Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Man, no one really comes off well here at all. Beyond all the other things people have already mentioned, I'd wonder why the National Guard is performing law enforcement operations without a state of emergency declared.

That's just what I was stopping in to ask too.

What law enforcing did the National Guard do?

From the article:

Procopio said that the Massachusetts National Guard Counter Drug Team — working under the Domestic Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Program and using a Department of Justice grant — looks for marijuana plants that are “outside of a locked, enclosed location that is fully inaccessible to any other person” each year during the summer growing season.

Military units are being mobilized for pot raids. Regardless of whether or not it constitutes training hours, or if they are or aren't on the ground, that's still an issue.

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/aviation/library/upload/MOU_NG_Massachusetts.pdf

Relevant info.

I've had some experience with the National Guard Counter Drug program so maybe I can shed some light. The Guard really just provides transport for LEOs and will assist in cutting or disposing of pot that has been confiscated. Even when going out of flights to look find pot, there is always a LEO on board to actually make the spot and provide probable cause. All raids and searches are carried out by the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

While one pot plant is a small bust by anyone's standards, sometimes that one plant is the only one visible from the air and it leads to a massive haul. The operation was probably not mobilized for that one plant. Most likely they took down several growers that day and this one just happened to be kind of a joke.

 Peregrine wrote:
The air above your house is public property and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy against someone looking out the window while passing overhead, just like you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy against someone driving by on the street outside your house.

However, that bit about the air above your house being public property seems to be heading toward the trash bin. Due to private drones harassing people, you may soon own up to seven miles of air over your property. Which will make things entertaining if air lines have to rent routes.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
However, that bit about the air above your house being public property seems to be heading toward the trash bin. Due to private drones harassing people, you may soon own up to seven miles of air over your property. Which will make things entertaining if air lines have to rent routes.

This is absolutely never going to happen. Airspace is under federal control, period.

 Peregrine wrote:


This is absolutely never going to happen. Airspace is under federal control, period.

Airspace is 'controlled' but not 'owned' ( a fine distinction, I know) under the NAS. Airspace up to 2500 feet is not even 'controlled' outside of the vicinity of a airport. There are several cases currently to decide who 'owns' the airspace, particularly in the context of trespass via airborne drone.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Airspace is 'controlled' but not 'owned' ( a fine distinction, I know) under the NAS. Airspace up to 2500 feet is not even 'controlled' outside of the vicinity of a airport. There are several cases currently to decide who 'owns' the airspace, particularly in the context of trespass via airborne drone.

Yes, I'm a pilot, I'm well aware of the difference between controlled and uncontrolled airspace classes. By "controlled" I mean that the federal government, acting through the FAA, sets the rules. The 1200' line (not 2500') between class E and class G merely marks a difference in how far away from clouds you have to stay and (IIRC) what ATC services are provided. That "uncontrolled" airspace is still entirely owned by the federal government. State and local governments have no jurisdiction, if the local police tell you "land immediately, you are not allowed there" you are entirely free to say " off" and ignore them. If a property owner complains about you flying over their property you are entirely free to say "cry more, " and spend an hour or two doing circles over their house at full power. It isn't polite, but it's 100% legal.

Now, in theory this could change if the FAA decided to no longer consider drones to be "aircraft" that are subject to the same rules as other aircraft, but so far the FAA seems to want to keep its control over drones.

 Peregrine wrote:
[ If a property owner complains about you flying over their property you are entirely free to say "cry more, " and spend an hour or two doing circles over their house at full power. It isn't polite, but it's 100% legal.

Well, not being a judge myself, but knowing that at least one pilot who thought that was shot down, legally speaking, using that defense. In Buckner v St Petersburg the judge did in fact rule that municipal ordinances could be enforced on pilots. (In this case towed banners were prohibited) This was upheld by higher courts, and the FAA officially stated they had no opinion in the suit.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, not being a judge myself, but knowing that at least one pilot who thought that was shot down, legally speaking, using that defense. In Buckner v St Petersburg the judge did in fact rule that municipal ordinances could be enforced on pilots. (In this case towed banners were prohibited) This was upheld by higher courts, and the FAA officially stated they had no opinion in the suit.

Link? A search for that case name comes up with nothing, and looking for similar cases on banner towing bans brings up cases where those bans failed because the FAA sets the rules.