Tweet
Charlottesville City Hall. The city just became the first in the USA to pass a resolution restricting the use of drones.
Shortly after 11 p.m. on Monday, February 4th, the City Council of Charlottesville, Va., passed what is believed to be the first anti-drone resolution in the country. According to my notes, and verifiable soon on the City Council’s website, the resolution reads:
WHEREAS, the rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the United States poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia have thus far failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the United States; and
WHEREAS, police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology absent any guidance or guidelines from law makers;
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, endorses the proposal for a two year moratorium on drones in the state of Virginia; and calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court, and precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being; and pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones.
The same City Council passed a resolution on January 17, 2012, calling for an end to drone wars, as well as ground wars, excessive military spending, and any possible attack on Iran.
The wording of Monday’s resolution comes largely from a draft suggested by the Rutherford institute. An initial line was deleted and two amendments were made to the final paragraph, one endorsing a two-year moratorium on drones (something that had passed in committee in both houses of the Virginia legislature as of Saturday in the House and Monday in the Senate), the other committing the City not to use drones for surveillance or assault.
The wording was not as comprehensive as the draft that had appeared in the City Council’s official agenda for Monday’s meeting, a draft I had authored. See it here in the city agenda or on my website.
At the previous meeting of the City Council on January 7, 2013, I and a few other residents had spoken in support of a resolution, and three of the five city council members agreed to put it on the agenda for the February 4th meeting. Some of the public comments were excellent, and the video of the meeting is on the city’s website.
On Monday, citizens speaking in favor of the anti-drone resolution dominated the public speaking period at the beginning of the meeting, shortly after 7 p.m. Many were quite eloquent, and the video will be available soon on the city’s site. The council members did not discuss and vote on the matter until shortly after 11 p.m. The discussion was quite brief, coming on the heels of hours devoted to other matters.
The same three city council members who had put the item on the agenda voted in favor of the resolution, passing it by a vote of 3-2. They were Dave Norris, Dede Smith, and Satyendra Sing Huja. Norris and Smith negotiated the slight improvements to the Rutherford Institute’s draft with Huja, who initially favored passing that draft as it was written. Norris and Smith favored banning the City from purchasing drones, but Council Member Kristin Szakos argued that there might be a positive use for a drone someday, such as for the fire department. Kathy Galvin joined Szakos in voting No.
Norris has been a leader on the City Council for years and sadly will not be running for reelection at the end of his current term.
Following the January meeting, I submitted my draft to the city, asked people to phone and email the council members, published a column in the local daily newspaper, and organized an event in front of City Hall on Sunday, the day before the vote. Anti-drone activist John Heuer from North Carolina delivered a giant model drone produced by New York anti-drone activist Nick Mottern. Our little stunt produced coverage on the two television channels and in the newspaper. I asked people to commit to attending the meeting on a FaceBook page. The room ended up packed, and when I asked those who supported the resolution to stand, most of the room did so.
No organized pro-drone lobby ever developed. We met and confronted the argument that localities shouldn’t lobby states or Washington. And, of course, some people are opposed to drones in the United States but eager to see them used however the President may see fit abroad. Charlottesville’s City Council ended up not including the section in my draft that instructed the federal government to end its practice of extrajudicial killing. But there was no discussion on that point, and several other sections, including one creating a local ordinance, were left out as well. The problem there, according to Smith, was that “we don’t own the air.”
Yet, we should. And Oregon is attempting to do so with its draft state legislation.
In the past, Charlottesville has passed resolutions that have inspired other localities and impacted federal and state policies. Let us hope this one is no exception.
Photo by Bob Mical released under a Creative Commons license.
18 Comments
This is great news. I hope more municipalities do this, including those where I go.
I wonder if – since the Feds and some localities will Drone on – I wonder if any towns will install anti-aircraft gunneries.
Great work, David. I hope many other cities follow this lead.
“Whereas” their insufferable pipsqueak insolence; “Whereas” their insufficient Adoration of the Obama; “Whereas” their lawless insubordination in a time of permawar- these council members shall be drummed out of the Dronocrat Party.
No – not drummed out, droned out!
According to the new drone rules this action could be considered an “imminent” threat because it is banning the use of a weapon designed to keep us safe. Where does Obama draw the line? or the next Imperial President? or the infallable supreme leader of Amerika?
While this is a much needed, and I hope replicated action, it will have little short term effect on DHS or other lovers of technology outpacing the law or common sense. The US government, in the guise of the FAA control all airspace, not local government. I know the civilian pilot population is generally pissed at the prospect of unmanned aircraft sharing airspace while they fly their friends and family mixing with crews, aircraft and operations of various quality. The AOPA, EAA and other alphabet organizations need to push local county and city boards to resist the further militarization of our police and country.
They thought they might “scare the horses.”
I’m beginning to like Charlottesville, VA. Of course, it is also home to Thomas Jefferson’s University of Virginia, whose students and faculty distinguished themselves last summer by revolting against their president being forced to resign by a reactionary, anti-liberal arts governing board,leading to her reinstatement. The anti-drone resolution is also a bigger deal than some might think: Both actions attest to a growing realization among the body politic in this country that things have to change.
And Jefferson would be proud of today’s UVa, the City Council, and you too, DS.
“Line, line? We dun’t need no stinkin’ line. ”
“You’re gonna need a bigger line”.
I agree with the thrust of this, but disagree. I was on my local Council when we had an active shooter situation. He was holed up in a house and ultimately found dead (suicide). But the police were barricaded outside at a distance. There were several hours of uncertainty about a potential hostage situation.
I feel that in well-defined situations, such as active shooters, police should have drones to try to peer into windows, etc.
But it should be *very* limited… at least until we can get a better collective understanding of drones.
Funny. Just last night I attended a meeting and asked about it. Neither the Council nor the Manager had any idea if our local police were using them. So I’ll bring it up during the upcoming police budget meeting. But I do think there are real situations where it would be worthwhile for the police to have gone to brookstone and bought a $300 drone that can display video on your iPad.
And I totally agree on prohibiting weaponized drones… the I know The Emperor likes his toys and kill list.
guess they’ll just have to use helicopters and unmarked vans and police will have to just gun people down the old fashioned way.
Really all they are doing is dealing with one tool. The issue should be intrusive spying and harming citizens in general. It just seems irrelevant to me if tear gas is launched from a drone, helicopter or just fired from shotgun.
Good work, David!
Yay, Charlottesville!
What it boils down to isn’t too complicated. The FAA Act of 1958 assigns purview to the Federal Gov’t in this matter. So when it’s in the air, the Feds pretty much rule.
Still, Charlottesville’s resolution is useful to frame the issue in the political realm. It doesn’t do more, except suggest the town, itself, doesn’t intend to go about buying and flying its own drone.
Over the years there have been some cases where states and municipalities have tried to intervene in Fed aviation matters. One I recall is from at least as long ago as 1980, when SC tried to invoke state “rules of the air” which were in conflict with the Fed rules at that time. A lot of time was wasted that way, and it got shelved.
When I was in the USAF I spent a few years on assignment to an FAA Region (1980s) and recall occasionally an issue would come up at local levels. It was usually due to local officials not knowing how to pursue what they wanted, and coordinating through the national airspace system.
You won’t hear this on your local news – mine’s more interested in space port shenanigans and enticing business to pretty please come sample our tax free environment. But here’s the blueprint:
“Following the January meeting, I submitted my draft to the city, asked people to phone and email the council members, published a column in the local daily newspaper, and organized an event in front of City Hall on Sunday, the day before the vote. Anti-drone activist John Heuer from North Carolina delivered a giant model drone produced by New York anti-drone activist Nick Mottern. Our little stunt produced coverage on the two television channels and in the newspaper. I asked people to commit to attending the meeting on a FaceBook page. The room ended up packed, and when I asked those who supported the resolution to stand, most of the room did so.”
Sounds straightforward to me. Recommended.
And who will decide what constitutes “well-defined” and *very* limited? Hey, maybe they could expand the definition and use them for “suspected” drug users. Fill up the prisons. You will actually bring up spending money for drones to spy on people?
Oh, piss. They’ve got the weapons, the vests, and anything else their little hearts desire (if it has to do with law enforcement, just ask Homeland Security and our taxpayer dollars will provide it). It was one, stinking man. He committed suicide, anyway. Good grief.