Originally Posted by
Cyclosaurus
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103
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.
I asked for a reference indicating that the FAA ruled that it was legal to fly drones over private property at below, say ... 350 feet.
You provided a opinion article from a lawyer who said that the CA legislation would pass muster with FAA regulations if it limited it's application to altitudes below 350 feet.
The CA legislation regarding trespassing applies only to drones flying at altitudes under 350 feet.
It looks as if you provided a reference that refutes (A), (B) and (C) ... What am I missing here?