That’s why I mentioned taking a long and broader view. Someone seeing only an existing law would view the landing as a violation, which, under current law, it is. With such a view the “violator” is guilty. But if the law itself was illegal, or outside the legal purview of the regulating body, who would be the actual violator? Those that enacted an unjust and illegal law or the person that challenged it?
I kind of see the situation as a major friction point between federal and local law, and in this case a situation that indirectly prohibits any flight from any location not designated for such purpose by a state regulating body. That includes drones as they are “aircraft”.
Sure, it’s semantics but law is literal and has to be enforced as written, not as interpreted. If the area law uses the word “aircraft” to qualify special use areas for such operation any cop could cite every person they see operating a drone, parasail, ultralight, whatever, from their personal property. The law begs challenge. That’s why I said a good, forward thinking attorney could make quite a name with this. A lazy common defense attorney would be a disservice to the client.
BTW, I’m having a lot of fun with this one[emoji56]