Roger Stone: New Federal Aviation Administration Rules Are Unlawfully Overriding Laws Made By Congress

Could the FAA be manipulating the rule making process to strip American’s of their constitutional rights?
 
(By Roger Stone) In 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) created a new rule to require all recreational drone operators in America to register their drones with the government, pay a $5 fee, provide their full name, physical address, mailing address, email addresses; and make all drones display a unique identification number on the fuselage of the model aircraft.
 
The recreational drone registration requirement was mandated by the FAA a few days before Christmas, 2015, after thousands of drones had already been purchased and placed under the Christmas tree.  It was a harsh reminder to children all across the country, and to their parents, of the long reach of the federal government.  
 
The agency raised over $3 million from fees, and ultimately discouraged many people from becoming recreational drone hobbyists, which was probably the ultimate intention of the FAA.
 
The new FAA rule required drone owners to register themselves, and their drones, or face severe civil and criminal consequences.  The penalty for not registering a drone was up to three years in prison, civil penalties of up to $27,000, criminal fines up to $250,000, and a felony conviction.  The FAA even authorized law enforcement to use deadly force, when necessary, to enforce new drone rules.
 
Some drone pilots tried to fight the overly restrictive rules and pointed to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which Congress passes in 2012.  It included a clause in Section 336 of the Act, called the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft,” dictating that the FAA “may not promulgate any new rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.”   A drone is considered to be a “model aircraft” if it is under 55 pounds.
 
The FAA was, thereby, stripped from their authority to regulate recreational drones as of 2012 – but that did not stop them from creating and enforcing new drone laws.
 
in September and December of 2015 the FAA issued two new laws that caused widespread alarm within the drone community. The FAA, in September, restricted drone usage in the airspace around Washington D.C. and also limited their use, in general, in controlled airspace around the country. And in December 2015, in complete contradiction to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the FAA initiated the recreational registration requirement.
 
Washington D.C. based drone hobbyist John Taylor sued the federal government to overturn the drone registration requirement – and he won.  On May 19, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FAA’s registration rule for recreational drone users.
 
In his ruling, Judge Kavanaugh stated, “Petitioner JohnTaylor is a model aircraft hobbyist who is now required to register with the FAA.  He has operated model aircraft from his home in the Washington, D.C., area, and he wants to continue to do so without registering or complying with the new flight restrictions. Taylor filed petitions in this Court to challenge the FAA’s Registration Rule and the Advisory Circular.  To begin, Taylor does not think that the FAA had the statutory authority to issue the Registration Rule and require him to register.  Taylor is right.”
 
Circuit Judge Kavanaugh also wrote in his ruling, “The Registration Rule does not merely announce an intent to enforce a pre-existing statutory requirement. The Registration Rule is a rule that creates a new regulatory regime for model aircraft. The new regulatory regime includes a “new registration process” for online registration of model aircraft. The new regulatory regime imposes new requirements – to register, to pay fees, to provide information, and to display identification – on people who previously had no obligation to engage with the FAA. And the new regulatory regime imposes new penalties – civil and criminal, including prison time – on model aircraft owners who do not comply. In short, the Registration Rule is a rule regarding model aircraft.”  The judge ruled, “Statutory construction doesn’t get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft. The FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule, which applies to model aircraft, directly violates that clear statutory prohibition. We therefore grant Taylor’s petition and vacate the Registration Rule.”
 
Based on the judges ruling (http://bit.ly/2qz7bUo), on May 19th, 2017 the FAA was ordered to rescind their national drone registration rule – so recreationally used drones are no longer required to be registered with the FAA.
 
Drone hobbyist John Taylor also sued the FAA over the implementation of a restrictive flight zone around Washington, D.C..  On September 2nd, 2015 the FAA published Advisory Circular 91-57A, announcing that model aircraft would be subject to certain flight restrictions in the Washington, D.C. area.  In his lawsuit, Taylor cited the same 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act that prohibits the FAA from making new model aircraft laws.  Surprisingly, the judge ruled against Taylor in this case – not because he was wrong about the illegality of the FAA’s new law, but because the 2 month statute of limitations had already run out. 
 
The Court dismissed the challenge to the Advisory Circular on procedural grounds, finding that the Plaintiff missed the 60-day deadline for challenging the Advisory Circular.  Taylor filed his lawsuit four months past the date of issuance of the new law, so his case as dismissed for being “untimely.”
 
What these recent court rulings reveal is that the the FAA is making rules that they do not have the legal authority to make, but If they are not sued within 60 days of the issuance of a new law, then it stays in effect, regardless of the legality of it – and all America’s lose their ability to challenge these illegal laws later.
 
That doesn’t seem very Democratic.  

  • John Buatti

    Jones talks about freedom of expression but they banned me from posting on infowars. Why was I banned by infowars ? I cant comment anymore! My comments have being removed https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466223-who-deleted-or-removed-my-comment- my profile https://disqus.com/by/johnbuatti/

  • John Buatti

    ____
    Chuck Schumer and Obama hypocrisy “…we need a Wall…..with Mexico ” then a backflip “…we don’t need a wall..” ! They sound like Trump !
    https://youtu.be/gHnGFkUS_lc

  • John Buatti

    _____
    Obama Is in favor of a Wall with Mexico…!
    …really?
    Watch:
    https://youtu.be/l01_2tvtQcE

  • John Buatti

    _____
    Who gives youtube the authority to decide what is right or wrong ?
    If I have to obey the law of the land they also have to obey it !
    Why are youtube Facebook Twitter allowed to make their own laws on audience video content suitability ?
    When I make a video youtube has an option that I can tick to restrict the video to a mature audience..so I make the censorship decision on my video.. but how does youtube know if who is going to watch the video is “mature ” or over age ?
    It could be a kid on the other side of the world using someone’s account claiming he or she are over 18 !
    And how does youtube know what is over age in each different countries ?
    It is to cut your young audience that follows you….ok then, make the same video restriction friendly so it isn’t restricted by youtube, ask youtube exactly which part of the video had to be restricted and which “youtube self made guidelines” it had violated and what US law it violated ?
    What legal authority has this youtube panel to decide what is legal or restrictable and explain why they are above a US Judged or US Law ! If the video on youtube doesn’t violate US law it should be shown !
    Like the Cinemas classifications of R, Adults-only restrictions!
    Why are youtube Facebook Twitter allowed to make their own Laws outside US Law ? Explain that to a Judge !

    • TXMaverick

      Again…YouTube, just like Facebook, is a privately owned company. They don’t have to allow you to do shit! They have no 1st Amendment restrictions on them. That is their legal authority you twit.

      • John Buatti

        Before you make unsubstantiated claims that you know the US Law… inform yourself first and back your claims !

        The First Amendment Rights Lawsuit on Facebook social Media that sets the precedent for the upholding of Free Speech-First Amendment Rights in the future!
        Net neutrality is protected by the freedom of speech of the First Amendment so if you built your business/platform on a public web like Facebook does then No Social media can insert their authority over it !
        It’s like if you built a business on public land you then can’t decide who uses that public land or what you sell on it against the existing laws !
        Or if you take a Taxi to get home every day it then doesn’t give you the right to control the running of that taxi !
        Read :
        ‘……After two years of litigation, a Honolulu Federal Court is ordering the Honolulu Police Department to pay $31K in attorneys fees to Second Amendment activists who sued alleging First Amendment violations after the HPD allegedly removed plaintiffs Facebook comments from an HPD Facebook page. …..’
        —- http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/12959/HPD-Ordered-to-Pay-31K-over-Censored-Facebook-Comments.aspx
        —- http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/on-featured/police-fan-page-brings-amendment-lawsuit/
        —- http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-sheriff-facebook-lawsuit-karras-gore-comment-2014nov15-story.html
        —– From Hawaii Defense Foundation, August 21, 2012
        Today in the Federal District Court of Hawaii, the Hawaii Defense Foundation has filed a lawsuit for violations of the First Amendment. The Defendants in this case are the City and County of Honolulu and a Honolulu Police Officer, Capt. Andrew Lum.

        The complaint filed in the United States District Court by attorneys Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck, and Brian Brazier alleges that the Honolulu Police unlawfully administer their Facebook Fan page in violation of American citizen’s right to free speech. The complaint asserts that the Honolulu police arbitrarily moderate the page by deleting comments and banning users who post or make comments unfavorable to the department. The complaint further asserts that online speech is just as important as a citizen airing their grievance in a public park – just because the speech is virtual, doesn’t mean it is not protected.
        Also read :
        read from page 5 to 6 here :
        http://www.in.gov/ig/files/Julie_Tappendorf.pdf#page=5

  • John Buatti

    ______
    What Trump needs to do is to anticipate their moves by reinforcing the Non violent message in the eyes of the US voters that way the enemy can’t use it against him and label him racist etc…. this way he will take the wind out of the Main Media’s sales….and take their artificially created fake racist rallies to then attack the President’s response to that violent rallies !

  • John Buatti

    Facebook is now censoring free speech by labeling my comment “spam”
    Like these comments I made:
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1828543837161832&set=a.872536459429246.1073741829.100000186998234&type=3&theater
    ______
    Look here to see what really happened in the accident.
    http://youtruth.weebly.com/the-diana-story.html
    ——-
    70 millions divided 1300 detainees = $53,800 each detainee !
    $53,800 compensation for having lost years of your life that they wont get back!
    The Liberal Government caused the problem by not following their international obligations by processing :the refugees in Australia…and Australian Taxpayers have to pay the costs!
    The Liberal party should pay with their own money !
    What a joke !!
    ____
    Morrison’s so called budget was based on 3% growth and on China’s service industry for Australia’s economy to grow….none of these are happening and there is only one quarter left to go !
    PS
    Facebook also labeled my comment complaining about the censorship as “…Spam”.
    Here is what I wrote:
    “…….How do you want me to acheive “civic engagement” (words facebook used on their post)) when you label my comments as spam ?!
    I get censored by Facebook on every comment !
    Facebook’s monopoly of platform has now become judge and jury on what is a comment and has now placed themselves above the Law and freedom of speech !
    These are some of the banned comments :……..”

    • TXMaverick

      John, I don’t know who you are or what you do. Don’t really care one way or the other. But you started off this multiple post rant with these words: “Facebook is now censoring free speech by labeling my comment “spam”.

      Well, guess what sunshine… the 1st Amendment only applies to the government restricting your speech. It has absolutely nothing to do with a company, Facebook in this instance, deciding that it doesn’t like your speech and censoring it.

      I’m not a fan of Zuckerberg and his political leanings…but this is HIS company and he can do with it what he wants. If that bothers you that much…then get the hell off of Facebook!

  • Dindoo Muffins

    This is the best, most cogent summation of this case yet. Thanks Roger.

  • John Buatti

    The First Amendment Rights Lawsuit on Facebook social Media that sets the precedent for the upholding of Free Speech-First Amendment Rights in the future!
    Net neutrality is protected by the freedom of speech of the First Amendment so if you built your business/platform on a public web www. like Facebook does then No Social media can insert their authority over it !
    It’s like if you built a business on public land you then can’t decide who uses that public land or what you sell on it against the existing laws !
    Read the test case Lawsuit victory for the First Amendment Rights Hawaii :
    ‘……After two years of litigation, a Honolulu Federal Court is ordering the Honolulu Police Department to pay $31K in attorneys fees to Second Amendment activists who sued alleging First Amendment violations after the HPD allegedly removed plaintiffs Facebook comments from an HPD Facebook page. …..’
    —- http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/12959/HPD-Ordered-to-Pay-31K-over-Censored-Facebook-Comments.aspx
    —- http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/on-featured/police-fan-page-brings-amendment-lawsuit/
    —- http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-sheriff-facebook-lawsuit-karras-gore-comment-2014nov15-story.html
    —– From Hawaii Defense Foundation, August 21, 2012
    Today in the Federal District Court of Hawaii, the Hawaii Defense Foundation has filed a lawsuit for violations of the First Amendment. The Defendants in this case are the City and County of Honolulu and a Honolulu Police Officer, Capt. Andrew Lum.

    The complaint filed in the United States District Court by attorneys Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck, and Brian Brazier alleges that the Honolulu Police unlawfully administer their Facebook Fan page in violation of American citizen’s right to free speech. The complaint asserts that the Honolulu police arbitrarily moderate the page by deleting comments and banning users who post or make comments unfavorable to the department. The complaint further asserts that online speech is just as important as a citizen airing their grievance in a public park – just because the speech is virtual, doesn’t mean it is not protected.
    Also read :
    read from page 5 to 6 here :
    http://www.in.gov/ig/files/Julie_Tappendorf.pdf#page=5

    ….

  • Chickie Fillette

    The Obama Administration don’t need no stinkin’ separation of powers.