User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:17:59 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There probably should be some facts brought into this discussion. (I know, this is GD...  )
The FAA doesn't own the airspace over your property. The Supreme Court has ruled that up to the minimum navigable altitude, generally considered 500ft., belongs to the property owner. If a drone comes over your house without your permission, they are trespassing. Would you shoot a trespasser just because they were walking across your front lawn? In most states, that would get you a felony conviction. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether small drones are, in fact, aircraft. One lower court ruled they were, another that they were not. The Circuit court bowed out of the case when the FAA decided to "settle" after it was blatantly obvious they were going to lose and set a precedent that they would have to butt out. Further, the FAA Reauthorization act specifically called out "aircraft" which are operated for hobby or recreation as not being subject to FAA regulations (including the registration one). I'm of the opinion that the Congress needs to clarify that these small toy drones are not aircraft at all under any definition of law. Until they do, they are considered aircraft, as stupid as that is. So, that is why it is illegal to shoot one down as it is, in fact, currently considered an aircraft under Federal law. Now, a local sheriff or police department may choose not to enforce a Federal law, as the courts have held the feds can't make them do that. But, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal, it just means you have to get Federal LEO to make the arrests and file the charges. It's important for folks to start to lobby their Congresscritters and make comments on proposed FAA regulations. Without that input, Congress won't make the right laws, and the FAA will end up putting out ridiculous regulations as they already have done. If the situation doesn't improve, the sUAS industry will be stillborn and the US will once again be falling behind the rest of the world in this technology. This. We need some clear cut sensible rules for drones and what constitutes private airspace. The bigger problem is really the media though. We've got two camps operating at cross-purposes and aren't on the same page at all. 1. Drone operators who are just having fun with their drones. 2. Paranoid homeowners influenced by sensational media coverage who all think drones in any circumstance they see one are shady and peeping-tom in nature. The weird thing is that if you had a RC plane that was equipped with cameras, the same cranky neighbors would probably think, "Oh... look at that impressive RC plane!" but they see a drone/quadcopter they immediately think "ZOMG Terminator/Skynet Paparazzi spybot!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:18:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Must be a pretty big drone to be able to lift that 40 lbs 1983 VHS camcorder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yup, as we see here, the sheep, er, I mean, the U.S. populous is so easily lead by the media. All it takes is a scare campaign for a few weeks and the vast majority of the populous starts parroting what they hear. If you actually see what I see in my goggles, you'll see I'd have to be right in someone's face to "peep" on them. The video feed is so bad and the camera at such a wide angle, that people are only a few pixels at any height. For example, here is exactly what I see while flying my "drone". I took this a few days ago directly from my goggles while flying around my house. I was at the average of 3 feet off the ground here. Most "drone" pilots fly A LOT higher. https://youtu.be/XR9NA98svEQ Must be a pretty big drone to be able to lift that 40 lbs 1983 VHS camcorder. An avionics tech at work, is one of those people that other people give broken electronics to, thinking he might be able to do something with them. L-o-n-g before anybody had ever heard of go-pro, he had gutted a couple camcorders (I think one was 8mm, and the other was VHS-C), fixed the problems, and mounted the guts on planes of about 6 foot wingspan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:36:01 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My yard my rules 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quit flying your drone over other people's property and it won't get shot down.  My yard my rules
I wonder if one of these could be equipped with a co2 tank and a couple of .177 BB barrels?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:36:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Willful destruction of property, or something along those lines. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.... "The responding deputy could not identify a law that had been broken."
 What state or local law was broken? Willful destruction of property, or something along those lines. Possible I guess. I'm not a lawyer so I was asking Aimless who is a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:47:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. We need some clear cut sensible rules for drones and what constitutes private airspace. The bigger problem is really the media though. We've got two camps operating at cross-purposes and aren't on the same page at all. 1. Drone operators who are just having fun with their drones. 2. Paranoid homeowners influenced by sensational media coverage who all think drones in any circumstance they see one are shady and peeping-tom in nature. The weird thing is that if you had a RC plane that was equipped with cameras, the same cranky neighbors would probably think, "Oh... look at that impressive RC plane!" but they see a drone/quadcopter they immediately think "ZOMG Terminator/Skynet Paparazzi spybot!"
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There probably should be some facts brought into this discussion. (I know, this is GD... )
The FAA doesn't own the airspace over your property. The Supreme Court has ruled that up to the minimum navigable altitude, generally considered 500ft., belongs to the property owner. If a drone comes over your house without your permission, they are trespassing. Would you shoot a trespasser just because they were walking across your front lawn? In most states, that would get you a felony conviction. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether small drones are, in fact, aircraft. One lower court ruled they were, another that they were not. The Circuit court bowed out of the case when the FAA decided to "settle" after it was blatantly obvious they were going to lose and set a precedent that they would have to butt out. Further, the FAA Reauthorization act specifically called out "aircraft" which are operated for hobby or recreation as not being subject to FAA regulations (including the registration one). I'm of the opinion that the Congress needs to clarify that these small toy drones are not aircraft at all under any definition of law. Until they do, they are considered aircraft, as stupid as that is. So, that is why it is illegal to shoot one down as it is, in fact, currently considered an aircraft under Federal law. Now, a local sheriff or police department may choose not to enforce a Federal law, as the courts have held the feds can't make them do that. But, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal, it just means you have to get Federal LEO to make the arrests and file the charges. It's important for folks to start to lobby their Congresscritters and make comments on proposed FAA regulations. Without that input, Congress won't make the right laws, and the FAA will end up putting out ridiculous regulations as they already have done. If the situation doesn't improve, the sUAS industry will be stillborn and the US will once again be falling behind the rest of the world in this technology. This. We need some clear cut sensible rules for drones and what constitutes private airspace. The bigger problem is really the media though. We've got two camps operating at cross-purposes and aren't on the same page at all. 1. Drone operators who are just having fun with their drones. 2. Paranoid homeowners influenced by sensational media coverage who all think drones in any circumstance they see one are shady and peeping-tom in nature. The weird thing is that if you had a RC plane that was equipped with cameras, the same cranky neighbors would probably think, "Oh... look at that impressive RC plane!" but they see a drone/quadcopter they immediately think "ZOMG Terminator/Skynet Paparazzi spybot!"
Agreed that due to some people being assholes (on both sides) a clear set of rules is needed. If people would not hover drones over other people's privacy fenced yard and homeowners didn't freak out over a drone just flying by we would not need .gov to develop rules for a hobby. In regards to the difference in the way people view RC planes vs drones is that most people view RC planes as something a perv would not use to hover over a pool/next to a window in order to spy on neighbors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:51:08 PM EDT
[#6]
arrest the drone operator for flying an "aircraft" without having a pilot's license
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:51:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:52:17 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There probably should be some facts brought into this discussion. (I know, this is GD... )
The FAA doesn't own the airspace over your property. The Supreme Court has ruled that up to the minimum navigable altitude, generally considered 500ft., belongs to the property owner. If a drone comes over your house without your permission, they are trespassing. Would you shoot a trespasser just because they were walking across your front lawn? In most states, that would get you a felony conviction. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether small drones are, in fact, aircraft. One lower court ruled they were, another that they were not. The Circuit court bowed out of the case when the FAA decided to "settle" after it was blatantly obvious they were going to lose and set a precedent that they would have to butt out. Further, the FAA Reauthorization act specifically called out "aircraft" which are operated for hobby or recreation as not being subject to FAA regulations (including the registration one). I'm of the opinion that the Congress needs to clarify that these small toy drones are not aircraft at all under any definition of law. Until they do, they are considered aircraft, as stupid as that is. So, that is why it is illegal to shoot one down as it is, in fact, currently considered an aircraft under Federal law. Now, a local sheriff or police department may choose not to enforce a Federal law, as the courts have held the feds can't make them do that. But, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal, it just means you have to get Federal LEO to make the arrests and file the charges. It's important for folks to start to lobby their Congresscritters and make comments on proposed FAA regulations. Without that input, Congress won't make the right laws, and the FAA will end up putting out ridiculous regulations as they already have done. If the situation doesn't improve, the sUAS industry will be stillborn and the US will once again be falling behind the rest of the world in this technology. Cite? In 1946, the Supreme Court decided that a landowner owned “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” And set no definitive altitude for that ceiling. Has there been a ruling since then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:52:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If someone walked up to your property line with a camera, would it be ok to shoot them? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? If someone walked up to your property line with a camera, would it be ok to shoot them? He didn't shoot the drone operator, he shot the drone |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:53:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed that due to some people being assholes (on both sides) a clear set of rules is needed. If people would not hover drones over other people's privacy fenced yard and homeowners didn't freak out over a drone just flying by we would not need .gov to develop rules for a hobby. In regards to the difference in the way people view RC planes vs drones is that most people view RC planes as something a perv would not use to hover over a pool/next to a window in order to spy on neighbors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There probably should be some facts brought into this discussion. (I know, this is GD... )
The FAA doesn't own the airspace over your property. The Supreme Court has ruled that up to the minimum navigable altitude, generally considered 500ft., belongs to the property owner. If a drone comes over your house without your permission, they are trespassing. Would you shoot a trespasser just because they were walking across your front lawn? In most states, that would get you a felony conviction. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether small drones are, in fact, aircraft. One lower court ruled they were, another that they were not. The Circuit court bowed out of the case when the FAA decided to "settle" after it was blatantly obvious they were going to lose and set a precedent that they would have to butt out. Further, the FAA Reauthorization act specifically called out "aircraft" which are operated for hobby or recreation as not being subject to FAA regulations (including the registration one). I'm of the opinion that the Congress needs to clarify that these small toy drones are not aircraft at all under any definition of law. Until they do, they are considered aircraft, as stupid as that is. So, that is why it is illegal to shoot one down as it is, in fact, currently considered an aircraft under Federal law. Now, a local sheriff or police department may choose not to enforce a Federal law, as the courts have held the feds can't make them do that. But, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal, it just means you have to get Federal LEO to make the arrests and file the charges. It's important for folks to start to lobby their Congresscritters and make comments on proposed FAA regulations. Without that input, Congress won't make the right laws, and the FAA will end up putting out ridiculous regulations as they already have done. If the situation doesn't improve, the sUAS industry will be stillborn and the US will once again be falling behind the rest of the world in this technology. This. We need some clear cut sensible rules for drones and what constitutes private airspace. The bigger problem is really the media though. We've got two camps operating at cross-purposes and aren't on the same page at all. 1. Drone operators who are just having fun with their drones. 2. Paranoid homeowners influenced by sensational media coverage who all think drones in any circumstance they see one are shady and peeping-tom in nature. The weird thing is that if you had a RC plane that was equipped with cameras, the same cranky neighbors would probably think, "Oh... look at that impressive RC plane!" but they see a drone/quadcopter they immediately think "ZOMG Terminator/Skynet Paparazzi spybot!"
Agreed that due to some people being assholes (on both sides) a clear set of rules is needed. If people would not hover drones over other people's privacy fenced yard and homeowners didn't freak out over a drone just flying by we would not need .gov to develop rules for a hobby. In regards to the difference in the way people view RC planes vs drones is that most people view RC planes as something a perv would not use to hover over a pool/next to a window in order to spy on neighbors. There are various technical aspects that make the RC plane a better platform for 'pool peeping', than the quadcopter. First two that come to mind, are vibration and load carrying capacity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:54:35 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can I shoot a news van if it gets too close to my house? They have cameras. How about a cop car with a dash cam? Is it ok to shoot that? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? If someone walked up to your property line with a camera, would it be ok to shoot them? False equivalency Can I shoot a news van if it gets too close to my house? They have cameras. How about a cop car with a dash cam? Is it ok to shoot that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:56:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do people think that Google gets pictures for Google earth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 2:59:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
arrest the drone operator for flying an "aircraft" without having a pilot's license Not required, for hobby level "drones". If somebody wants to buckle themselves into a plane and go for a ride, and they operate the plane in compliance with FAR Part 103, there is no requirement for them to have a "pilot's license", no requirement for the plane to be registered, no requirement for the plane to have an airworthiness certificate, and no requirement for periodic inspection and maintenance of the aircraft. As long as the pilot operating under FAR Part 103 doesn't kill anybody, do some serious property damage to something on the ground, or violate FAR Part 103, the FAA doesn't really care. Been that way since at least the 1980s (I think it goes back well into the 1970s, but Part 103 was either written in the 1980s or rewritten in the 1980s). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:01:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The anti-"drone" hysteria is just as silly as the uninformed hysteria that the Million Mom March was spewing about guns, when Gore was running for president. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? You should feel silly, very silly. The anti-"drone" hysteria is just as silly as the uninformed hysteria that the Million Mom March was spewing about guns, when Gore was running for president. Although there is some hysteria where drones are concerned--they are not magical--in this case it is more like any other nuisance issue and come down to the simple rule of don't mess with other people and they won't mess with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:01:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah thats the same line as crossing your property line peaking in your window huh? He didn't shoot the drone operator, he shot the drone Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? If someone walked up to your property line with a camera, would it be ok to shoot them? Is it OK to shoot the neighbor's dog, if it's crapping in your yard? After all, you aren't shooting the neighbor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:03:22 PM EDT
[#16]
I live in Murfreesboro.
I'm sorry to say this doesn't really surprise me that much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:04:56 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Although there is some hysteria where drones are concerned--they are not magical--in this case it is more like any other nuisance issue and come down to the simple rule of don't mess with other people and they won't mess with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? You should feel silly, very silly. The anti-"drone" hysteria is just as silly as the uninformed hysteria that the Million Mom March was spewing about guns, when Gore was running for president. Although there is some hysteria where drones are concerned--they are not magical--in this case it is more like any other nuisance issue and come down to the simple rule of don't mess with other people and they won't mess with you. Who was the kid messing with in the article cited in the OP? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:05:25 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But the guy shooting at it, and creating a situation where any missed shots could hit something (or someone) beyond their line of sight, did nothing illegal or unsafe? This whole mess is giving me anxiety issues. Forget dealing with the crowd at the gun show. I'll just order that machinegun over the internet and have it shipped to my front door. Does Amazon stock belt feds? They seem to carry just about everything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love drone threads. We've got comparisons of drones to airliners and others doing just the opposite. Yet both are wrong. Drones don't operate with the same altitude restrictions as full sized aircraft. In fact, if you took a minute and looked it up, drone operators can't exceed 400 feet AGL. The drone I use won't even let me exceed 400' based on my geographic location. No matter what I do it stops at 400'. To the guy who posted the South Park episode.  Then how can you comply with the 500' minimum altitude that the anti-drone zealots keep bringing up? You're saying the feds won't allow you to fly above 400', and they are saying the feds won't allow you to fly below 500'. I'm getting so confused by this whole mess, that I think I need to go to a gun show and buy a fully automatic assault rifle, with no background check and no paperwork, just to clear my head. But the guy shooting at it, and creating a situation where any missed shots could hit something (or someone) beyond their line of sight, did nothing illegal or unsafe? This whole mess is giving me anxiety issues. Forget dealing with the crowd at the gun show. I'll just order that machinegun over the internet and have it shipped to my front door. Does Amazon stock belt feds? They seem to carry just about everything. I find the comparison a bit disingenuous. Do you shoot on or into or over other people's property without permission? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:06:09 PM EDT
[#19]
“When you watch someone point a gun, whether it’s on video or in front of you, it makes your subconscious mind think you are being shot at,” he said. Yeah, I bet they're confused as to how they fit the tiny people into the picture box, too. Fucking retard. Don't fly camera drones over your neighbor's property. It's not fucking rocket science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:09:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it OK to shoot the neighbor's dog, if it's crapping in your yard? After all, you aren't shooting the neighbor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? If someone walked up to your property line with a camera, would it be ok to shoot them? Is it OK to shoot the neighbor's dog, if it's crapping in your yard? After all, you aren't shooting the neighbor. Another false equivalency. I don't have a dog in this fight, but goddamn it GD please start making logical arguments to support your positions. This is a debate nightmare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:11:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who was the kid messing with in the article cited in the OP? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who was the kid messing with in the article cited in the OP? His toy was over someone else's land, close enough to be shot. Up to a point. Before the advent of air travel, landowners owned an infinitely tall column of air rising above their plot. (The Latin doctrine was Cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum, or “whose is the soil, his it is up to the sky.”) In 1946 the Supreme Court acknowledged that the air had become a “public highway,” but a landowner still had dominion over “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” In that case the court held that a plane flying just 83 feet in the air—the commotion was literally scaring the plaintiff’s chickens to death—represented an invasion of property. The justices declined to precisely define the height at which ownership rights end. Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground. Paragliders and hang gliders can easily soar above that height, so your ability to exclude a snooping gliding enthusiast appears to be limited. (It should be noted that the vast majority of complaints about trespassing hang gliders result from their landing on, not flying over, private property.) It's rather simple. Don't go zooming around other people's yards. I have 2 drones and I manage to enjoy them and play with them without bothering my neighbors. Funny how that works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:13:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cite? In 1946, the Supreme Court decided that a landowner owned “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” And set no definitive altitude for that ceiling. Has there been a ruling since then? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There probably should be some facts brought into this discussion. (I know, this is GD... )
The FAA doesn't own the airspace over your property. The Supreme Court has ruled that up to the minimum navigable altitude, generally considered 500ft., belongs to the property owner. If a drone comes over your house without your permission, they are trespassing. Would you shoot a trespasser just because they were walking across your front lawn? In most states, that would get you a felony conviction. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether small drones are, in fact, aircraft. One lower court ruled they were, another that they were not. The Circuit court bowed out of the case when the FAA decided to "settle" after it was blatantly obvious they were going to lose and set a precedent that they would have to butt out. Further, the FAA Reauthorization act specifically called out "aircraft" which are operated for hobby or recreation as not being subject to FAA regulations (including the registration one). I'm of the opinion that the Congress needs to clarify that these small toy drones are not aircraft at all under any definition of law. Until they do, they are considered aircraft, as stupid as that is. So, that is why it is illegal to shoot one down as it is, in fact, currently considered an aircraft under Federal law. Now, a local sheriff or police department may choose not to enforce a Federal law, as the courts have held the feds can't make them do that. But, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal, it just means you have to get Federal LEO to make the arrests and file the charges. It's important for folks to start to lobby their Congresscritters and make comments on proposed FAA regulations. Without that input, Congress won't make the right laws, and the FAA will end up putting out ridiculous regulations as they already have done. If the situation doesn't improve, the sUAS industry will be stillborn and the US will once again be falling behind the rest of the world in this technology. Cite? In 1946, the Supreme Court decided that a landowner owned “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” And set no definitive altitude for that ceiling. Has there been a ruling since then? Mid to late 1980s, a guy tried to shut down the Cookeville airport (CJE), by putting a TV antenna on a mast in the approach to the south end of the runway. The mast was on his land, and he didn't even hook a TV to it, but gosh darn it that was his airspace. The feds came out and measured. If the antenna had been 6 inches taller, the guy would have been in violation of federal regs on legal height of antennas (way below 500 feet) and forced to take it down. The guy didn't even live on the property. He was just being an ass and whining about his property value. Was really only a problem if you got low on the approach. My instructor decided to tell me about the antenna, when we were on long final at night, on my first attempt at landing at that airport. Some years later, the Cookeville city council finally caved to pressure from the neighbors that didn't like having an airport near their house, and the airport is now the site of a high school. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:15:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cite? In 1946, the Supreme Court decided that a landowner owned “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” And set no definitive altitude for that ceiling. Has there been a ruling since then? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There probably should be some facts brought into this discussion. (I know, this is GD... )
The FAA doesn't own the airspace over your property. The Supreme Court has ruled that up to the minimum navigable altitude, generally considered 500ft., belongs to the property owner. If a drone comes over your house without your permission, they are trespassing. Would you shoot a trespasser just because they were walking across your front lawn? In most states, that would get you a felony conviction. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether small drones are, in fact, aircraft. One lower court ruled they were, another that they were not. The Circuit court bowed out of the case when the FAA decided to "settle" after it was blatantly obvious they were going to lose and set a precedent that they would have to butt out. Further, the FAA Reauthorization act specifically called out "aircraft" which are operated for hobby or recreation as not being subject to FAA regulations (including the registration one). I'm of the opinion that the Congress needs to clarify that these small toy drones are not aircraft at all under any definition of law. Until they do, they are considered aircraft, as stupid as that is. So, that is why it is illegal to shoot one down as it is, in fact, currently considered an aircraft under Federal law. Now, a local sheriff or police department may choose not to enforce a Federal law, as the courts have held the feds can't make them do that. But, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal, it just means you have to get Federal LEO to make the arrests and file the charges. It's important for folks to start to lobby their Congresscritters and make comments on proposed FAA regulations. Without that input, Congress won't make the right laws, and the FAA will end up putting out ridiculous regulations as they already have done. If the situation doesn't improve, the sUAS industry will be stillborn and the US will once again be falling behind the rest of the world in this technology. Cite? In 1946, the Supreme Court decided that a landowner owned “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” And set no definitive altitude for that ceiling. Has there been a ruling since then? Yes, there was one on the 60s that I can't put my fingers on right now that basically "clarified" the Causby ruling by saying that "your" airspace is below the minimum navigable altitude, generally considered to be 500ft. If a case were brought to the Court after a Trump-appointed Scalia replacement were put on the bench, it's still a crapshoot as to how they would rule. Essentially, these drones have re-defined what could be considered minimum navigable altitude since they can operate so much closer to the ground without presenting as big a hazard as a full sized aircraft would. Perhaps they would create some kind of middle-ground foolishness that re-instates the "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" position that existed before Causby with the proviso that "aircraft" have the right to transit "your" airspace as a matter of interstate commerce or other public need ala eminent domain. Note that there's currently some work underway to determine the size, weight, and other features that would be considered "lethal" if it fell on you. The 255 gram limit the registration task force came up with was based on bogus data and should have actually been about an order of magnitude higher. Problem is, there were no engineers on that panel, just lawyers and manned aircraft pilots. This is why we can't have nice things. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:20:10 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
His toy was over someone else's land, close enough to be shot. ~snip~ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who was the kid messing with in the article cited in the OP? His toy was over someone else's land, close enough to be shot. ~snip~ OK....your point being....? That kind of nuisance ranks right up there with my neighbors parking in front of my house on the street when they have a party. Bothersome? Yes. Anything I can legally do about it? No. Worth gun play over? Certainly not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:21:29 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK....your point being....? That kind of nuisance ranks right up there with my neighbors parking in front of my house on the street when they have a party. Bothersome? Yes. Anything I can legally do about it? No. Worth gun play over? Certainly not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who was the kid messing with in the article cited in the OP? His toy was over someone else's land, close enough to be shot. ~snip~ OK....your point being....? That kind of nuisance ranks right up there with my neighbors parking in front of my house on the street when they have a party. Bothersome? Yes. Anything I can legally do about it? No. Worth gun play over? Certainly not. Not in front of your house, but on your lawn. Does that change the issue? The cars would be on public land in that scenario. Not a valid comparison. I fly my drones at parks all of the time. No problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:21:35 PM EDT
[#26]
“It’s a federal offense to shoot down an aircraft and the FAA has deemed the drone an aircraft,” he said. . Then don't fucking bother people with your drone, Jackass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:21:36 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I find the comparison a bit disingenuous. Do you shoot on or into or over other people's property without permission? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love drone threads. We've got comparisons of drones to airliners and others doing just the opposite. Yet both are wrong. Drones don't operate with the same altitude restrictions as full sized aircraft. In fact, if you took a minute and looked it up, drone operators can't exceed 400 feet AGL. The drone I use won't even let me exceed 400' based on my geographic location. No matter what I do it stops at 400'. To the guy who posted the South Park episode. Then how can you comply with the 500' minimum altitude that the anti-drone zealots keep bringing up? You're saying the feds won't allow you to fly above 400', and they are saying the feds won't allow you to fly below 500'. I'm getting so confused by this whole mess, that I think I need to go to a gun show and buy a fully automatic assault rifle, with no background check and no paperwork, just to clear my head. But the guy shooting at it, and creating a situation where any missed shots could hit something (or someone) beyond their line of sight, did nothing illegal or unsafe? This whole mess is giving me anxiety issues. Forget dealing with the crowd at the gun show. I'll just order that machinegun over the internet and have it shipped to my front door. Does Amazon stock belt feds? They seem to carry just about everything. I find the comparison a bit disingenuous. Do you shoot on or into or over other people's property without permission? There was an incident, not long ago (in Oklahoma?), where a drone was shot down, and once the dust settled it was determined that the drone operator had been hired to inspect the gutters on the house of the shooter's neighbor, and was over the neighbor's property. How many people can judge distance to an aircraft well enough to determine how far away it is? I've seen plenty of examples where people stated how far away a plane was, then gave details that were impossible to see at their claimed distance, or claimed the plane was too far away to see details that should have been visible at the claimed distance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:25:04 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was an incident, not long ago (in Oklahoma?), where a drone was shot down, and once the dust settled it was determined that the drone operator had been hired to inspect the gutters on the house of the shooter's neighbor, and was over the neighbor's property. How many people can judge distance to an aircraft well enough to determine how far away it is? I've seen plenty of examples where people stated how far away a plane was, then gave details that were impossible to see at their claimed distance, or claimed the plane was too far away to see details that should have been visible at the claimed distance. On somebody else's property, not a good shoot. In this article there is no denial that it wasn't on the shooter's property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:26:17 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another false equivalency. I don't have a dog in this fight, but goddamn it GD please start making logical arguments to support your positions. This is a debate nightmare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah thats the same line as crossing your property line peaking in your window huh? He didn't shoot the drone operator, he shot the drone Is it OK to shoot the neighbor's dog, if it's crapping in your yard? After all, you aren't shooting the neighbor. Another false equivalency. I don't have a dog in this fight, but goddamn it GD please start making logical arguments to support your positions. This is a debate nightmare. Drone threads in GD tend to go off the rails by the third post. It's just sad that ridiculous examples can be given to compare them to, and people can see how ridiculous the comparison is, but still can't see how ridiculous the anti-drone arguments are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:28:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then how can you comply with the 500' minimum altitude that the anti-drone zealots keep bringing up? You're saying the feds won't allow you to fly above 400', and they are saying the feds won't allow you to fly below 500'. I'm getting so confused by this whole mess, that I think I need to go to a gun show and buy a fully automatic assault rifle, with no background check and no paperwork, just to clear my head. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love drone threads. We've got comparisons of drones to airliners and others doing just the opposite. Yet both are wrong. Drones don't operate with the same altitude restrictions as full sized aircraft. In fact, if you took a minute and looked it up, drone operators can't exceed 400 feet AGL. The drone I use won't even let me exceed 400' based on my geographic location. No matter what I do it stops at 400'. To the guy who posted the South Park episode. Then how can you comply with the 500' minimum altitude that the anti-drone zealots keep bringing up? You're saying the feds won't allow you to fly above 400', and they are saying the feds won't allow you to fly below 500'. I'm getting so confused by this whole mess, that I think I need to go to a gun show and buy a fully automatic assault rifle, with no background check and no paperwork, just to clear my head. Drones; all RC aircraft greater than .55 pounds in weight can not exceed 400 feet of alt AGL and full sized aircraft are supposed to stay above 500' AGL so that in theory, there's a 100' separation zone between the two. The anti drone zealots need to take five minutes, read the laws, try to understand them rather than posting BS and exposing their ignorance. Then again it would be fun to to have graph showing the anti drone zealots and how they relate to planes on treadmills. I'll let you guess the answer there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:28:50 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Drone threads in GD tend to go off the rails by the third post. It's just sad that ridiculous examples can be given to compare them to, and people can see how ridiculous the comparison is, but still can't see how ridiculous the anti-drone arguments are. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah thats the same line as crossing your property line peaking in your window huh? He didn't shoot the drone operator, he shot the drone Is it OK to shoot the neighbor's dog, if it's crapping in your yard? After all, you aren't shooting the neighbor. Another false equivalency. I don't have a dog in this fight, but goddamn it GD please start making logical arguments to support your positions. This is a debate nightmare. Drone threads in GD tend to go off the rails by the third post. It's just sad that ridiculous examples can be given to compare them to, and people can see how ridiculous the comparison is, but still can't see how ridiculous the anti-drone arguments are. I'm just here to read and hopefully learn, and I have, but there is an awful amount of poor arguments being made as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:29:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not in front of your house, but on your lawn. Does that change the issue? The cars would be on public land in that scenario. Not a valid comparison. I fly my drones at parks all of the time. No problems. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who was the kid messing with in the article cited in the OP? His toy was over someone else's land, close enough to be shot. ~snip~ OK....your point being....? That kind of nuisance ranks right up there with my neighbors parking in front of my house on the street when they have a party. Bothersome? Yes. Anything I can legally do about it? No. Worth gun play over? Certainly not. Not in front of your house, but on your lawn. Does that change the issue? The cars would be on public land in that scenario. Not a valid comparison. I fly my drones at parks all of the time. No problems. Have the car towed? Or put some targets on it and use it as your new target stand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:31:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On somebody else's property, not a good shoot. In this article there is no denial that it wasn't on the shooter's property. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There was an incident, not long ago (in Oklahoma?), where a drone was shot down, and once the dust settled it was determined that the drone operator had been hired to inspect the gutters on the house of the shooter's neighbor, and was over the neighbor's property. How many people can judge distance to an aircraft well enough to determine how far away it is? I've seen plenty of examples where people stated how far away a plane was, then gave details that were impossible to see at their claimed distance, or claimed the plane was too far away to see details that should have been visible at the claimed distance. On somebody else's property, not a good shoot. In this article there is no denial that it wasn't on the shooter's property. Still a bad shoot. Grounds for calling the cops on the drone operator? Sure, but not grounds for getting some advanced skeet practice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:32:49 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Drone threads in GD tend to go off the rails by the third post. It's just sad that ridiculous examples can be given to compare them to, and people can see how ridiculous the comparison is, but still can't see how ridiculous the anti-drone arguments are. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah thats the same line as crossing your property line peaking in your window huh? He didn't shoot the drone operator, he shot the drone Is it OK to shoot the neighbor's dog, if it's crapping in your yard? After all, you aren't shooting the neighbor. Another false equivalency. I don't have a dog in this fight, but goddamn it GD please start making logical arguments to support your positions. This is a debate nightmare. Drone threads in GD tend to go off the rails by the third post. It's just sad that ridiculous examples can be given to compare them to, and people can see how ridiculous the comparison is, but still can't see how ridiculous the anti-drone arguments are. Except I've yet to see an "anti-drone" argument. I've seen plenty of "keep your toys in your own yard" arguments, but I've yet to see an anti-drone one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:33:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still a bad shoot. Grounds for calling the cops on the drone operator? Sure, but not grounds for getting some advanced skeet practice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There was an incident, not long ago (in Oklahoma?), where a drone was shot down, and once the dust settled it was determined that the drone operator had been hired to inspect the gutters on the house of the shooter's neighbor, and was over the neighbor's property. How many people can judge distance to an aircraft well enough to determine how far away it is? I've seen plenty of examples where people stated how far away a plane was, then gave details that were impossible to see at their claimed distance, or claimed the plane was too far away to see details that should have been visible at the claimed distance. On somebody else's property, not a good shoot. In this article there is no denial that it wasn't on the shooter's property. Still a bad shoot. Grounds for calling the cops on the drone operator? Sure, but not grounds for getting some advanced skeet practice. You can't shoot your own gun on your own property? How liberal of you. And, since we are using examples, we have the one about PETA activists using drones to cross over to private property to buzz hunters and disrupt a dove hunt. Certainly you don't support that action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:37:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? Only if you're Russian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:42:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Since we have all the "You a can't shoot down my aircraft" zealots who use that argument for their toys. Then you all should be required to follow ALL aircraft licensing and regulations:
- Pilot training - Pilot Licenses - Medical Exams - Aircraft worthiness certificates - Filing a flight plan - Radio contact with air traffic control You guys want to be protected under one part, you should have to follow all of the rules. Or admit you have a toy, and assholes with toys shouldn't intrude on other peoples lives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:46:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just here to read and hopefully learn, and I have, but there is an awful amount of poor arguments being made as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah thats the same line as crossing your property line peaking in your window huh? He didn't shoot the drone operator, he shot the drone Is it OK to shoot the neighbor's dog, if it's crapping in your yard? After all, you aren't shooting the neighbor. Another false equivalency. I don't have a dog in this fight, but goddamn it GD please start making logical arguments to support your positions. This is a debate nightmare. Drone threads in GD tend to go off the rails by the third post. It's just sad that ridiculous examples can be given to compare them to, and people can see how ridiculous the comparison is, but still can't see how ridiculous the anti-drone arguments are. I'm just here to read and hopefully learn, and I have, but there is an awful amount of poor arguments being made as well. 1. The FAA minimum altitude of 500' does not apply to "drones". It is not even a concrete minimum, as some areas have no minimum altitude for aircraft (only a stipulation that the pilot has enough altitude to make a landing if the engine fails), and other areas are restricted to a 1,000' minimum (unless the aircraft is taking off or landing). 2. It is legal to buckle yourself into an airplane and fly it without a pilot's certificate, IF you are complying with certain regs (FAR Part 103 being the first thing that comes to mind). The claim that drone operators need to be licensed pilots, doesn't carry much weight, since the FAA has been allowing people to fly around IN unregistered, and uninspected aircraft without a pilot's "license", for several decades. The main difference is that it has been decades since the news media tried to stir up any hysteria about FAR Part 103. 3. A quadcopter "drone" is a crappy way to try to get video to fap to. The vibration messes with the image quality. The cameras that the things can lift, don't have long enough lenses to get any detail of anything that is far enough away to have any chance of not noticing the "drone" within seconds of arriving at it's peeping position. 4. Ignorance helps fuel hysteria. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:50:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
4. Ignorance helps fuel hysteria. As does people being entitled jerks about it. Play nice, be respectful of other people's property, and apply the golden rule. Then everyone can have fun with the things. Easy peasy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:53:30 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since we have all the "You a can't shoot down my aircraft" zealots who use that argument for their toys. Then you all should be required to follow ALL aircraft licensing and regulations: - Pilot training - Pilot Licenses - Medical Exams - Aircraft worthiness certificates - Filing a flight plan - Radio contact with air traffic control You guys want to be protected under one part, you should have to follow all of the rules. Or admit you have a toy, and assholes with toys shouldn't intrude on other peoples lives. I would LOVE to simply be required to comply with FAR Part 103 with any RC aircraft that I own. FAR Part 103 (unless I missed any recent changes): -no registration -no license to operate -can't carry passengers with you -no periodic inspections to determine airworthiness (but that one doesn't really bother me, since I'm legal to do it on aircraft other than Part 103) -stay under a maximum empty weight -no more than fourfive gallons of fuel -stay under a maximum allowed speed -daytime flight only -stay out of controlled airspace (stay away from large airports) -probably a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head ETA: Flight plan and radio contact are not required for all flight. Under FAR Part 91 (private aircraft, not corporate) a flight plan is recommended, but not required on most VFR flights (required for IFR flights). Radio contact is required for flight near airports with a control tower, and when on an IFR flight plan. Want to go for a flight to another state on a Saturday with nice weather, but don't want to talk on the radio or tell anybody where you are going? Just use airports that don't have a control tower,, and avoid military bases and other controlled airspace. Might piss off a few people by not announcing on UNICOM, but at plenty of airports nobody will even raise an eyebrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:56:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since we have all the "You a can't shoot down my aircraft" zealots who use that argument for their toys. Then you all should be required to follow ALL aircraft licensing and regulations: - Pilot training - Pilot Licenses - Medical Exams - Aircraft worthiness certificates - Filing a flight plan - Radio contact with air traffic control You guys want to be protected under one part, you should have to follow all of the rules. Or admit you have a toy, and assholes with toys shouldn't intrude on other peoples lives. Even though some of us already do all that, that's not the point: (a) these toys should not be considered aircraft AT ALL. (b) there needs to be a clearer understanding of (a) amongst the media and some of the more ignorant in the general public (c) there needs to be clarification on property owner's rights relative to the airspace overhead that balances the rights of property owners (which is a necessity in a free republic) and the rights of airspace users, whoever those may be (d) there needs to be an educational outreach to the media and to the general public that if someone flies their drone over your house uninvited, you should have them charged with trespass, not try to shoot them down and potentially create a hazard either from falling drone debris or falling bullet to some little kid's head (local story about July 4 death of a kid from gun fired into the air - never found the shooter). (e) the FAA needs their peepee slapped for directly violating the law and clear intent of Congress to butt out of hobby and recreational drone use. (f) We the People need to help our elected representatives at all levels to understand that this technology can be one of the greatest public good technologies to come along in a long time and we need to make sure that where laws are needed, good ones are passed and limits put on the FAA to prevent overreach. (g) we who are knowledgeable and responsible about drones need to promote such behavior in others Just my $0.02.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:58:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since we have all the "You a can't shoot down my aircraft" zealots who use that argument for their toys. Then you all should be required to follow ALL aircraft licensing and regulations: - Pilot training - Pilot Licenses - Medical Exams - Aircraft worthiness certificates - Filing a flight plan - Radio contact with air traffic control You guys want to be protected under one part, you should have to follow all of the rules. Or admit you have a toy, and assholes with toys shouldn't intrude on other peoples lives. Not disregarding that there are assholes on both sides of the fence here.. I have no problem with complying with your above mentioned demands as needed. But what happens when your bullet(s) land beyond someone's drone? Ie a third party's back yard? What happens when you find out the copter didn't even have a camera on it? What happens where there isn't so much as a second of video of your property recorded? What happens when it comes out that the drone wasn't over your property What now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 4:00:16 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As does people being entitled jerks about it. Play nice, be respectful of other people's property, and apply the golden rule. Then everyone can have fun with the things. Easy peasy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
4. Ignorance helps fuel hysteria. As does people being entitled jerks about it. Play nice, be respectful of other people's property, and apply the golden rule. Then everyone can have fun with the things. Easy peasy. Easier to do, when people do not automatically assume that you are a deviant and breaking fictional laws, just because you own something. Happens with guns. Happens with aviation. Happens with RC models. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 4:01:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would LOVE to simply be required to comply with FAR Part 103 with any RC aircraft that I own. FAR Part 103 (unless I missed any recent changes): -no registration -no license to operate -can't carry passengers with you -no periodic inspections to determine airworthiness (but that one doesn't really bother me, since I'm legal to do it on aircraft other than Part 103) -stay under a maximum empty weight -no more than four gallons of fuel -stay under a maximum allowed speed -daytime flight only -stay out of controlled airspace (stay away from large airports) -probably a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since we have all the "You a can't shoot down my aircraft" zealots who use that argument for their toys. Then you all should be required to follow ALL aircraft licensing and regulations: - Pilot training - Pilot Licenses - Medical Exams - Aircraft worthiness certificates - Filing a flight plan - Radio contact with air traffic control You guys want to be protected under one part, you should have to follow all of the rules. Or admit you have a toy, and assholes with toys shouldn't intrude on other peoples lives. I would LOVE to simply be required to comply with FAR Part 103 with any RC aircraft that I own. FAR Part 103 (unless I missed any recent changes): -no registration -no license to operate -can't carry passengers with you -no periodic inspections to determine airworthiness (but that one doesn't really bother me, since I'm legal to do it on aircraft other than Part 103) -stay under a maximum empty weight -no more than four gallons of fuel -stay under a maximum allowed speed -daytime flight only -stay out of controlled airspace (stay away from large airports) -probably a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head Yep. Don't forget that Part 103 operators can fly in ANY airspace with permission. Don't know how you'd get one up to 18,000ft. for Class A but if you got permission, you could give it a try.
I also find it quite ironic/hypocritical that an ultralight with 254lb empty weight, fuel, and maybe a pilot with a few too many fibers in their being can easily exceed 500lbs. Seems to me looking at the hazard of a little multicopter or fixed-wing foamy is stupid compared to the risk that already exists in the National Airspace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 4:06:17 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quit flying your drone over other people's property and it won't get shot down. This. Drones have allowed assholes to be assholes in new and annoying ways. It's not surprising that people don't want your voyeur copter buzzing their home and will react appropriately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 4:06:58 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Big difference here. In your privacy fenced back yard you have an expectation of privacy. If the shit head down the street drops his drone 15' above my head while I'm bbq'ing, or while my wife or daughter was swimming or sunbathing, I think I'd be inclined to remove it from the friendly skies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? If someone walked up to your property line with a camera, would it be ok to shoot them? Big difference here. In your privacy fenced back yard you have an expectation of privacy. If the shit head down the street drops his drone 15' above my head while I'm bbq'ing, or while my wife or daughter was swimming or sunbathing, I think I'd be inclined to remove it from the friendly skies. Except we don't know that that's what the situation was here. People are assuming details not given. There's no description of the property, what altitude they were flying at, and how long they were there. All we know is the RC aircraft was over someone's property, hovering at an unknown altitude for an unknown amount of time, and the property owner shot it. Hovering 15 feet over your privacy fenced back yard perving at your loved ones? Sure. Blast away. Doing the equivalent or similar of what anyone on the street could do simply by standing on the sidewalk and pointing a camera in your direction? Nope. Bad shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 4:07:22 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? You and I both know that they are not one and the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 4:09:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If someone walked up to your property line with a camera, would it be ok to shoot them? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So an airliner flys over your house you can shoot that down too? If someone walked up to your property line with a camera, would it be ok to shoot them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 4:09:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
your rights end when you cross the line, and violate my rights. I'd shoot the dang thing down too. What right is being violated? You are not going outside naked are you? Flying over a property is way different then hovering outside a window... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 4:11:14 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you beat up people who take photos of you kids at the pool?  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can I shoot a news van if it gets too close to my house? They have cameras. How about a cop car with a dash cam? Is it ok to shoot that? What do news vans and cop cars have in them that pervcopters do not? I would if they climbed my fence and came into my yard to do so. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
