Posted on 03/22/2025 7:45:57 AM PDT by DoodleBob
alexander_busek wrote: “Airspace starts 400 ft above the ground. If a drone is hovering at less than 400 ft above your property: Shoot, shovel, and shut up.”
It also ends at your property boundaries. Hope you’re real good at estimating distances. Plus, most municipalities have laws against discharging firearms.
No, you did not.
For some reason the statement "But if the pilot had been flying at 84' it would have been perfectly ok with us because no one owns that space durpa durpa" is no where to be found in that opinion. Because they were not totally drugged out of their gourds.
It made a difference to both Farmer Causby and the United States Supreme Court. (See: United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946))
You really can not help yourself can you.
Here is the link Causby v. United States, 75 F. Supp. 262 - Court of Claims 1948
In the foregoing findings of fact we have described the easement taken by the defendant as the right to fly its planes through the airspace over plaintiffs' property at altitudes between 83 feet and 365 feet above the surface of the ground.
83 feet was the ground because none of the planes flew lower then that. 365 was the top because 300 feet was the lowest the CAA had established as minimum safe altitude and 65 feet was the tallest object on the farm.
They ruled that the planes flying between 83' and 365' were imposing servitude on the owner of the property.
Your contention that 83 feet was the ceiling is just not supported by anything at all.
They make something like a shotgun, that uses compressed air to project balls tied to a net. That is not discharge of a firearm. If I knew where to get one, I would have it “just in case. I’ve seen it used to snare an eagle or to trip up a game type animal before.
I'm amazed that you actually read it and provided relevent cites.
Now, cite where it's legal to shoot a drone flying over your property at an altitude of less than 400' AGL.
Yes you can. The question then becomes, "Can you deal with the consequences?".
12 gauge 3” magnum turkey loads.
Love those buffered BBs.
If a drone flew above my yard with cameras, filming people in my yard, I would consider it an invasion of my privacy and it would be removed.
Like shooting fish in a barrel, so to speak...
alexander_busek: ""What do you mean? An African or European swallow?" Sandbagging!
You are attempting to disrupt the flow of conversation by overwhelming me with seemingly relevant but involved technical questions.
alexander_busek: See no reason why an airport should be afforded greater use, enjoyment, or protection of its airspace than I.
Ol' Dan Tucker: Do you have aircraft operations on your property? How many airplanes take-off and land at your property?
That's for me to know, and you to find out!
Are you attempting to imply that a person who has paid the five bucks processing fee (or whatever it is) to have his rural property registered as an emergency airstrip somehow has a greater right to freedom of harassment by drones?
You are implicitly claiming / proceeding from the premise that an entity known as an "airport" somehow has more rights to control its land and protect itself from harassment than I do to protect my wife and children.
The Constitution does not recognize any such "multi-tiered" rights of ownership / self-defense.
Regards,
An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air.
This is a newspaper article intended to raise its readers' hackles and/or attract "clicks." The writer of the article is biased, and presents arguments only in favor of the drone-operator. The article also exaggerates the possibility of damage to adjacent property. And the fact that the drone, itself, would be damaged is beside the point: That's actually what the shooter intends!
Let me make that clear by reformulating that passage with a greater consideration of the violated family's perspective:
'An unmanned aircraft conducting long-term surveillance, for nefarious purposes, of an innocent family, and recording images of that family in swimmwear, relaxing at the poolside, etc., when hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air - though that wouldn't at all be the case in a rural area, and besides: the neighbors would probably applaud the shooter and not mind at all the fact that their bed of petunias was damaged by the hit drone falling from the sky in flames.'Regards,
Racketeer wrote: “If a drone flew above my yard with cameras, filming people in my yard, I would consider it an invasion of my privacy and it would be removed.”
And, you could be prosecuted under any number of laws; discharging a firearm, reckless endangerment, etc. Hope you don’t mind losing your firearms for felony convictions.
You all are arguing with each other SO MUCH that you failed to see the obvious answer.
When you down the Drone, paint DONALD TRUMP-AF1 on the fuselage and not only will you get away with it, they will probably give you a Good Citizen Award.
I go to a park and there used to be 4 guys back before 2020 that for a few years who sat in chairs flying one or two drones and would buzz people walking around. Not seen since. I hoped the virus got them.
I have a water fountain in my yard that sporadically fires off spouts of water inadvertently from time to time. It has even provided high flying birds “in-flight” bird baths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.