Drone Shot Down

[gunfun 3,931]

Where can we all get "accurate time on target" information regarding the ins and outs and legalities of flying a drone closely overhead private property?  Things like FAA regulations and rules.  Minimum heights and stuff.  Spacing.  Noise ordinances?  Time of day?  ---- http://bfy.tw/14zU ------------

 

Peeping Tom long distance?  R/C perverts? Google helps http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/30.865. That should get you started.

 

If we all could learn up on the actual law in this matter, at least out here in OR, they might be laws that let you break one law in order to prevent a larger non legal act.  Thus like shooting a shotgun within city limits.  Out here you may be off the hook.  Just thinking. Google helps " code discharge of a firearm _some county/city__ oregon" That should get you started. The rest is easy to find, and if you need to be sure, because you have an actual situation, take your research and put it onto 1 page with links to the law. Bring that to an oregon lawyer and he will do the rest. 

 

We may also be REQUIRED to stop such an illegal act? Look up "necessity." However, something tells me that the remedy for trespass to real estate does not involve discharge of a firearm in city limits, nor malicious mischief (AKA trespass to chattels) Basically, you are asking, "does trespass to real property constitute a serious emergency, and if so is trespass to chattels in the neighborhood of $1800-$4,000 likely to be a "lesser harm?"                      Necessity tends to be about life and death stuff, and generally involves no viable other ways to deal with the problem. i.e. photographing it on your property and calling the sherrif, making him give you $5000 every time he crosses your property line....  it is also an affirmative defense, so you start by admitting guilt, then argue that the guilt was OK.   

 

This is a stretch.  Savage law? What exactly is that? If you find it on your property and if it was there thrugh non legally activity, then is it your property? That is well established law. Guess.  Possession being nine tenths of the law and stuff. Favorite quote of people who, know zero tenths of the law.  I for one have strong feelings about my private property and privacy being invaded. Me too. it starts with marking your property line. It ends with them getting arrested and paying you automatic damages. $$$ A few thousand each time can ease the pain. -- And provide incentive for respect to your rights.

 

REQUIRED in that such an illegal fly over endangers people?

Here is a mile high view of the rules.

 

http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-know-where-not-to-fly-your-drone/

Edited July 31, 2015 by GunFun

[storm6490 2,768]

Here's the flight data of the drone. The guy's story doesn't add up.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/update-drone-owner-disputes-suspects-claims-produces-video-claiming-to-show-flight-path

On the other hand, a good third party debt collector will call an expert witness that will describe how a 12 year old can set up and create a flight path like that in seconds. It's not a black box and can't prove shit.

 

I can make a flight path like that in minutes with the software provided. Besides, it's a DJI.... You shouldn't fly those pieces of consumer garbage anywhere near residential or crowds unless you are an experienced pilot and have a bond and insurance.

 

Quad copters are a lot of fun. Douche bags like the owner of this DJI piss off people with shotguns and create more attention than either group needs right now.

 

Both these dip shits should have handled this like men, kept the media out of it and squared things away locally.

 

Fucking disneyland US.

[G O B 3,516]

It is no longer a TOY when it has a camera. People have the right to privacy. Fly a camera over a persons house and YOU are invading their privacy. There was a 6' privacy fence - the drone is no different than if they had climbed a ladder with a Nikon Camera - PEEPING TOMS. 

It is unfortunate that this happened where it is not 'legal' to shoot a gun. The ONLY crime the shooter is guilty of is shooting a gun inside City limits. 

If equipped with a camera it is not a TOY, it is a surveillance instrument. It is the SAME as you physically being there with a camera.  Drone operators are second cousins to computer hackers.

[StealStick 17]

It is no longer a TOY when it has a camera. People have the right to privacy. Fly a camera over a persons house and YOU are invading their privacy. There was a 6' privacy fence - the drone is no different than if they had climbed a ladder with a Nikon Camera - PEEPING TOMS. 

It is unfortunate that this happened where it is not 'legal' to shoot a gun. The ONLY crime the shooter is guilty of is shooting a gun inside City limits. 

If equipped with a camera it is not a TOY, it is a surveillance instrument. It is the SAME as you physically being there with a camera.  Drone operators are second cousins to computer hackers.

While I understand the groups passionate stance on this and I believe in right to privacy non of your statements here are based on any fact. I'm not going to beat this dead horse anything further and make any further comments since the factual information I have already sited is being passed over for the sake of emotion.  But one more time before I give up on this thread.

A UAS aircraft flying for non commercial purposes under 55lbs is considered a "hobby" and having a camera mounted on it still legal doesn't make it anything more.

You do not own the indefinite airspace over your home. For residential zoning via the FAA air space is set to 80' unless tall structure require more allowance.

The homeowner broke more than just a discharging a firearm law he damaged private property firing into airspace he didn't own.

As far a people who like to fly in the comparison to hackers is ridiculous. I've been a IT person most of my professional life and now do much more with tech (govt). Advancements in technology are only going to make life harder for people wearing the tinfoil hat. 

[patriot 7,197]

 

It is no longer a TOY when it has a camera. People have the right to privacy. Fly a camera over a persons house and YOU are invading their privacy. There was a 6' privacy fence - the drone is no different than if they had climbed a ladder with a Nikon Camera - PEEPING TOMS. 

It is unfortunate that this happened where it is not 'legal' to shoot a gun. The ONLY crime the shooter is guilty of is shooting a gun inside City limits. 

If equipped with a camera it is not a TOY, it is a surveillance instrument. It is the SAME as you physically being there with a camera.  Drone operators are second cousins to computer hackers.

While I understand the groups passionate stance on this and I believe in right to privacy none of your statements here are based on any fact. I'm not going to beat this dead horse anything further and make any further comments since the factual information I have already sited is being passed over for the sake of emotion.  But one more time before I give up on this thread.

A UAS aircraft flying for non commercial purposes under 55lbs is considered a "hobby" and having a camera mounted on it still legal doesn't make it anything more. SITE Statutes Please.

You do not own the indefinite airspace over your home. SITE Statutes Please. 

For residential zoning via the FAA air space is set to 80' unless tall structure require more allowance. SITE Statutes Please. UNDER 80' is then PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The homeowner broke more than just a discharging a firearm law he damaged private property firing into airspace he didn't own. SEE ABOVE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT. SITE Statutes Please. UNDER 80' is then PRIVATE PROPERTY.

As far a people who like to fly in the comparison to hackers is ridiculous. I've been a IT person most of my professional life and now do much more with tech (govt). Advancements in technology are only going to make life harder for people wearing the tinfoil hat. 

 

You make claims. See above. Back them up with LAW.

 

eta: I live in a CASTLE DOCTRINE state.

Edited July 31, 2015 by patriot

[magsite20 1,664]

1st time I see one I'd let it go and check with the people that live in the area to see if it was theirs

 

2nd time it came around if no one said they were playing with one I'd get buck naked out in the yard

and wave. make a note of the time and events.

 

if it came back after that I'd break out the shotgun with #6 and break the perverts toy. I can't imagine some one crying to the authorities about their broken toy and explaining the 3rd trip.

[chevyman097 2,579]

So weasel 272 feet up you say? That's about 90 yards up. Shooting something down at that range with a shotgun would be almost laughable. But hey. Keep on defending the rights of pervs and privacy invasion.

[gunfun 3,931]

 

 

It is no longer a TOY when it has a camera. People have the right to privacy. Fly a camera over a persons house and YOU are invading their privacy. There was a 6' privacy fence - the drone is no different than if they had climbed a ladder with a Nikon Camera - PEEPING TOMS. 

It is unfortunate that this happened where it is not 'legal' to shoot a gun. The ONLY crime the shooter is guilty of is shooting a gun inside City limits. 

If equipped with a camera it is not a TOY, it is a surveillance instrument. It is the SAME as you physically being there with a camera.  Drone operators are second cousins to computer hackers.

While I understand the groups passionate stance on this and I believe in right to privacy none of your statements here are based on any fact. I'm not going to beat this dead horse anything further and make any further comments since the factual information I have already sited is being passed over for the sake of emotion.  But one more time before I give up on this thread.

A UAS aircraft flying for non commercial purposes under 55lbs is considered a "hobby" and having a camera mounted on it still legal doesn't make it anything more. SITE Statutes Please.

You do not own the indefinite airspace over your home. SITE Statutes Please. 

For residential zoning via the FAA air space is set to 80' unless tall structure require more allowance. SITE Statutes Please. UNDER 80' is then PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The homeowner broke more than just a discharging a firearm law he damaged private property firing into airspace he didn't own. SEE ABOVE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT. SITE Statutes Please. UNDER 80' is then PRIVATE PROPERTY.

As far a people who like to fly in the comparison to hackers is ridiculous. I've been a IT person most of my professional life and now do much more with tech (govt). Advancements in technology are only going to make life harder for people wearing the tinfoil hat. 

 

You make claims. See above. Back them up with LAW.

 

eta: I live in a CASTLE DOCTRINE state. If I don't want someone flying there, it MUST LEAVE or be subject to LETHAL force.

 

 

 

That is not how the castle doctrine works.  The castle doctrine only creates a presumption of reasonable fear for your life from an intruder. Presumptions still have to hold up to scrutiny. They can be rebutted. The story still has to make sense, and you still have to be ACTUALLY AFRAID FOR YOUR LIFE RIGHT NOW, in order to justify lethal force.

 

The castle doctrine emphatically does not allow you to shoot at anything or anyone on your property for any reason. That is willful ignorance of the law. Hearing people say this stuff, just makes me angry. The castle doctrine is important for people actually defending their lives. Don't undermine it by trying to make it give you the right to shoot random stuff or people. You know that can't be how the law works.

 

Would any society really allow this situation: College kids playing frisbee. Frisbee goes over fence. Landowner pulls out gun. 20 year old goes over fence for frisbee. Landowner shoots frisbee and 20 year old. Landowner says "they were on my property, see the fence? I can do what I want." Society and cops, look around see the fence, and agree with landowner.

 

You know absolutely that would not and should not fly. You know that it can't be and is not the law. Don't repeat stupid stuff please.

[gunfun 3,931]

^^^^ - 100 points for GunFun for failure to recognise sarcasm.

[horatio 515]

^^^ don't sweat it too much gunfun I missed it to. + 150 points because gunfun is a well balanced member that this forum both needs and is appreciated.

 

+ 100 to patriot for some salty humor.

[XD45 7,124]

I'm not an expert but from what I've read about drones they have a return home failsafe in case of lost signal.  They don't crash like a radio control airplane.

 

So jamming seems like a good "non violent" option.

[gunfun 3,931]

Other than that broadcasting jamming signals is the "interference" that all the FCC rules and labels talk about. It might be practical but I don't think it would fly for long. Also the homing feature is based on gps, which requires a sat signal...

[NM0 586]

Removing them from the air might be our patriotic duty one of these days. Noticed UK had a warning last week.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/homeland-security-warns-drones-could-be-used-in-attacks/

 

I remember growing up where there were certain backyards you didn't retrieve the ball or Frisbee.  Everyone had to knock on door so no shots got fired.  Also remember trespasser warning shots on rural private property and some farmlands.  Those were different times with extremely different respect and rude levels.

 

[NM0 586]

GunFun is right.  Can't shoot them down.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/theres-a-drone-flying-over-my-house-can-i-shoot-125546065994.html

 

On a more positive note....the races look very cool.

 

http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/07/29/the-latest-tech-sport-taking-the-country-by-storm-drone-racing/

 

[G O B 3,516]

I moved to Central Texas. Here i can DAMNED WELL shoot it down! 

Of course if I do the neighbors will want to join in! Gunfire is something we hear every day here! 

Attitudes are a matter of geography-flying a drone over someones home in this rural area would be considered 'unfriendly'. We PRIDE ourselves on being friendly,

20 miles closer to Austin, where the McMansions on dime sized lots start it would be another story, there the HOA would force you out for discharging a gun for any reason! 

[gunfun 3,931]

Yeah, you are wrong about texas law too. The remedy for trespass is not property destruction. There are two property rights being protected here. One of them is land.

[patriot 7,197]

It's interesting that the OP stopped trolling his thread here.

...he just dropped his deuce and beat feet.

Edited August 1, 2015 by patriot

[horatio 515]

I've been following this thread since it started. Can't really comment too much on what occurred. I believe gunfun is doing a very good job of reminding us what the law is to keep our stuff straight.

 

Haven't seen any drones in my neighborhood, but I'm still looking into what I can do. Briefly looked into jamming radio signals but a lot of vague Internet research said its illegal to jam radio signals. Or at least, to own the equipment that can do it. Is any if that true?

 

Seems like a fun project to try, but if building a jammer is illegal, if just as soon shoot the damn thing and deal with that. ETA also noticed most of the jamming stuff I skimmed jammed in the 500-1000 MHz range. My 2 minute amazon drone research seems to show most operate in the 2.4ghz range. I have a couple members ill pm for clarification.

 

As a side note, I've looked a bit into paintball guns. Ill do some research, but I'm pretty sure a paintball gun would jack up a drone pretty bad. Obviously not one 300 feet in the air as that guy "claims" his was.( I'm with Stryker on this one. I don't buy the flight plan schtick. ) But at the least you could hit the camera with paint. And those rotors are pretty delicate.... And no getting arrested for discharging a firearm.

Edited August 1, 2015 by fatty alcohol

[patriot 7,197]

A signal generator and RF amp isn't illegal, and that's all you'd need if you wanted to transmit on those frequencies. You'd need enough power to override any signals coming from the attacking transmitter. A bit of research on RF signal generators and amplifiers in the UHF range 10 watts or above will yield decent results, but will not be cheap. It's a lot of money to spend to knock a cheap RC copter down.

 

 

eta: USING it to intentionally jam IS illegal, and penalties are stiff.

 

An anonymous hit with a cheap BB gun would do the deed and most likely get written off to malicious kids.

Edited August 1, 2015 by patriot

[HB of CJ 1,263]

Thank you GunFun.  Also thanks to everybody who has spent a lot of time and effort on this one lone thread.  It appears drones are not going to go away.  Kinda like the skateboards of the 1960s.  This is what happens when teck get better and privacy rights get diluted?  Is there a cure?  Dunno.

[gunfun 3,931]

I've been following this thread since it started. Can't really comment too much on what occurred. I believe gunfun is doing a very good job of reminding us what the law is to keep our stuff straight.

 

Haven't seen any drones in my neighborhood, but I'm still looking into what I can do. Briefly looked into jamming radio signals but a lot of vague Internet research said its illegal to jam radio signals. Or at least, to own the equipment that can do it. Is any if that true?

 

Seems like a fun project to try, but if building a jammer is illegal, if just as soon shoot the damn thing and deal with that. ETA also noticed most of the jamming stuff I skimmed jammed in the 500-1000 MHz range. My 2 minute amazon drone research seems to show most operate in the 2.4ghz range. I have a couple members ill pm for clarification.

 

As a side note, I've looked a bit into paintball guns. Ill do some research, but I'm pretty sure a paintball gun would jack up a drone pretty bad. Obviously not one 300 feet in the air as that guy "claims" his was.( I'm with Stryker on this one. I don't buy the flight plan schtick. ) But at the least you could hit the camera with paint. And those rotors are pretty delicate.... And no getting arrested for discharging a firearm.

 

Quality paint in a decent gun with a good bore match will pattern about 4'-9" at a hundred yards. It does have a shelf life. There are also ReBalls, and First strike rounds.... I am not saying it is a legal idea, but I kinda doubt a cop would hassle you about it, vs outright destroying things. See also http://projectsentrygun.rudolphlabs.com/

First strike rounds are about 1/3 the group size of conventional paint, cost 15- 20 cents each instead of 2, and give about half again more effective range. They need to be single fed or use one of the several stick mag fed guns. You will want sights or an opting, and good air regulation if you want good groups.

I may not know all the ins and outs of quadrotor law, nor will I profess to advise on it. I do know paintball gear intimately. I think I can fairly claim to be an expert. I have built and modified lots of them, and sometimes even took paid airsmithing jobs. I know what they can do and what they can't.

 

p.s. first strike rounds have indefinite shelf life. Most of the guns made for them have so-so regulation systems, so they aren't getting the max potential from the ammo. That's why I started to build a first strike autococker, and had it about 70% built for the last 4 years. Life got in the way. I figure it will be a lot of fun with my grenade launcher (which is better used as a paintball punt gun.)

 

 

An anonymous hit with a cheap BB gun would do the deed and most likely get written off to malicious kids.

 

 

I kinda doubt that unless you hit something critical. these things mostly use cell phone components to do the work. They are mostly a light weight empty frame. Hence that video a couple years ago from some 'rotor company having theirs shot a bunch of times with birdshot before it came down. Then they replaced something like a a battery and a snap on rotor and had it flying again in about 30 seconds.- IIRC The thing was peppered with holes, but nothing critical quit working until after maybe a dozen or so direct hits. The memory is crusty and rusty, but the gist of what I am saying here is right.

[G O B 3,516]

 I was talking about drones with my liberal Democrat neighbor yesterday, her FIRST words on the subject "that would get shot down in a HURRY around here."      I moved here for the attitude as well as the climate!

 This morning alone, I have heard at least 4 different neighbors target practicing. (sound travels a long way here)

Those who live in places with a higher population density will have all sorts of trouble shooting at drones, here they have the same status as stop signs,      Targets!

 

 I have a question for all of you - What happens when some asshat uses one to film one over a concert? This puts many people at danger and brings up intellectual property and copy right protection issues. Stadiums and LARGE gatherings of people are no fly zones, but what about the thousands of smaller venues? If I have a bonfire and some friends are playing music that THEY composed , are THEY protected from intellectual property theft?

[NM0 586]

Drones are in the news daily now at airports, etc.  

 

Like GOB, the rural area I live in has neighbors that will shoot them down...regardless of any law.  If the authorities get called (and actually show up) it will be interesting to see how serious they take the incident.  Civil lawsuit is the only thing I believe will happen around here.

 

It's interesting that the OP stopped trolling his thread here.

...he just dropped his deuce and beat feet.

 

You made me laugh patriot.  Maybe I should of posted topic in the "Shit talking thread".

[Capt Nemo 882]

 

 I have a question for all of you - What happens when some asshat uses one to film one over a concert? This puts many people at danger and brings up intellectual property and copy right protection issues. Stadiums and LARGE gatherings of people are no fly zones, but what about the thousands of smaller venues? If I have a bonfire and some friends are playing music that THEY composed , are THEY protected from intellectual property theft?

 

They were puIIing that at C0untry USA!  The r0ad crews want them dusted if p0ssibIe!  Yes, it is theft 0f inteIIectuaI pr0perty.  The ticket h0Iders have paid f0r the right t0 see the c0ncert.  The 0nIy vide0 dr0nes aII0wed w0uId be the pr0duct0n vide0 crews.  Any0ne eIse is c0mmiting c0pyright theft.

 

It's a standard uni0n stagehand w0rk ruIe; N0 CAMERAS BACKSTAGE!

 

Besides the music, the set, the Iighting, c0stumes, and the s0und design are c0pyrighted and ph0t0s are n0t aII0wed 0f them.

[NM0 586]

More media on drones. 

 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/03/drone-sighting-jfk-airport-shuttle-america/

 

More regulations to follow.

[storm6490 2,768]

Well fuck. The real problem is the operator. Quad copters, commly called drones by the media for attention, were unstable and hard to fly up untill a few years ago when computer technology made it easy for anybody to control a stabilized quad copter.

 

So basically, any swinging dick with a little bit of cash can obtain a ready to fly RTF hobby grade quad copter with a shitty camera and gimble and start flying without ever learning the rules of flying hobby aircraft or even safety measure enthusiast use to keep their fingers intact, eyes working and friends and spectators out of the hospital.

 

If they ban quad copters, fuck it. I will just pick up a collective pitch helicopter. They are ten times harder to fly but will do the same damn thing as a MEDIA DRONE and have been around since I was a kid.

 

With all the jackasses operating these things, it wont be long before uncle sammy gets his greasy commie fingers all over RC hobby grade aircraft.

[gunfun 3,931]

That's the funny thing here. There have been RC airplanes since probably the 1920s or 30s and people are freaking out like there is something new. Nope. Just easier to fly. 

[NM0 586]

Just easier to fly. 

 

equals

 

With all the jackasses operating these things, it wont be long before uncle sammy gets his greasy commie fingers all over RC hobby grade aircraft.

 

Recently picked one up for a new program at work.  Will be fun to try it out.  Skill required to fly things has changed a lot.  Growing up I had a lot of fun with gliders, some gas prop planes and few fast cars.  Ran different frequency because my dad was HAM radio.  Helicopters were way out of our skill and price range.

[chevyman097 2,579]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33791411

 

Drones delivering drugs to prisons.

[storm6490 2,768]

 

Just easier to fly. 

 

equals

 

With all the jackasses operating these things, it wont be long before uncle sammy gets his greasy commie fingers all over RC hobby grade aircraft.

 

Recently picked one up for a new program at work.  Will be fun to try it out.  Skill required to fly things has changed a lot.  Growing up I had a lot of fun with gliders, some gas prop planes and few fast cars.  Ran different frequency because my dad was HAM radio.  Helicopters were way out of our skill and price range.

 

Awesome! The Dromida Ominus is a good learner as well as the Blade Qc. Get yourself an Estes Proto X or nano from Hubsan for inside or the office to keep your skills sharp. They are only 30 bucks and very sensitive. Anybody can fly one but it takes a serious ammount of training and time to make them dance. Here is a surgeon of the FPV racing world. One of the best in the world. He pilots for ImmersionRC, a company that makes the Tromix of quadcopter equipment. They specalize in programming and tranceiver system.

 

I'm just into it for fun and relaxation but I know there will be a time when I can no longer ride my motorcycle, hike the mountains or ski out towing an elk behind me in a sled. At this point, I will be inside next to the fire with a FPV headset on and tranceiver running a quad up the mountain so I can go skiing, hiking or just send it down to the lake to see if the water if calm. If I ever get stuck in a bed, my gear will keep me sane.

 

https://youtu.be/1MBW8zoZUR4