Opinion: Brown wrong to not sign drone bill
By Ted Gaines
Gov. Jerry Brown made a serious error vetoing my Senate Bill 168 and by doing so put emergency responders, property and the lives of Californians unnecessarily at risk.
SB168 tackled a new menace in California, unauthorized drones in emergency zones. Drones are amazing, and I want to see the industry flourish in California. I want to see hobbyists flying them and having fun, businesses using them to deliver packages, take photos or in any other creative ways we can’t even imagine. And I want to see public safety using them to help save lives and property. But they have no business flying in dangerous emergency areas and interfering with public safety.
Ted Gaines
My bill would have given civil immunity to emergency personnel who damaged a drone in the course of their duty. It would have also penalized that reckless drone use with up to six months of jail time, which is consistent with current law regarding interference, and increased the potential penalty for interfering up to $5,000.
Those penalties were already lower than what I wanted. I wanted something stronger that would send a clear message to anyone piloting a drone over a fire that their actions are contemptible and worthy of punishment. But I toned down the penalties to try to meet the governor in the middle, knowing that he is sensitive to creating new crimes in California.
Apparently, there is no halfway point with the governor on crime. While I appreciate a thoughtful discussion of our penal system, Brown’s veto of this important legislation shows a reflexive, anti-punishment strain that threatens every Californian who is fighting fires and responding to life-saving emergencies. Brown, the motive force behind the prison “realignment” that has pushed thousands of criminals back out on the street, has let his ideology again trump the needs of citizens around the state.
New technologies will lead to new crimes. Laws should adapt to the existing environment to provide the public safety that should be government’s highest priority. It is absurd to say the advent of the automobile, or the internet, or credit cards, or drones, will not lead to unforeseen situations that are unique and deserve unique laws to address them.
Wildfires have savaged our state this year. More than a thousand homes are now sad piles of ash and people around the state are just beginning to think about the painful task of rebuilding or relocating. But probably the most compelling image of the fire season was the terrified people on Interstate 15 running for their lives as the North Fire swept over that freeway and torched their vehicles as they fled.
Drones in the air caused the North Fire air tankers to abandon the scene and divert their flame-retardant loads away from the fire. By the time the drones exited and it was safe to resume their mission, 15 critical minutes had passed. The fire engulfed the cars. We are lucky that only vehicles were damaged, but next time, there might not be an exit route and we may be mourning a loss of life.
Despite his “no new crimes” mantra, Gov. Brown did sign one drone-related bill that expanded a penalty. The bill aimed to protect celebrities from paparazzi using drones to snap pictures of the stars. So, Brown will add new penalties to protect the Kardashians, but not firefighters or families living in wildfire areas.
To borrow from another governor, I want Brown to know that “I’ll be back.” I want to work with him for a solution next year when this problem will likely be far worse than it was this year, because this Christmas it’s expected that 1 million new drones will be sold as gifts. The operators need to understand all air safety laws and also use common sense when it comes to operating what can be dangerous toys. But if they ignore the law and expose everyone to direct and unnecessary risk, they should be punished. SB168 would have done just that.
Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado, represents the California side of the Lake Tahoe Basin in the state Senate.
And what would have prevented the State from arbitrarily labeling any suspect police action an “emergency”, thereby restricting access and transparency? It was a ridiculous bill. The police don’t have any problem shooting people’s pets when they think they’re a problem. Why wouldn’t they shoot down a drone, with or without a bill that protects them?
I just want to know one thing. Copper, maybe you can help. When one of these drones is over your property, can you shoot it out of the sky?
Concerning drones, I believe we’ve entered the realm of unintended consequences.
It’s illegal to shoot down drones-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/opinions/schneier-shoot-down-drones/
And TeaBagTed, perhaps the Gov. vetoed your bills because you’re a clueless doofus who’s been on the wrong side of every single issue-
So Teatotal, from your response I take it you believe that drones should fly in declared emergency areas? That it is ok to hinder emergency personnel. It also seems that every single democrap in both houses voted yes on this bill. There was not one no vote in either house, from either party. Looks like they have more than enough votes to over ride this veto, if the demos get some balls to vote how they feel.
Not sure why my stage name came up in this thread, but it’s true that I expressed some strong opinions in a 13,000 member forum in which I participate under a different pseudonym – I commented with favor regarding a guy who knocked down a drone with his shirt. I was buried under a swarm of criticism from folks who weren’t much interested in the civil liberties side of the issue so much as the monetary loss the drone owner must have suffered. Ah, Republicans – a laugh a minute.
However, to suggest a partial answer for Isee, it strikes me that the first consideration should be to check on the legality of shooting a firearm straight up in the air in your neighborhood.
My point is to insinuate that someone is going to shoot a drone down for flying over their yard- or in the woods – at an inopportune moment. It won’t be me- but it’s bound to happen. It’s interesting to watch this play-out.
A friend saw a pro drone pilot fly his drone from the Visitor’s Center into Desolation Wilderness by Glen Alpine Springs and then up Tallac- all while viewing it on his laptop. There will be a debate around the expectation of privacy for sure (and probably some dead drones).
So reloman- if you can’t flip it or shoot it to make a buck for yourself, why do you care?-
I don’t give a bush what pathetic timeshare salesmen think-
In response to the questions of shooting the drones over your property here is a True story from the ‘hood’:
A man’s wife was attacked by a neighbors pit bull…it latched onto her ankle and did serious damage to her. The man ran into his house and got a gun…the gun would not fire.
The judge in the case(local) told the man that it was good the gun did not fire because he(the judge) would have to charge him with discharging a fire arm in the city limits.
Another silly gadget to confuse personal & civil liberties. . . what happens when Amazon (or the multitudes of other companies that will crop up) tries to deliver a package (as they obviously plan on doing) ? ?. . .
Can we then shoot one down & take the package, but only if they’re ‘in season'(?). . .
As people cannot even carry on a conversation with each other any more due to smart-phones, do we then have people out ‘gawking at the sky’ waiting anxiously for the package due them that day (?). . . then complain to the company when not delivered on time (or not at all). . .
Another human folly. . .along with driver-less cars – will those relieve gridlock while we leisurely wait for the car to show up (?). . .who do we complain to when it doesn’t (?). . .
Gee Tea total, I didn’t realise you were a timeshare salesman, I now think even less of you. Timeshare sales men like you are worst than use car salesmen.
You can’t attack the facts that all of the legislature liked this bill, so you attack me, sign of a weak mind.
The point of the story about shooting a dog latched onto a man’s wife is that he was not allowed to discharge a fire arm at a dog latched onto his wife’s leg…what makes you think you can shoot a drone? or anything else in the city of SLT….the judge says NO shooting in your own front yard here, drones would be included wouldn’t they?