It's not nitpicking. It would be a land use regulation and thus not subject to FAA jurisdiction. Please stop spreading misinformation and read this document focusing specifically on the following quote:
- Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf
If that isn't clear enough, you can read this lawyers interpretation of all relevant drone laws he is in agreement with me and others on this.
Drone Law Journal
I think we'll simply agree to disagree for now, time will shake this all out. As for your links,
Because Federal registration is the exclusive means for registering UAS for purposes of operating an aircraft in navigable airspace, no state or local government may impose an additional registration requirement on the operation of UAS in navigable airspace without first obtaining FAA approval.
Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the operation or flight of aircraft. If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating UAS in the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling the airspace and flight patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow
.
State and local drone law.
State and local governments may, however, regulate two things related to flight:
- They may regulate their own agencies' drone flight operations; and
- They may regulate the locations on the ground from which drones may be launched, landed or operated.
That's it. State and local governments cannot regulate drones in any other manner. They can of course use laws of
general applicability (such as voyeurism, reckless endangerment, nuisance, etc.) to prohibit certain
acts, which would apply to a drone pilot, if a drone happened to be the
objectused to perform the prohibited
act. They
could also pass unnecessary and duplicative criminal statutes specific to drones, but they'd be essentially meaningless since existing criminal statutes would already cover those crimes regardless of whether they were committed with a drone.
Update (March 9, 2015): In
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (March 9 2015), the Supreme Court held that agency interpretations of statutes and regulations are
not legislative rules, and accordingly do
not require agencies to follow the APA's notice and comment procedures. The Court further held that as non-legislative rules, agency
interpretations do not have the force and effect of law, and only indicate to the public what an agency perceives the law to be.
I appreciate you supplying the links.