Over years, people have organized into groups that have hired law firms to litigate FAA into changing it's position.  Airplane noise, with changed takeoff/landing paths or new airport as causes, being one such example.

Has anyone seen any group(s) being formed to take Legal action, hire law firm(s), to block FAA's implementation of Remote ID?

Would like to check out such group(s), and possibly join with them in Legal action.  Being a drone owner / pilot, and taxpayer; feel our interests are being squashed by BIG $$$ Coporate interests, and FAA is rolling over.   With safety and security of public being used as excuse for need of Remote ID.   

Self-driving cars - 6 fatalities
Hobbyists drones - 0 fatalities

Hello and good day HedgeTrimmer. Thank you for creating this thread and for sharing these information with us. I hope that you will get multiple responses with regards to this matter from our valued DJI co pilots with regards to this matter on hand. Thank you for your valued support.

HedgeTrimmer - AFAIK there's no "legal action" that could be taken at this time.  The FAA rules are proposed, so there is nothing the courts could do.  A law firm could be hired to lobby the FAA to modify the rules that are finally adopted, and then bring action if the rules warrant it.  There's nothing wrong with having a lobbyist completely on the side of UAS pilots, and I don't think such a lobbyist is currently employed.
Right now, it seems to me that there are 3 avenues we can pursue to effect the FAA rules adoption:
1) Comment on the current NPRM (through March 1).  I'm still working on my comments, and I will post what I plan to write so that I get get feedback before I make it official.  One thing is certain, though, I will tender separate comments on each point that I disagree with.  I expect that the FAA will bitbucket any comment at the first sign it is "unworthy" for consideration, even if further points in the comment have merit.
2) Write your congressional representatives.  Yes, I know that there are other issues taking up congress' time right now, but ALL of the power that the FAA wields comes from congress.
3) Petition the FAA to make that changes you feel are needed.  We don't have to just react to FAA NPRMs, we can petition the FAA directly to request change.  They can fairly easily dismiss those petitions, but it does take official action to do so (they can't just ignore them).  I plan to post my petitions before I make them, also, but one example that I'm thinking of proposing is to raise the floor for manned aircraft flight to 1000', in areas where autonomous BVLOS deliveries are permitted.  Then, require autonomous BVLOS flights to fly the horizontal portion of their routes between 500 and 800 AGL.  

IndyRick Posted at 1-18 11:46
HedgeTrimmer - AFAIK there's no "legal action" that could be taken at this time.  The FAA rules are proposed, so there is nothing the courts could do.  A law firm could be hired to lobby the FAA to modify the rules that are finally adopted, and then bring action if the rules warrant it.  There's nothing wrong with having a lobbyist completely on the side of UAS pilots, and I don't think such a lobbyist is currently employed.
Right now, it seems to me that there are 3 avenues we can pursue to effect the FAA rules adoption:
1) Comment on the current NPRM (through March 1).  I'm still working on my comments, and I will post what I plan to write so that I get get feedback before I make it official.  One thing is certain, though, I will tender separate comments on each point that I disagree with.  I expect that the FAA will bitbucket any comment at the first sign it is "unworthy" for consideration, even if further points in the comment have merit.

That's a good ideal about raising the heights . current hobbyist drones record altitude from the take off point not the actual alt drone . When I take off in the flat and film a mountain or a hill my alt might read 800' but in reality I might be under 100' from the ground under the drone.  DJI or another manufacture should make something to read the UAV true height , with a way to retro fit .

2\29\2020 is the date a protest is being held in DC - right outside the FAA building

Roy Rogerstrade Posted at 2-8 17:12
2\29\2020 is the date a protest is being held in DC - right outside the FAA building

I personal am all for chipping in on a PR campaign . Anyone know Richard Branson # ?

Roy Rogerstrade Posted at 2-8 17:09
That's a good ideal about raising the heights . current hobbyist drones record altitude from the take off point not the actual alt drone . When I take off in the flat and film a mountain or a hill my alt might read 800' but in reality I might be under 100' from the ground under the drone.  DJI or another manufacture should make something to read the UAV true height , with a way to retro fit .

Max height is based on Above Ground Level (AGL). The take point height is just a reference. For example, if you are flying in hilly country and and the ground rises 1000' from take point, as long as you do not exceed 400' in height and distance from the hill you can legally fly that mission even though the height may read 1399' on your controller.

As to your third point, manned aircraft really don't have hard AGL limit. You can fly a plane right down to 0 AGL. The 500' "rule" is for maintaining 500' of separation when flying over people and/or infrastructure (buildings, bridges, cars, etc).