for a fact or two before the Left Wing folks using this to promote their anti-gun political agendas?  

Just who was or were the bad guy/s here?   

What we know is right now is there was a winner of the altercation, 18 year-old Steven Jones and four losers.  Colin Brough was killed.   Additionally the other three that were wounded by gunfire included, Nicholas Prato, Kyle Zientek and Nicholas Piring.  They are receiving medical treatment at the Flagstaff Medical Center.

When police arrive to mop up these kinds of things they are very quick to arrest any winners and put the losers in the meat wagons. 

Cops rarely witness these altercations and must rely on their psychic abilities and wade through the wildly conflicting statements of survivors. Hopefully at some point thereafter they do a comprehensive and unbiased investigation.

The media is treating this like recent campus shootings like some we’ve had where mentally disturbed armed miscreants randomly attack people for no particular reason.  In this case reporters aren’t asking the right questions! 

Here we had students out at 1:20 AM.  Were they drinking and more importantly were the four lads shot because they were attacking Steven Jones?  There is absolutely nothing wrong with using deadly force to fend off multiple attackers.  That would be justifiable in all 50 states. 

If Jones violated the Gun Free Zone ban at NAU that does not change his right to use justified deadly force in any way.

The police have not disclosed whether any self-defense claims were made by anyone.  I don’t buy the story that the four shot by Jones are innocent bystanders for a second! 

Jones had and still has an absolute right to remain silent.  Like most people under police investigation I doubt that Jones was savvy enough to exercise that right.  I'd make an educated guess that he actually told police he was using self-defense to terminate the attack.   I doubt any university or police officials want those two words (self-defense) used in connection with this incident.

Instead they will pull out all the stops and make victims out of the dead lad and his three shot up pals. 

Soon a lawyer will answer up in court for Jones.  Prosecutors may still beg off from filing charges unless there is sufficient evidence of a crime on the part of Steven Jones. 

He may never be charged with a crime.   However some prosecutor may want to bankrupt Jones’ parents by forcing a criminal trial so a jury can decide who was right.

Perhaps there may be enough evidence to charge the wounded fellows in connection with an assault on Junes.

In any event my investigative services are available for Steven Jones if his defense is indeed self-Defense!

Solving the UCLA Coed’s Murder and Arson Crime, What’s Next?

Los Angeles, CA—I’m convinced that UCLA coed, Andrea “Andy” DelVesco’s killer’s are reading what I offer on this blog.  If that’s the case, this is a “Golden Hour” for at least one person with involvement in the murder and or drug activities.  Yes, there is a Get Out of Jail Free card waiting for someone and serious police protection.