Still living in America

[Lone Star Arms 2,047]

When I read this article this morning, I laughed so hard I nearly fell out of my chair. Fair warning ya'll. It will warm your heart.....

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/65-year-old-woman-takes-out-drone-over-her-virginia-property-with-one-shot/

[David Mark 2,452]

Good for her! Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Duvall would have taken a shot at it himself.

 

 

[6500rpm 670]

Just another technology waiting for people to abuse. I gave State Farm permission to take high res pictures of my roof with a drone that netted them finding hail damage the claims agent that climbed on the roof had missed. I can see the same technology being used by crooks to survey potential targets at some point, it's really not much of a stretch. Good for her for knocking it down, hope she got a smile out of it.

[SHOTGUN MESIAH 855]

If city folk do that it is considered discharging firearm in the city limits which could land you in jail and possible loss of CCP and a whole slew of other shit you don't want.

You have to use something other than a firearm to take those fuckers down in the city. 

[gunfun 3,930]

You don't own the airspace over your land. Don't shoot other people's property. It's the same as if someone flew an airplane over your place, or any other remote control aircraft.

 

However, if you do think someone is harrassing or violating people's privacy as a peeping tom, call the cops on them and photograph them.

[Heartbreaker 1,085]

Ownership of airspace below 500 feet is a grey area. However if someone is disturbing or invading your privacy it's a little different. The problem is that it's hard to tell if a drone has a camera or not. Due to the fact that many do have cameras, you may be justified if you shoot down a drone over your property even if it ends up not having a camera. But until the rules are changed, it's just a big mess.

[gunfun 3,930]

If the camera is for FPV steerage, I don't think that gets you any convincing legal argument either. 

 

Shooting private property opens you up to a malicious mischief charge, with a firearms enhancement. If the value of the 'drone' ("RC helicopter" is the term I would use. We have easier controls now, but 'drones' are nothing new.) is over $700, in most states you are in felony land. This would be a retarded way to lose your gun and voting rights.

[netpackrat 566]

Supposedly the folks behind the "Can Cannon" are working on a net launcher for it.  Seems like just the thing for drones.

 

Edit to add; the case of Soviet Union v. Powers established fairly conclusively that a landowner owns as much of the airspace over his property, as his air defenses can reach.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Netpackrat

[patriot 7,197]

I wonder if you could snag one with a fly rod and jerk it out of the sky?

[gunfun 3,930]

Still same issues as the other method, minus firearm enhancement.

[Odd Man Out 1,283]

A good ole "Wrist Rocket".  Prove it...

[G O B 3,516]

WHERE you fly your drone makes a BIG difference. In a City, or out here in the real world. Trespassers get shot out here, whether they walk, fly, swim or slither!

[RED333 1,025]

Flyover is one thing, stopping or going back and forth is a whole new game. Yea air space is still a gray area, minimum aircraft alt is 500 ft., to me that means below 500 ft is mine till the courts say different.

[james lambert 3,059]

I would like to have a drone,  please fly a nice one over my house

[HB of CJ 1,263]

United States v Causby.  Old ruling back in 1947.  The Supreme Court ruled that private property owners "owned" the airspace above their land up to 87 feet.  If felt threatened or if a loss happens the land owner can take reasonable and appropriate action to protect their land and property?  Some help here please from some lawyers.  Is this ruling still valid?