Originally Posted by
Hydro Junkie
GEEZ DUDE, CALM DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't see anyone saying FPV or flying R/C aircraft is a constitutional right. All that was said is that a 2nd amendment type of statement about flying models would have been nice and that since only birds flew in that time made it unlikely to even be thought about. I don't see anyone going any further than that and I took the post I replied to as a "tongue in cheek" kind of statement and replied to it in the same vein. How about you go find a beer, or something harder, and take a chill pill as there's no reason to get all twisted up over the last two posts
Uhh, alrighty then, Mr. Takeseverythingpersonally. Nobody was saying flying RC was a constitutional right
until you said maybe it was, tounge-in-cheek hard to divine in context. Good on you for clearing that up.
--------------
While we're on the subject,
RDQ's lawyer Jonathan Rupprecht (ironically) posted a March 18th Michigan State Court of Appeals decision on his
website, in a case that turns RDQ's lawsuit on it's ear. At issue was a township using drone surveillance (a private
contractor) for code enforcement. The court ruled that the drone photos violated the 4th Amendment.
Arguing that FPV is a constitutional right presents a conundrum for Mr. Rupprecht, when the FPV itself can be
a violation of someone else's constitutional right to privacy.:
"persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against drone surveillance”