Hysterical!

You mean you don’t? Rather out-PR, what? Hmm…wouldn’t want this generally known. Emergency shopping trip needed. Inverness cape, deerstalker hat, pipe… violin lessons but not too many…we’ll get you up sartorial snuff, Sherlock-wise.

Maybe I should wear tweed Aqua. 😉

Wynski, it’s not as simple as you make out:

“Q:Can state or other municipalities ban UAS flights legally, if not why are some placings allowing this?

A:Please refer to the State and Local Fact Sheet (PDF). Generally, outright prohibitions on UAS operations in the National Airspace System create preemption issues.

Q:Can local law enforcement enforce FAA regulations? Example someone recklessly flying 10 feet above a crowd of people.

A:Law enforcement personnel are not able to enforce FAA regulations; however, most State and local jurisdictions have some sort of “reckless endangerment” statutes they can enforce when appropriate.

Q:What is the FAA’s current take on how we should approach local municipalities, states, parks, etc. instituting laws or rules restricting drone use? Where do things stand legally?

A:Please see the State and Local Fact Sheet (PDF).”

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/webinars/faq/#le

“States and local jurisdictions are increasingly exploring regulation of UAS or proceeding to enact legislation relating to UAS operations. In 2015, approximately 45 states have considered restrictions on UAS….
State and local restrictions affecting UAS operations should be consistent with the extensive federal statutory and regulatory framework pertaining to control of the airspace, flight management and efficiency, air traffic control, aviation safety, navigational facilities, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source. ”

https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/public_safety_toolkit/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf

As I pointed out previously, all 50 states now have laws or regulations regarding drone use, and they are enforced regardless:

Why people get arrested for flying drones
“Smuggling, spying and crashing are just a few reasons.”
https://www.vox.com/2017/4/27/15442848/arrested-flying-drones-us

And finally, while the Supreme Court has yet to rule on a case involving drones that sets a definitive relevant precedent, in the past they have indicated concern about the advance of technology and that they might rule in favor of restrictions:

Persistent Aerial Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment

‘In Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), a case involving aerial surveillance of an industrial plant, the Supreme Court suggested that extremely powerful imaging from the air might give rise to Fourth Amendment concerns, stating: “It may well be, as the Government concedes, that surveillance of private property by using highly sophisticated surveillance equipment not generally available to the public, such as satellite technology, might be constitutionally proscribed absent a warrant.’

https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/6791-2/

And as I also previously posted a link regarding, many constitutional scholars agree that Fourth Amendment privacy concerns have primacy, and that state laws based on them are valid.

He’s not alone in bed with his misery. He has his Communicator With Benefits to share it with, or, more likely, unload it on. His CWB Laurisse, aka Lou, a die hard SO KA-drinker with a black belt in karate with a butch haircut and an adam’s apple like Clint Eastwood’s. Perv that he is I wouldn’t be surprised if she …oh, never mind.

“Riding A NEVER-ENDING SWELL OF EXPANSION for the religion…” Caps mine.

These Still In Idiots believe ANYTHING, apparently.

After being out of the cult for 9 years this should come as no surprise, but the truth is it never ceases to amaze me.

Just wondering since they CLOSED OFF some automobile access, if this song was blaring,lol!

“Elementary, my dear Aqua” 🙂

Logical indeed and highly encouraging news for everyone here!

You have a smart view. Yes it’s possible that they get this shown in streaming to other orgs and sea orgs. They use it as a kind of event. It serve especially to keep the poor staff riding the wave. Behind the carrot.

I’ve always figured that they count staff and sea org watching remotely at upper level orgs in LA – or “postulate” the people in local orgs who are going to “attend” showings of the event video in coming weeks. They say “opened before an exuberant audience” so they could even be referring to those future audiences with weasel-wording.

Or, of course, they could just lie. But from what I’ve seen they seem to like to find some such tenuous justification for their numbers, so that they don’t imagine themselves being actual liars.