Originally Posted by
Cyclosaurus
Wait, you've been arguing this entire time that it's already illegal to fly drones over private property and you have the right to smash them...why would these bills be at all necessary if that was the case?
Edit: This is no surprise in California. The reason this was adopted so quickly to protect movie stars from paparazzi, not any concern for regular folks. It will be interesting to see if it catches on anywhere else. It will also be welcomed by businesses such as agriculture which want very much to avoid any public scrutiny, and used to prosecute journalists and whistleblowers acting in the public interest.
*Sigh* I know it is useless to respond, but I'm assuming you are asking the question because you want to learn something, not to be argumentative.
There is statutory law and common law. Statutory law is what it sounds like ... laws enacted by the legislature. Common law is law developed over time by the judicial system. They exist together. It is not uncommon for the legislature to codify (or augment) what is already common law in statutes. You might have noticed that the legislation referred to this statement:
(d) Nothing in this section is intended to limit the rights and defenses available at common law under a claim of liability for wrongful occupation of real property.
That is an example of what I am referring to.
I'm regular folk and I welcome the law. Like virtually everyone I've spoken to, I regard a drone flying around in my backyard as trespassing and an invasion of privacy. That the law passes so quickly in California indicates to me that most folks feel the same. I think you'll encounter similar legislation elsewhere soon.