Sport, That definition only proves to me that your interpretation of FAA regs and the NAS is flawed. Your original post stated;
No my interpretation is not flawed, yours may be. You are trying to apply part 92 to an issue of jurisdiction and it just doesn't work. The boundries of jurisdiction overlapand the fact that the FAA has control of airspace to the surface does not mean that state and local has no jurisdiction in matters other than how aircraft are operated. For example, If your assumption was correct, then the localpolice would have no jurisdiction of stolen aircraft at airports because the FAA has control of aircraft to the surface. But of course the police can arrest you for stealing an aircraft from an airport because the FAA's control only extends to the control of traffic and aviation regulations. Trespassing is not an aviation regulation.
That statement is either false or if it is a question, see post #37 above.
You took that out of context. I also said I was not sure where we are right now. That is I was not sure if it had changed right now.
We had no 400 foot rule except near airports and the FAA only had an advisory. Not sure how that will change because the FAA's stanceseemed to bethat they would regulate models above 400 feet.