I do not support this bill because it is unconstitutional and has already been found by several courts to be illegal. Per Congress, the FAA is the only authority that can regulate the sky. States do not have any authority to dictate laws and regulations above surface area level. In addition the wording of this bill is clearly confusing and written in such a way that can be easily challenged. Do you really want to associate yourself with a stinker?

Reasons this bill should not pass include the following:

1. FAA authority supersedes state authority on regulating the air space and was established by Congress as the only overseer.

2. The FAA already has established a final ruling on the laws and regulations regarding the use of model aircraft which dictate that Community Based Organizations set the standards for operation.

3. The use of the word "Drone" applies to any type of aircraft including traditional fixed-wing model aircraft and toy helicopters children can easily buy from Toy's R' Us. Do you really want to arrest children?

4. The word restricted airspace is too broad and likely to result in challenges due to law enforcement agencies assuming it applies to any and all restricted airspace set by the FAA for aircraft in general, where the restrictions on certain classes of airspace do not apply to personal or hobby use of drones. An officer will not be able to distinguish this, therefore the likelihood of false arrests will be high.

5. In addition, there is a separate bill dealing with the use of drones above correctional facilities, which has already been passed. There need not be any addition of this confusing rhetoric in this bill.

6. The term personal use is also too broad and likely to lead to constitutional challenges. The reason being that the definition of personal use as for "pleasure or recreation" will tend to also include constitutionally protected activities. For example, the ability to record public officials with a video camera is a constitutionally protected act according to Cummings vs Smith. Drones have video cameras and are used by journalists to gather content for investigative stories. Journalists need not be professionals but can be hobbyists and independents such as student journalists. They still fall under the FAA final ruling that a hobby is a pursuit outside one's main occupation. Therefore the likelihood of individuals using drones for first amendment protected activities is quite high.

7. As the laws of the state only apply to the surface area and no laws set by anyone or any agency but the FAA can apply above surface level, the air space restriction set by the bill is invalid. There is no physical force field barrier that anyone is entitled to on a personal level unless they live in an area of federally restricted air space.

8. The weight restriction on drones is also contrary to the FAA final ruling and likely to result in confusion as along with the definition of drone in the bill, there is no distinction between the weight of the unit or the weight of any payload.

9. The line of site restriction is already one that is there from the FAA, however the FAA makes distinction for FPV flight which this bill does not. The FAA allows the use of First Person View flight along with another person to act as a spotter. The way this bill is written is such that the drone operator can not use First Person View, an action that supersedes the FAA's regulation.

10. In addition to the correctional facility argument, the term restricted airspace also encompasses a 5 mile ban around airports. The FAA currently allows the use of drones within these 5 miles as long as there is established communication with the airport's tower. Most applications now that are used to control the drone automatically inform the tower. There is a high level of information available and no ATC has ever had issues in the last several decades of this hobby.

11. The definition of reckless manner is too broad. Who defines reckless manner? Is it the FAA? If you want the FAA to set ruling on what is reckless and not reckless, then you have to recognize their full authority to rule the skies and not pass this bill. You can not cherry pick and be broad. A law enforcement officer is not trained in drone laws and procedures and will not know if a person is being reckless or adhering to CBO standards. Therefore the likelihood of the officer to arrest an innocent person is far too high.

This bill is incredulous at its surface and filled with so many errors in both wording and applicability. Not only did you leave room for untrained individuals to mistakenly arrest what will be an unreasonably high number of people, but you have also failed to recognize that model aircraft have had an easement to the skies by prescription for decades. In addition the constitutional violations from the restrictions that will occur from the stifling of free speech, which the use of drones is, will show that drones are here to stay. Despite many wishes of individuals to put a restriction on what has been a part of American culture and history, the temporary craze and fad will die out with the fidget spinner and there will be no mass hysteria or public disorder if this bill does not go through.