PDA

View Full Version : South Carolina House passes legislation 100-0 to ban drones



Ares
24th January 2014, 03:55 PM
COLUMBIA, S.C., January 24, 2014 – The South Carolina state senate this week is considering a bill to virtually ban the use of drones without a warrant. It recently passed the state house unanimously, with a vote of 100-0.

Introduced in early 2013 by Reps. Hamilton (R), Delleney (R), Taylor (R), Putnam (R) and Loftis (R), House bill 3514 (H3514) would prohibit the operation of drones by an agency of the state unless it is “pursuant to a criminal warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

“We’re really just updating our laws to keep up with some of the technology,” the bill’s primary sponsor, state Rep. Dan Hamilton, R-Taylors, told South Carolina Radio Network. ”The technology is changing rapidly. A lot of these companies that have sold them for use overseas are now marketing them domestically. I think, before things get out of hand, that we put a box around it and make they’re being used in the way they should be.”

Although all of the sponsors of the legislation are republicans, the unanimous support shows a strong bipartisan effort to impede the Obama administration’s drone program. The ACLU has weighed in on the issue on a national level as well, warning that “unregulated drone use could pose serious threats to our privacy.”

The legislation does include some narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement to allay the fears of law enforcement officials who did not want to be hamstrung in emergency situations when a drone’s use might spell life or death.

Even so, the bill also sets strict standards governing the use of a drone when authorized. For one thing, the law would ban any sort of weapon from ever being mounted on a drone in South Carolina.

And after a drone was used, law enforcement officers will have to keep records on the results of their surveillance. Numerous sections of the bill would prevent law enforcement from keeping any drone-obtained personal information not relevant to a criminal investigation.

Tenth Amendment Center national outreach director Amanda Bowers noted that South Carolina could join a growing chorus of states putting strict limited on drones. “Already, a number of states have passed similar bills into law, and we are expecting more in the coming weeks and months,” she said. “From California to Washington State, and from New York to Missouri, legislators and the general public from left to right want to see a dangerous future stopped before it happens.”

Bills were signed into law in 2013 in Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

H3514 has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it will first need to pass by a majority vote before the full Senate can consider whether or not to send the bill to Gov. Haley’s desk for a signature.

http://benswann.com/south-carolina-house-passes-legislation-100-0-to-ban-drones/#ixzz2rLwNB03j

mick silver
25th January 2014, 10:48 AM
i hope more states join in on this

Neuro
25th January 2014, 11:02 AM
Does States have regulatory powers of airspace?

Ares
25th January 2014, 06:10 PM
Does States have regulatory powers of airspace?

Over their own airspace, yes I believe so.

Blink
25th January 2014, 06:25 PM
Over their own airspace, yes I believe so.


Yeah, but, who owns the air force? I doubt that individual states will start building their own air force to secure "no fly" zones. They (reps) can decide all they want but have no means of enforcing it. Just a show for the masses........

monty
25th January 2014, 06:34 PM
From an analysis by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of a lawsuit by a property owner against a nearby small airport:
The landowner's claim raises some fundamental legal principles about the ownership of land and the airspace above the land. These principles have been developing over time. In early common law, when there was little practical use of the upper air over a person's land, the law considered that a landowner owned all of the airspace above their land. That doctrine quickly became obsolete when the airplane came on the scene, along with the realization that each property owner whose land was overflown could demand that aircraft keep out of the landowner's airspace, or exact a price for the use of the airspace. The law, drawing heavily on the law of the sea, then declared that the upper reaches of the airspace were free for the navigation of aircraft. In the case of United States v. Causby,[3] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain.
At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."[4]

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

Neuro
25th January 2014, 06:44 PM
Yeah, but, who owns the air force? I doubt that individual states will start building their own air force to secure "no fly" zones. They (reps) can decide all they want but have no means of enforcing it. Just a show for the masses........
Yes in a practical sense they have no power over their airspace...

JohnQPublic
25th January 2014, 06:56 PM
It sounds like the bill says that the state cannot use drones without a warrant, not that drones are prohibited, or the feds cannot use drones in SC, nor that private citizens cannot use drones. I am not sure about cities, counties and other administrative units within the state.

House bill 3514 (H3514) would prohibit the operation of drones by an agency of the state unless it is “pursuant to a criminal warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Blink
26th January 2014, 09:01 AM
Yes in a practical sense they have no power over their airspace...

Just more smoke up the a$$. All these "patriot" reps and their votes for succession or denying Federal powers are ruffling feathers and confusing matters at best, while tricking the public into thinking they have someone in government on their side. There is zero bite to anything these politicians vote upon. I'll believe it the day that these sh*theel's actually start "enforcing" these rulings. Until then, its just more smoke up the a$$.........