katqanna
Well-known member
SB 170 - I have some concerns with this bill, without amendments, I feel it should be opposed. It states, "An act providing civil penalties for unauthorized operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle over real property; and providing an applicability date." This bill is modifying Title 70 Property, Chapter 16 Rights and Obligations Incidental to Ownership in Real Property, this section defines what property ownership means.
Latin law stated, “For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell.”
Then aircraft was invented. The U.S. Supreme Court determined, "the United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States” and that “citizen of the United States [have] a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." "It is ancient doctrine that at common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe. But that doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared."
Now, ignore the whole drone thing for a moment and think about this airspace for navigation. Think about airspace for corner crossing, which again, is not illegal in Montana. A person is stepping from one corner of public land, navigating the air space as they step to the adjoining corner of public land.
Back in 1986, when Nels Swandal (former judge) was a temporary County Attorney for Park County (now he is a senator), he was asked by a Park County resident for an opinion of trespass laws in relation to corner crossing.
He replied, including a 4 square graphic with 2 diagonal private land squares and 2 diagonal Forest Service squares,
My concern, reading this bill, is without modification, this could be used as a step towards air ownership again. Using this bill as precedent, another bill could come across the legislature, applying towards stepping across the air space of the 4 corners of checkerboarded landownership - private and public.
I do not advocate using drones to harass private landowners, invasion of privacy or damage their property, but I also want to see respect and acknowledgment given to the public lands and it's owners.
And again, here is another trespass bill, which carries a penalty. Yet, HB 295, fining a landowner for illegally encroaching a public road, didn't make it out of the committee or pass a blast motion effort to get it discussed on the floor! The word 'hypocritical' comes to mind.
SB 170 was scheduled for it's 3rd reading in the Senate, has now been moved from Judiciary to Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs. More on this to come, but think about this and send your comments to the Senators, addresses below.
Also, having spoken with someone involved in aeronautics, because a previous article on SB 170 said this bill conflicted with Federal law, I needed a better understanding.Federal overrules state. Title 14 CFR deals with Federal Aviation Regulations. With the increase in Unmanned Aerial Systems, the regulations needed to deal with the growing industry, beyond bottle rockets and hobby aircraft.
In 2016, a new section was added for the UAS - 2 sections for commercial and recreational/hobby - Title 14 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter F, Part 107.51. Which states that the altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless it is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.
Yet SB 170 states, "the unmanned aerial vehicle is not flown over the real property described in subsection (1) below an altitude of 500 feet."
It also applies a civil penalty for trespass, defined as a criminal act. - MCA 45-6-201
In essence, SB 170 extends property boundaries and rights 500 feet in the air.
I feel this is yet another attempt to backdoor corner crossing.
edit: article- a good application for drones. Three Montana Middle-schoolers built a drone to hunt down poachers - This poacher-hunting drone could be the new weapon used by fish and wildlife officers all around the country.
Latin law stated, “For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell.”
Then aircraft was invented. The U.S. Supreme Court determined, "the United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States” and that “citizen
Now, ignore the whole drone thing for a moment and think about this airspace for navigation. Think about airspace for corner crossing, which again, is not illegal in Montana. A person is stepping from one corner of public land, navigating the air space as they step to the adjoining corner of public land.
Back in 1986, when Nels Swandal (former judge) was a temporary County Attorney for Park County (now he is a senator), he was asked by a Park County resident for an opinion of trespass laws in relation to corner crossing.
He replied, including a 4 square graphic with 2 diagonal private land squares and 2 diagonal Forest Service squares,
You asked me for a clarification regarding the trespass laws as they apply to the crossing of corner sections that have diagonal corners. While each case has to be looked at on its own facts I can give you my general opinion...
The trespass laws were designed to protect the land but they do not protect the air space above that land. It is certainly possible for a person to locate a corner or make a good faith effort to locate a corner and step across it without trespassing on private land.
My concern, reading this bill, is without modification, this could be used as a step towards air ownership again. Using this bill as precedent, another bill could come across the legislature, applying towards stepping across the air space of the 4 corners of checkerboarded landownership - private and public.
I do not advocate using drones to harass private landowners, invasion of privacy or damage their property, but I also want to see respect and acknowledgment given to the public lands and it's owners.
And again, here is another trespass bill, which carries a penalty. Yet, HB 295, fining a landowner for illegally encroaching a public road, didn't make it out of the committee or pass a blast motion effort to get it discussed on the floor! The word 'hypocritical' comes to mind.
SB 170 was scheduled for it's 3rd reading in the Senate, has now been moved from Judiciary to Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs. More on this to come, but think about this and send your comments to the Senators, addresses below.
Also, having spoken with someone involved in aeronautics, because a previous article on SB 170 said this bill conflicted with Federal law, I needed a better understanding.Federal overrules state. Title 14 CFR deals with Federal Aviation Regulations. With the increase in Unmanned Aerial Systems, the regulations needed to deal with the growing industry, beyond bottle rockets and hobby aircraft.
In 2016, a new section was added for the UAS - 2 sections for commercial and recreational/hobby - Title 14 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter F, Part 107.51. Which states that the altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless it is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.
Yet SB 170 states, "the unmanned aerial vehicle is not flown over the real property described in subsection (1) below an altitude of 500 feet."
It also applies a civil penalty for trespass, defined as a criminal act. - MCA 45-6-201
In essence, SB 170 extends property boundaries and rights 500 feet in the air.
I feel this is yet another attempt to backdoor corner crossing.
edit: article- a good application for drones. Three Montana Middle-schoolers built a drone to hunt down poachers - This poacher-hunting drone could be the new weapon used by fish and wildlife officers all around the country.
Last edited: