Really? Are you saying that sanctuary cities aren’t really sanctuary cities? You know, those places where Federal laws regarding immigration do not apply.
As far as drone use is concerned, the FAA is just another federal agency which is subject to oversight of the people, by the people, for the people and their elected representatives.
Public hearings may persuade the FAA that drones should not be flown over residential areas without having first obtaining written permission of the buildings owners. Or that drone owners must first obtain $50,000+ of liability insurance. Adequate penalties for violations should also be considered.
Are there any helicopters involved in this case? And you have yet to address whether states or localities can mandate insurance on drone users. And you have also argued that only the FAA can regulate any aspect of flight. But where do ;state and local’ regulations come from?
You clearly don’t know what a sanctuary city is. It has to do with whether that locality is going to use local police powers to enforce Federal laws. It has nothing to do with making Federal laws subordinate to local law.
Well, considering that the FAA is years into its rulemaking process on the use of UAS, these public hearings you propose might as well suggest that monkeys ought to fly out of the butts of drone operators. Unmanned monkeys, that is. And that these levitating simians have permission of landowners to aviate over their property, of course.
https://www.slackdavis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mandatory_aviation_insurance08.pdf
Oh wait. California mandates mandatory insurance. Inform the FAA!!
The FAA is writing to rules on how to use UAS. These rules include how they may be operated in- and out of line of sight, safe altitudes, etc. A state can’t adopt laws under the guise of insurance requirements that alter the FAA’s authority to make those regulations, because the FAA has Federal statutory authority to deal with those matters. It would be like saying that states could use insurance laws to prohibit yellow aircraft from flying in “their” airspace. Your proposal to use insurance laws to regulate drones would be laughed out of court – the general principle of FAA preemption of state laws has long since been established, and while there are gray areas of the extent of the FAA’s preemption authority, your suggestions for state and local regulation are not in that gray space.
If the FAA chooses not to regulate something, states may do so. States may regulate the use of state-owned aircraft. A state-owned airport may dictate noise abatement procedures for that particular airport, but it could not pass a law directing noise abatement procedures for a privately owned airport. These are the general sorts of things that a state may do, but it sure as hell doesn’t come anywhere close to regulating safety of flight or getting permission from landowners to overfly real property. Not even close.
That’s not what’s at issue. You said states can use insurance laws to regulate the flight of drones. No, they cannot. States can require insurance on personal property, but that has nothing to do with how the personal property is operated.
ETA: If this debate is now to the point of you trying to find the words “insurance” and “aircraft” in a single document, without respect for what you were actually claiming (that states can use insurance requirements to control how drones fly), then this isn’t actually a debate anymore. It’s just barfing up random documents in which you don’t actually care what you’re trying to prove.
Would you provide a cite or two please?
So then they can require insurance on the personal property that is a drone? Gotcha.
Sure, they probably can, to the extent that the insurance requirement is really about dealing with civil liability of the UAS crashing into something or being damaged itself. A state couldn’t impose an insurance requirement that, in order to operate the drone, the owner must get a drone licence from that state, however. That’s only in the FAA’s power to do.
Just want to point out that no sunbathing daughters were actually harmed in this incident since there weren’t any sunbathing daughters. The Drone Slayer mentioned that he has two daughters but never says they were sunbathing, just that they were out on the deck. The Drone Slayer’s neighbor says that her daughter likes to lay out by their pool, but never says she was doing so at the time of the incident.
Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. Flying monkeys! Who else would have thought of introducing them? 
The FAA makes rules.
The FAA can change the rules.
The FAA holds public hearings to discuss new rules and changing old rules.
The public, local, and state authorities have input in publically held FAA hearings.
The FAA is subject to oversight from Congress and the courts.
Since the drone owner seems to have conveniently lost the video taken on it’s Titanic voyage, maybe the drone owner could share some of the other videos he’s made over residential areas?
Also, the girls are hella hot.
Do you even attempt to familiarize yourself with the issues you’re debating? This was the second flight of the drone, which then ended up exploded at the hands of the hillbilly air defense artillery.
Now anyone can fly a drone anywhere and fire a weapon at anyone.
Well done, Mrrikkah.
Then you are aware that there were other flights. I see no reason for the drone owner not to share the video his other adventure. The drone owner might suggest that he has a right to privacy.
Did the drone really explode? The picture I saw showed damage to 1 blade of 1 of the 4 props.
What photos the drone took is completely immaterial to the criminal actions of the homeowner. He has zero right to shoot other people’s property.
For reference purposes only -
It appears that not everyone has the same concerns as you. This is a public board, after all.
I still say the homeowner should have used a net or bolas (weights on the end of rope) to take the copter down. No law against throwing a net in the air on your own property.