This $#!+ Just Got Real!

UPDATE: Watch the video

UPDATE: Sign the petition

A bill has been introduced into the Oregon State Senate that would criminalize FPV flying and quite possibly all RC aviation throughout the state. Senate Bill 71, meant to regulate “drones,” declares that this situation is an emergency, so that it will go into effect immediately after being passed into law.

Believe it or not, the legislative shenanigans go even further than that: this is a “shadow bill” – a term that I had never heard before – which means that its author and/or sponsors are not identified.

Legislating anonymously: I can think of no better way to demonstrate the courage of your convictions.

Anyway, you can read it for yourself in .PDF form by clicking here. Go ahead. I'll wait.

It's hard to know where to even begin with this proposal. I'll just pluck some of the low-hanging fruit to get the ball rolling.

The bill defines a drone as a “an unmanned flying machine that is capable of [among other things] capturing images of objects or people on the ground.” I'd argue that, by this definition, all but the very smallest and lightest indoor RC aircraft are “drones,” because they are “capable” of capturing images – if you attach a small camera to them.

That is something that should have every RC pilot in the state worried. For those of us in the FPV community, it's much, much worse. The moment this bill becomes law, I become a criminal – guilty of a Class B Misdemeanor. My crime? Possessing multirotor aircraft equipped for FPV flight operations.

That's right – merely possessing a “drone” is a crime, even if you never fly it. Other Class B Misdemeanors in Oregon? Carrying a concealed switchblade or stealing $50 worth of merchandise.

If you actually fly a drone, that's a Class A Misdemeanor, equivalent to carrying a concealed firearm without a license or driving drunk.

Let's forget for the moment about the folks who enjoy flying FPV (or RC) for fun – instead, let's consider the broader implications of this proposal for Oregon as a whole. I find it astonishing that while business and community leaders are hard at work, trying to get Oregon designated as one of six civilian drone test sites nationwide – because it has the potential to put our state at the forefront of a field that will be a major economic driver for the next several decades – some anonymous neo-luddite in the state senate is trying to slam our borders shut to this industry.

Furthermore, the bill seems to completely disregard the existing businesses in Oregon that already employ people to build drones, such as Insitu, located in Hood River. Is the economic recovery going so well, especially in the rural parts of the state, that we can afford to shut down a manufacturer because an ill-considered law transforms its products into contraband overnight?

Here at the Roswell Flight Test Crew, we are hobbyists – we do this because we enjoy it and because we believe this technology has almost unlimited capability to help people. This mission has already brought us into contact with several high-tech companies here in Oregon, who also see this potential.

To us, this comes as another indicator of the future economic implications of this technology and its potential to grow jobs in Oregon – let alone its potential life-saving applications and its status as one of the fastest-growing segments of the $1.5 billion per year hobby industry.

We need your help to oppose this bill and keep it from ever becoming law!

If you live in Oregon, please contact your state senator and representative, as well as Governor John Kitzhaber, to let them know that you oppose this bill, and why.

Also, if you're a member of the Academy of Model Aviation (like Techinstein and me) contact the government relations team and let them know that we really need their help. If you're not a member of the AMA, become one and then follow the instructions in the first sentence of this paragraph.

If you're outside of Oregon, take a hard look at what your own state legislature is doing. I have a hunch that this is a piece of model legislation dreamed up by some interest group, and they may well be shopping it around to other states, as well.

-Lucidity

Comments

[Chris]

Dang, that's bad! The infringment of liberty is always bad is this is terrible! Quick, we need to call up our reps and get this taken down!

[janne höglund]

I have a penis, am I a rapist now ??

[Arthur Aldridge]

Legislative restriction is the first step towards regulation, someone's quietly setting the stage to be a player in an artificially limited market...

[Peter]

Dumbest thing I've ever seen a politician do, and they do some (okay a lot) of stupid things.

[Scott Berfield]

Idiotic. Would the defnition extend to rockets as well? I think my buddies in the local high powered rocketry group might have something to say abou tthat. As would the model rocketry entusiasts who fly things like the Estes Camroc.

[Doug Huneycutt]

Does Oregon similarly restrict the aircraft in common use by nearly every radio and TV station in the nation? Each of these are also capable of being outfitted with video cameras, RF scanners, and weapons (depending on the passengers) ... the only difference is whether or not there is a pilot aboard.

Maybe the Oregon-based members of the media need to be alerted ... with a little tweaking, this bill could easily do away with one of their main sources of the imagery they use every single day.

[Mark In Eugene]

I agree that this Bill is troubling and sloppily written, but some of your concerns are not valid. An aerial vehicle that doesn't have a camera attached is not capable of capturing images - it becomes capable once the camera is attached. Most conventional RC aircraft would therefore not fall under this Bill.

Companies like Insitu are operating under the graces of the Feds. This Bill, in Section 2, contemplates that those businesses and individuals permitted to operate by the Feds may continue to do so.

Regulation of UAVs is coming whether we like it or not. Sloppily written legislation like this is not encouraging. But more troubling is the attitude that aerial surveillance and photography is de facto a bad thing. Legislators need to be shown the long term economic potential that UAVs can bring to a number of markets.

[Pat Chewning]

Welcome to the same ridiculous attempts at regulation that gun owners fight EVERY year.

[BrotherBloat]

What the... This is horrible!

[Elvan Wilson]

See this is what I have been talking about.
It seems like a bunch of guys, don't care!
There is still time to get something moving on this!
Since you guys have been featured on our local news channels, I suggest you get some of these news stations on board.
Otherwise, We will all be breakinf the law.

As one of the figured heads in the state of Oregon, you should be in the lead of getting this thing rewritten better!

[Kip Jackson]

Well. here we go again. We R/C modelers have been treated with the utmost disdain for decades. How many of us has lost a flying field? We have lost 6 here in the Hood River area over the last 15 years. This is just more crap only at a higher level. Did no one really expect this to ever happen? I've been waiting for years and now here it is.

[Ben Howard]

it looks like it was introduced by Senate Judiciary

Floyd Prozanski, Chair
Betsy Close, Vice-Chair
Jackie Dingfelder
Jeff Kruse
Arnie Roblan

those are the people you want to email

[Steve]

They do not want the common man to keep eyes on others because the common man is not to be trusted. The common man is not to be trusted because the common man has become wise to the schemes of the elites. If drones are classified as weapons, how would the SCOTUS ruling McDonald v. Chicago be applied to this bill should it become law?

[Steve]

Legislating anonymously? Does Oregon have a sunshine law? If not, it's time to apply collective punishment come next election. I'm surprised the Oregon is a "shall-issue" state.

¿QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES?