Posted on 03/22/2025 7:45:57 AM PDT by DoodleBob
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KY3)—The House Committee on Homeland Security Chair is promising new federal drone legislation this year. We’ve recently had a lot of discussion on Unmanned Aircraft Systems after drone scares in New Jersey.
So, our viewer Jen wants to know; If we see drones hovering over our property, what rights do we have to take them down? Can you shoot them down?
Congress may not have written the word drone in the Aircraft Sabotage Act back in 1984 but the act is now the law of the land. It protects all aircraft... and that includes drones.
“If you shoot at it,” explained Grant Rahmeyer of Rah Law. “You could be subject to some serious criminal penalties, both federal penalties for shooting at what they would consider a drone as an aircraft. There are state law penalties as well for negligently discharging firearms..., which specifically list aircraft as well.”
The FAA sent us this statement: It’s illegal under federal law to shoot at an aircraft. A private citizen shooting at any aircraft – including unmanned aircraft – poses a significant safety hazard. 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. Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in a civil penalty from the FAA and/or criminal charges filed by federal, state, or local law enforcement. Congress gave certain federal agencies authority to counter credible threats from drones. Generally speaking, it is legal to fly a drone in most locations if you’re operating under 400 feet, but there are rules—including safety tests, keeping below 400 feet, keeping the drone in sight, avoiding all other aircraft, not causing a hazard to any people or property, and avoiding restricted airspace.
If you have a drone circling your property, Rahmeyer says you should photograph it, videotape it, and document it in any way possible. Then, call the authorities with your documentation. You could then pursue a nuisance-type claim against the drone operator.
One more thing to keep in mind, many cities restrict the discharge of firearms in city limits.
To answer Jen’s question; NO, you do not have the right to shoot down a drone.
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.