Some further good reading is Pirker's reply to the FAA's appeal http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirk... It clearly lays out the argument, which prevailed in the Pirker decision, that the FAA has only offered up advisories on safe operation of model aircraft and they had not issued any actual, enforceable regulations governing them. The latest FAA move is an attempt to create regulations governing them, though the question remains as to whether they have the authority to do so.

Particularly for those that keep insisting the FAA regulates model aircraft already and have done so "forever" http://dronelawjournal.com/ And for those who insist the FAA regulates the air around your head and regulates houses (and maybe fences and trees and perhaps can tell you that your grass needs to be trimmed) here is the US Supreme Court ruling that says otherwise: http://supreme.justia.com/case... That was a decision that did two things, confirmed that you don't own the airspace up to the heavens above your property but also made it clear that you had exclusive control of the airspace below what was defined as the navigable airspace. While the FAA might want to pretend they can regulate your toy hovercraft that flies 1/16th off the surface, they would lose in court. http://www.mainstreettoys.com/...

While there have been a few comments claiming otherwise, the simple fact is that not all airspace in the US can be regulated by the FAA. The US Supreme Court ruled in US v Causby in 1946 ""We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land.[9] The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense — by the erection of buildings and the like — is not material." The FAA has jurisdiction of the navigable airways, it does not have jurisdiction over YOUR use of the airspace immediately above your backyard and they cannot regulate the use of drones of model aircraft outside the navigable airspace any more than they can require you to get a permit to plant a tree in your backyard. Now the FAA won't admit it and likes to pretend that they have control of the air around your head, but it is clear from US v Causby that "must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere".

Buildings aren't "regulated by the FAA". I can assure you I didn't get the approval of the FAA to build my house or plant a tree.

If it doesn't exist what will Google return? If you want to claim that UFO's or a particular FAA regulation exists, you find it.

No more frisbees? How about rubber band powered balsa wood planes you used to buy for 25 cents? The FAA does not now have nor never has had jurisdiction of anything that flies.

The definition of what airspace they can regulate is questionable. For example, can they regulate baseball games just because a ball is hit up into the air? Frisbee throwing? Jumping off a diving board? That something goes up into the air doesn't mean the FAA has authority over it.

Not true. There is a hobbyist code of conduct that requires that but it wasn't a legal requirement.

Maybe you can do the research for us, show us where the FAA previously made it illegal for a hobbyist to fly a model aircraft out of line of sight. There is an informal hobbyist code of conduct that calls for that, but it was not a law or FAA rule.

Drone's are not "prohibited without special permission" and the FAA lost their case when they sought to ban commercial use of drones.

So if hundreds of thousands of people do it then it is a problem? Let's say 1 million people do it 1 million times 10 uW = 10W No, 10W siphoned off across 1 million homes is not significant at all. The "lower reach" impact of one of these is restricted to a transmitter within a few meters of the device and the impact is, as I already showed, minuscule to the point of being immeasurable. It's not sucking power from the transmitter, it is capturing power ALREADY TRANSMITTED and virtually all of that transmitted power never makes it to an antenna of any kind in the first place.

At home crying and wondering if it is too late to cancel their Tesla orders.

If "stealing" 10 uW of power is theft we should at least compute the value of that theft. 10uW for one year is 0.09Wh and at 20 cents/kWh that is approximately 2 thousandths of a penny. That's theft about as much as me stealing an apple by sniffing a few molecules of it at the grocery store.

I saw a car driving on the Interstate between Phoenix and Los Angeles. Therefore to claim that it is impossible to drive a car to the moon is ridiculous.

"Sadly, using drones for beer delivery is currently against the law in the USA" Perhaps someone can direct me to that law. The courts recently ruled that the FAA did not currently have the authority to ban commercial use of drones and fine those who flaunted the unlawful FAA rule.