Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
if I had a gun I might shoot it simply out of habit:
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Father, Son Caught By Surprise As Drone Shot Out Of Sky
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
Quickly read through those links and none of those say you own 500' of airspace above your property.
Why not? Seems like the only thing that's important is if it has a camera and is over your property. If it meets these criteria, then fire away! /s
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,752
Then you have comprehension issues and I cannot help you there.
Except he's right, and what those articles state is that you definitely *don't* own the space 500-feet plus, and that you possibly *might* own the space below that and there is at least one case showing that flying at about 80 feet was held to be an invasion of pirvacy. There is no explicit ruling stating that an owner does, or does not, have any kind of ownership over the airspace between the ground and 500-feet. What happens in-between the ground and 500-feet will likely continue to be determined on a case-by-case basis, unless the FAA seeks to and is successful in having that boundary lowered.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,752
And until the FAA or some other government agency clarifies the limit, a property owner has every right to believe they own that 500 feet.
You can believe you own it if you want to, but the law doesn't lay that out explicitly was my point. What any of this has to do with shooting things with a shotgun is beyond me. Surely you own your driveway, but if you find a strange car parked there one morning that doesn't mean you can fill it full of bullet holes.
Because he argued that since the drone was under 500' it was trespassing and that somehow justified shooting at it (which is stupid). But even if you assumed that was correct, it doesn't make it legal to shoot at it. You can't shoot someone for stepping on your yard, even if they are holding a camera and filming...
Ocean
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,927
I will never be a good enough shot to shoot down a drone without the possibility of missing and hitting someone on the ground behind it.
But I will shoot dogs (also property) that have electronics on their collars, cameras are getting small. One can never be too safe. The internet might end up seeing how small my dick is.
Sarcasm
But I will shoot dogs (also property) that have electronics on their collars, cameras are getting small. One can never be too safe. The internet might end up seeing how small my dick is.
Sarcasm
Last edited:
Just let us know about the first person getting arrested for shooting down a drone that is hovering low on their property, because so far it has not been trialed except for that one case were it was actually A-OK for the drone to be shot down.
There is max range, there is effective kill range, and even if you want to consider that a range effective enough to take down a drone and cause significant injuries is twice that of the effective kill range, it is nowhere even close to 1000ft
Effective Ranges for Buckshot, Birdshot and Slugs | Remington 870, Accessories, Upgrades, Tactical, Reviews, Forum
That is the reason why when drones are taken out with slugs so far it has been considered "fair" or that the drone owner was flying it too low, significantly under their statements of "300 ft" or whatever they claimed last time such a news appeared here. People may lie, but physics, damn, those can be helped and bent a little but they won't lie
Question:
You are in your (privacy) fenced in back yard, working on your garden when one of these enthusiast grade, multi rotor, remote operated machines decides to stop by. You are a bold person, but your Krieghoff K-80 ACS Unsingle is where it should be, in your safe. Since all drone owners are obviously pervs (sarcasm), you decide to give the operator what they want. You strip and taunt the perv-bot.
Unknown to you, the operator is a minor, flying the perv-bot under adult supervision.
Can you get in trouble?
You are in your (privacy) fenced in back yard, working on your garden when one of these enthusiast grade, multi rotor, remote operated machines decides to stop by. You are a bold person, but your Krieghoff K-80 ACS Unsingle is where it should be, in your safe. Since all drone owners are obviously pervs (sarcasm), you decide to give the operator what they want. You strip and taunt the perv-bot.
Unknown to you, the operator is a minor, flying the perv-bot under adult supervision.
Can you get in trouble?
About the enforcement of Federal Laws here is something that is official:
"States can't obstruct(enforcement of Federal Laws), but they don't have to help". That is an official standing of what it means that a law is federal on the point of enforcement, had to look it up a bit as in my country there is no such distinction, a law is a law and that is it.
"States can't obstruct(enforcement of Federal Laws), but they don't have to help". That is an official standing of what it means that a law is federal on the point of enforcement, had to look it up a bit as in my country there is no such distinction, a law is a law and that is it.
Yes it is within the limits of the law.
Your property's "airspace" legally only extends above your property to what is termed "a usable higth"
When you are talking about a typical residence, that's not going to be a whole lot farther up then the roof + the length of a TV antenna. Build on and you increase the hight, otherwise live with what you have used.
Therefor an RC on the street is the same as one hovering above your property "within the limits of the law".
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,752
If you put your property on my property without my permission, I have the right to do what I want with it. I don't give a crap what your philosophy is.
Yes, I can shoot that person for trespassing. Again, I don't care what your philosophy is.
Doubtful. You're on your private property and you're allowed to do whatever you want with yourself and your property, unless it is illegal. Last I checked, getting naked on your property isn't illegal.
The law does not say "usable height." It just says airspace above 500 ft is public highways, with the implication that below 500 feet belongs to the landowners. Local ordinances may say something different, but then that becomes a case by case basis.
The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the private airspace above the property in order to prevent nuisance.
I have edited this post as I have found I am incorrect in my assertion that you do not own airspace above your property. At the same time, this in no way asserts that you can use a firearm to shoot down an annoyance and destroy another's property. Call the cops and make a video. Shooting a gun inside the city or in some county jurisdictions will likely get you a citation or an arrest record. Typically the minimum charge would be something like unlawful discharge of a firearm or public endangerment. You'll be taking your chances for sure.
As for shooting at the a trespasser, I don't recommend it. We'll see you in the news when your found guilty and sentenced. You can only use deadly force on someone if they are threatening you, you fear for your life, or you are saving/protecting someone else from the same.
Even under "Stand your ground laws" it is not the act of trespassing that allows justifiable homicide but instead a threat of death or serious harm.
And if you want to test the legality of exposing yourself from inside your property line be my guest. Flash the next kid you see riding a bicycle down the street and see what it get's you.
Last edited:
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,835
There is max range, there is effective kill range, and even if you want to consider that a range effective enough to take down a drone and cause significant injuries is twice that of the effective kill range, it is nowhere even close to 1000ft
Effective Ranges for Buckshot, Birdshot and Slugs | Remington 870, Accessories, Upgrades, Tactical, Reviews, Forum
That is the reason why when drones are taken out with slugs so far it has been considered "fair" or that the drone owner was flying it too low, significantly under their statements of "300 ft" or whatever they claimed last time such a news appeared here. People may lie, but physics, damn, those can be helped and bent a little but they won't lie
I was going by this
Effective range is not what is at issue here. The concern is how far the projectile(s) travel and can hit something unintended.
Shoot 45 degrees up into the air and you are pretty much going to reach your theoretical maximum ballistic projectile range. It doesn't even matter if you still have your ideal penetration at that range, you can still do damage to certain unprotected soft tissues, let alone eyes.
True, if you hit most tissues you may not cause "significant injuries", but IMHO the standards for safely shooting down a mild annoyance like a drone should not be "avoid significant injuries", it should be "avoid any potential injuries of unintended targets at all regardless f how unlikely or slight".
You bet your ass if I am hit or any of my property is damaged by unintended birdshot, I'm pressing charges to the full extent of the law, even if all I get is a slight welt. This type of blatant disregard for the safety of the people around you and their property is NOT OK. What goes up must come down.
My particular neighborhood is a high-density mix of condo complexes and houses, in a scrambled non-grid layout, with many properties having large tree lines for privacy. Beautiful area with a lot of "you can't get there from here" and "you can't see anybody else's back yard". It would be all but impossible to figure out where a drone was originating from here.
Can you perform an act of exhibitionism in a place where nobody is supposed to be able to see you? No.
Can someone else perform an act of voyeurism on you in a place where nobody is supposed to be able to see you? Yes.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
IMO people are going about this the wrong way. Don't shoot the drone, shoot the operator. It's a more permanent solution.
CreatedTheMultiverse
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2016
- Messages
- 339
What name are you going to call your drone hate-group?
It's pretty easy to see where something close by is. And that's the issue; CLOSE BY. If I can see IT clearly then IT can see ME.
I sorta see the onset of this problem coming out of the anonymity of the internet for this. So many people have become insensitized about what they can say or do anonymously, they start to extend it into the real world, and the real world has consequences.
Pricks ruin lots of things. They don't care about anyone except themselves, & what THEY want. We all know someone like that.
Really? This kind of behavior shown in the show 'Seinfeld' is pretty common in my experience: If people have access to a peek, they're going to peek.
Now, if you're on your property, and are walking around nude in your backyard or even in your living room with the blinds/curtains open, you already know that there're cars, planes and helicoptors around, and probably don't care if they go flying by; even a casual glance is almost always not an issue. But if they stop and hover over your yard, well then, that's just rude. So the 'don't be a prick' rule comes into effect.
Again, nobody's shooting these things that go flying by. They're shooting at stuff that's hovering over their house. We have a guy in the neighborhood who flies his around on weekends. Yes, it has a camera. Nobody cares. Why? It keeps going. Much like an airplane. You don't see anyone shooting at RC airplanes because they're worried that they're being watched, do you? No. If it's a commercial drone, and you're using it to make a pass to check the perimeter of your commercial building, I don't think you'll have any problem if you notify your residential neighbor of what you're doing. But if you stop and hover for a while and there's nothing on YOUR property going on, they might have reason to question what's going on. The 'don't be a prick' rule applies here too.
Again, it's simple courtesy. Young kids shouldn't be flying drones. Older ones know when what they're doing is likely to irritate their neighbors. The following guidelines are always in effect: 1. Don't be an asshole. 2. Don't annoy other people. 3. If you're not sure if it's something that might annoy other people, see rule #1 and err on the side of caution.
Problem is, lots of these people that have cameras on their drones are piloting them from somewhere far enough away so that you don't know where they are. Someone sitting in his backyard looking into a computer screen while piloting his drone that way is not likely to be seen.
As above, if it's moving, pretty much nobody cares. If it's hovering, speck or no speck, we want to know why.
The Drone Terminators? Termindronators?
In short, don't be a prick to other people, and no one will have a problem. If you're a prick, and someone else decides to act like a prick to you, well then you started it and are responsible for the results.
Last edited: