Originally Posted by
Biker395
(A) "... federal aviation law being the only one that applies in most jurisdictions ..." - FAA law is not the only one that applies in most jurisdictions. Common law doctrines exist in all states, not just California.
(B) " ... the FAA explicitly ruling it a legal activity ..." - Please provide the FAA law or ruling that says flying drones over private property is legal activity (and I'm not talking high altitudes ... lets say below 350 feet, consistent with the California legislation.
(C) " ... the FAA already overrules common law regarding the use of airspace above your property ..." - Reference, please?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103
(a)Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
Also,
here's an analysis of the legal authority that the FAA has asserted essentially from surface upward, and specifically in regard to the CA law, even over private property, meaning that aircraft (including drones) have the right to use that space. This is from a Pepperdine law professor who is something of an expert on drone law. He claims that even the new CA law is fatally flawed because it restricts drones to
below navigable airspace, while FAA rulings have made it clear that because of drones, they consider
all airspace from the ground up to be navigable, meaning that CA law actually applies in no actual airspace.
What this means is that a drone flying over a California resident’s property would never be trespassing because SB 142 keys the definition of trespass to the navigable airspace, which the FAA thinks is anywhere an aircraft can operate. If you’re wondering whether a drone is an aircraft, it is. Thus, under these interpretations SB 142 simply provides no rights — drones will always be operating in, not below, the navigable airspace.