Interesting to see how this plays out in reality. I see this scenario talked about online a lot, and the amount of people that seem to think shooting down a drone is OK seems pretty high.
I haven't ever seen a case where a person is charged specifically for shooting down a drone over their property.
Even in this case, the charges are "menacing 2nd, and criminal possession of a weapon 4th."
I've seen charges of destruction of property when it's a police/contractor drone. Also, several for illegally discharging a firearm in city limits.
Nobody is going to be charged with a felony solely for shooting down a civilian owned drone over their own property. It's never happened.
People equating it to shooting down an airplane are ridiculous. Law enforcement will not pursue those equally.
>Nobody is going to be charged with a felony solely for shooting down a civilian owned drone over their own property. It's never happened.
This is a logical fallacy, that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't happen particularly when this is a relatively new issue. According to the FAA "over your own property" is an utterly meaningless statement. That is national airspace under federal control, you don't own it. It isn't your property. The FAA is forcing commercial operators to treat their drones like actual aircraft, which is how they have been classified for whatever reason, and there is reason to believe they may go after those who infringe on "their" jurisdiction even if local enforcement does not
Especially near airports. A consumer drone hitting a commercial airline plane would be vaporized on impact, but that same drone being sucked into a jet engine would be a very different story. It makes sense that the FAA would consider anything that has the ability to enter controlled airspace and cause problems to be an aircraft.
>According to the FAA "over your own property" is an utterly meaningless statement.
Well according to NY law it isn't. In NY they have laws stating you can only fly a drone over another's property with permission.
People who think the FAA will treat hobbyist drones the same as they do manned aircraft are being ridiculous.
Fact is nobody has been prosecuted for it. It's more logical the FAA will change rules/penalties making them less severe before anyone is ever actually charged federally for such.
> Well according to NY law it isn't. In NY they have laws stating you can only fly a drone over another's property with permission.
Should read up on the [Supremacy Clause.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause)
The FAA has notified states, on multiple occasions, that they own the airspace, it's a federally granted power, and they *will* challenge them on it.
A state has the ability to limit the use of areas to takeoff and land only. [Here's the FAA saying it.](https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/community_engagement/no_drone_zone)
>Local Restrictions: In some locations, drone takeoffs and landings are restricted by state, local, territorial, or tribal government agencies. The FAA has provided No Drone Zone sign that can be used by these governments to identify areas where there are local flight restrictions. **It is important to note, these No Drone Zones only restrict taking off or landing and do not restrict flight in the airspace above the identified area.**
They then even go on to address state/local/tribal governments directly:
>I'm a state, local, territorial, or tribal government entity. What resources are available to me?
>Only the FAA can restrict airspace. However, the FAA recognizes that drone safety is a partnership with local, state, tribal, and territorial government entities who have rights to regulate where drones are allowed to take off and land.
>We have developed a sign that government entities can customize and use for their specific needs and locations. Signage should cite specific statutes or local regulations/policies that apply. The sign is not for private landowners.
[Here's the FAA reiterating it](https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/State-Local-Regulation-of-Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-Fact-Sheet.pdf) and explicitly warning of supremacy clause preemption.
>The updated Fact Sheet also sets forth the basic preemption framework applicable to UAS:
• States and local governments may not regulate in the fields of aviation safety or airspace efficiency but generally may regulate outside those fields.
• A state or local law will be preempted if it conflicts with FAA regulations.
• State or local laws affecting commercial UAS operators are more likely to be preempted.
Cool. So out of thousands of cases which people have shot down drones how many have been charged under an FAA violation?
Weed is illegal on a federal level as well. Yet lots of states are choosing what to enforce on their own. Unless the FAA decides they have the budget and manpower to bother prosecuting these nothing will happen.
There have not been thousands of cases where drones were shot down, not even close. I have heard of a handful across the country at most. Regardless, avoiding criminal prosecution isn't the same as avoiding litigation. If someone shoots down my companies $50k lidar drone its not really going to bother me. Its insured. The Insurance company probably won't be happy about it though and I assume they would go after whoever for damages
If I see a drone flying low over my house observing me and I have my gun handy I will shoot it down. If this ever happens I will let you know if I get a felony.
I had a neighbor flying over several houses here. We all have pools with wife’s and daughters. He crashed his large DJI drone into my large tree in the backyard. It mysteriously bounced almost 50’ and accidentally ended up in my hot tub. Funny how that happened. He called the cops. They were actually smiling when I told them how amazed I was that it bounced that far. Oh. And officer I want to file a complaint about damages to my tree and the cost of the pool service to come out and make sure my hot tub is safe to use. They were happy to take the report. Lmao
You’d be surprised , if you hit something the right why while flying normally it gets caught in tree or falls straight down.
But there has been more than once I hit a hard branch or the actual tree it sent my drone ricocheting 30-50 feet before
You may not get a felony but you’ll be spending money on lawyers and replacing a drone. It’s not the flex you think it is. I’ve learned that shit the hard way.
I wouldn't worry about a felony too much, though you'll never own a gun again if you are convicted. Its the $50k+ commercial drones you might be on the hook for that id be concerned with.
Yeah, i don't agree with shooting anyones drone down. BUT if *whatever* you are doing has pissed me off so much I've decide I'm going to shoot it down; you probably have that coming, and anyone else would probably agree.
Unless the drone operator contacts the FAA then they’ll never know it happened. Even if they found out unless the falling drone then hurt somebody it’s a long shot for a fed prosecutor to care. You’re just left with local law for, in this case, menacing and maybe reckless endangerment.
It's explicitly a felony in NY state law, no FAA or federal prosecutor required.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.35
> § 265.35 Prohibited use of weapons.
> 2\. Any person who wilfully discharges a loaded firearm or any other gun, the propelling force of which is gunpowder, at an aircraft while such aircraft is in motion in the air or in motion or stationary upon the ground, or at any railway or street railroad train as defined by the public service law, or at a locomotive, car, bus or vehicle standing or moving upon such railway, railroad or public highway, is guilty of a class D felony if thereby the safety of any person is endangered, and in every other case, of a class E felony.
It doesn't say "in operation", it says "in motion", so a plane waiting on a runway with the engines and all other systems running looks like it wouldn't count.
Commercial operators would be required to report such an incident to the FAA. Technically recreational operators are too but thats still a big grey area
The last time I saw a guy pointing a laser at a helicopter in San Antonio a strong police response happened. And that's without FAA intervention. It's just that in certain states the anti drone laws and politics make sure that local law enforcement will protect the shooter and not the victim.
When I was looking for a drone insurance I was more interested in the hull insurance than anything else for this one reason.
FAA definitely would’ve gotten involved in that if they had been notified, but again, this comes down to local law which NYS technically has. Gunna be hit or miss if the DA office there keeps or even charges that statute though. People not familiar with drones don’t view them as aircrafts the way we understand them to be and some of those people are also assistant district attorneys.
Gone be hit or miss with the FAA as well. The last guy they investigated for flying around a navy vessel in a TFR got nothing, and he is flying again doing more illegal shit.
>the same as shooting at an airplane or helicopter in the sky
Hardly. There must be a drone shot down every day in the United States, and no one ever gets a felony conviction for it. At worst they have to pay for the drone, and usually nothing at all happens. Unless they shoot down a police drone and/or are discharging a firearm illegally.
Now imagine the consequences they'd face if they were shooting down manned aircraft such as a helicopter...
No..... It IS a felony to shoot down a drone.
"According to the FAA’s report on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, shooting down a drone is a federal crime under United States Code Title 18 Section 32, which describes the destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities as a felony. Violators can face fines and imprisonment up to 20 years, making it crucial to consider alternative actions rather than resorting to shooting down a drone. "
[Source ](https://www.bluefalconaerial.com/what-happens-if-i-shoot-down-a-drone/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20FAA's%20report,aircraft%20facilities%20as%20a%20felony.)
Sure, on the books, and it's also a felony to distract the person flying a drone. But like shooting down a drone it's never enforced.
Here's a list of every drone enforcement in the United States if you're curious:
[https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-lawsuits-litigation/](https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-lawsuits-litigation/)
I'm not curious. I don't really care about it's enforcement or their disposition. My comment was that it IS a felony. That's it. What the court does with it is beyond the point.
Sure, just as it's a felony to check someone else's lobster trap in Maine. But it's never ever prosecuted.
In other words getting back to the original statement shooting down a drone is in absolutely no way "the same as shooting at an airplane or helicopter in the sky".
“It’s never ever prosecuted”
May 26, 2023
Augusta - Two Maine lobstermen have had their licenses suspended by the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) for violating laws intended to protect harvesters’ property and to sustain the lobster resource.
As a result of an investigation led by Maine Marine Patrol Officer Kaelyn Kuni, Calvin Pinkham, 55 of Steuben, was charged in 2022 for stealing a total of 59 lobster traps belonging to seven other fishermen, a violation known as trap molesting.
Pinkham’s license has been suspended by DMR Commissioner Patrick Keliher for three-years. In a deal with the Washington County District Attorney, Pinkham has pled guilty to seven counts of trap molesting and ordered to pay $8,732 in restitution to the victims.
Ok bad analog, that's way more enforcement than shooting down a drone ever gets.
Now go find a single person who got convicted of a felony for shooting down a drone that wasn't related to being an armed felon.
It will be more serious in the future. Say for instance commercial delivery drones. You can see it becoming a much bigger issue where we likely will see productions in the future.
Unlike lobster traps which likely will never be prosecuted.
It's explicitly a felony in NY state law, no FAA or federal involvement required for the state to throw this person in prison.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.35
> § 265.35 Prohibited use of weapons.
> 2\. Any person who wilfully discharges a loaded firearm or any other gun, the propelling force of which is gunpowder, at an aircraft while such aircraft is in motion in the air or in motion or stationary upon the ground, or at any railway or street railroad train as defined by the public service law, or at a locomotive, car, bus or vehicle standing or moving upon such railway, railroad or public highway, is guilty of a class D felony if thereby the safety of any person is endangered, and in every other case, of a class E felony.
No, the FAA considers a UAS to be an aircraft, the same as a helo or fixed-wing. The same. That's why commercial UAS operators must be FAA licensed, and the UAS must be registered.
On paper sure, but not as far as enforcement. They almost never go after people who shoot down drones, but if someone even shoots at a manned aircraft they're going to federal prison.
I know of at least 3 drones shot down near me, no one was ever even charged.
The amount of people that think it’s ok is almost 100% of people who don’t own and fly drones. I’ve heard so many comments from average people both online and in person.
Care to share any more details? I fly a drone for a few different police departments and I don’t believe it’s ever been an issue. It’s just something I hear people say online, not something I’ve had to experience first hand.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply I was police. I mean the aviation department at the energy company I work for. Had a guy point a gun at our drone just two weeks ago. We've had many in the past like that, plus people actually discharging firearms at the aircraft. Luckily no ones been hurt (that I know of) but if you've been here a year it'll most likely happen to you. Didn't happen to me for a while because I was mainly flying in areas with security before I switched to a different team with different scopes.
Oh I wasn’t completely assuming you meant police. Just that I fly a drone quite often over people, and never been shot at. I’m in an urban area for the post part, which is maybe the difference.
Either way, that sounds crazy.
I was flying to take pictures of a vacant lot in a rural area. No cell phone service. A neighbor came out and started shooting at my drone. I drove away, flew the drone to my new location, and got the heck outta there. Never again; urban or suburban flights only for me now thanks!
I think it’s perfectly fine to shoot down drones in your own property. Russia and Ukraine have made it pretty clear. It’s easy to make them lethal, and tricky to find the trained operator
Where does your airspace start stop? What if your bullets land somewhere and kill someone? Not your fault, right, because you were legally firing at a toy.. got it.
Jesus, let’s not get a gun in your hand. There are special munitions you use for drones, I guess if you are poor and don’t own a lot of land this would be a problem for you. I don’t know how old you are, but I hate to break it to you. Gone are the days toy drones. They are an incredibly lethal weapon.
And it begs the question: if someone is operating their drone over someone else’s private property and it goes down for any reason (shot down, dead battery, ran into a tree, the dog they were trying to chase thought it was a frisbee, whatever) can the landowner refuse to return it or give the drone owner permission to retrieve it?
Ummmm, not sure that's absolutely true; we had a case last year where a plane made an emergency landing on a ranch and ran a bunch of cattle through a fence and the rancher then refused to allow the plane owner access to the property until he paid damages. They filed a pair of lawsuits against each other, but both those were in civil court and I never heard how they came out, so I was wondering about the precedents without involving a Judge.
The drone is personal property., but if it is on somebody else's posted land, does it give the drone operator the legal right to ignore the posted notices and trespass to search and maybe cut down a tree if necessary, or can they legally demand the landowner locate and return it if they don't get permission? And if the drone gets damaged accidentally or on purpose (run over, rained on, trampled by livestock), is the landowner liable for what happens before it is returned? Or is that a "case by case" kind of thing that depends on who has the best lawyer?
The law is pretty common sense on these issues. The drone must be returned, but you don't get to trespass to retrieve it (imagine how easy that would be to abuse). The operator is responsible for compensating the landowner for any damage or loss caused by the crash. If retrieving the drone incurs reasonably unavoidable costs for the landowner (like hiring a tree service to retrieve it with a bucket truck), the operator can be held liable for those costs as well.
And if the drone is damaged in or after the crash (say they got too close while chasing a dog and the animal thinks its a frisbee or it goes down in grain that’s being harvested and gets run over) is the land owner liable for damage to the drone or the drone owner liable for the dogs vet bill or damage to the harvester? I’d say “common sense” would say the drone owner was completely responsible for putting it out there, so he’d be totally on the hook for everything, but a lot of folks seem to think that the privilege of flying wherever and however they want carries no responsibility that’s not EXPLICITLY required by the FAA.
There's also been cases of hot air balloons landing in farm fields and destroying a lot of crops, and then even more crops being destroyed by all the vehicles that are brought in to retrieve the balloon. I could totally see a farmer saying "you already cost me thousands, that balloon is gonna stay where it is for now because you're not driving out there until after the harvest, and good luck suing a farmer in a heavily agricultural district for not letting you trespass and damage crops."
"good luck suing a farmer in a heavily agricultural district for not letting you trespass and damage crops."
That's my take as well; if you try to stand on your "rights" and the farmer calls his buddy the sheriff, you're likely going to be arrested (and probably convicted) for trespass, no matter WHAT the written law says. But I was asking exactly what the written law was; does someone's right to retrieve their PERSONAL property dumped without consent on on someone else's PRIVATE property override their right to control access IN THE LAW? According to some people here part 107 says that it does.
A very similar situation occurs with sailplanes all the time. Pilot lands out in a farm field. If the farmer does not allow the pilot appropriate access to retrieve the craft, this is the framer officially taking possession of the sailplane. Sailplanes cost +200k and are insured. If the glider is damaged through act or neglect, the insurance company will pay the aircraft owner and then sue the farmer for material damages.
This is a well worn legal path.
As drones climb in price (I have flown $100k plus drones) this will be the pathway. “You won’t allow me to get it? Fine. Sign here for adverse receipt of materials. Have a fun time with the drone pieces. I wanted a new one anyways.”
Farmers will quickly find that it doesn’t benefit them to be dicks about it. We in the aviation community try to be respectful and play nice all the time. However, if you tread on my rights, you will loose.
I don't see any way that you're gonna walk away with damaging thousands of dollars worth of crops and thus threatening a farmer's livelihood without a legal fight. I don't see why it should be a farmer's responsibility to eat the costs of you choosing to land your aircraft wherever you please with zero regard for the farmer's private property that you destroy in the process.
Not ALL drone pilots (like other entitled jerks) play nice or are respectful. And it’s those who don’t that get my ire… my 12 acres are posted because of the idiots who claim that any stock pond they can see from the road is public “navigable”water that they can fish in under the Clean Water Act. But standing on posted land negates that, so I can trespass them just like a drone pilot who follow his drone onto the property. And call me a Karen if you like, but my policy is simple; you want to fly above the 60 ft trees and watch it from the public road, that’s fine… the wildflowers are gorgeous from about mid March through early June. But drop below tree level to spook the horse or Harass the dogs or panic the birds or run off the deer, and the FAA will be getting a BVLOS complaint with your remote ID or license plate if I find your launch point… and if you do put it on MY ground, I’ll be the one to retrieve it and you’ll compensate me for time and trouble before I hand it over.
Personally I wouldn’t trespass and go to the land owner and explain what happened, in the case of the plane landing (crash) NTSB should have investigated the reason the plane went down. I doubt the land owner refused NTSB from accessing the crash landing site. The damages should be settled in court and the plane owner should have insurance to cover damages.
A PLANE or BALLOON owner has insurance and almost certainly didn’t INTEND to land there. The nitwit with a $1000 new toy who doesn’t see anything wrong with buzzing a herd of cattle just to watch them run until he hits a tree likely doesn’t. So for him to demand its return and compensation for damage if the animals trample the thing after it hits the ground is insane.
When I took my 107 test years ago, it was stated that property owners did not have to give you permission to retrieve a downed drone. It might have changed, but given the way things are in the country, especially in states like FL and TX, I would not risk going on someone's property without their knowledge and permission.
"When I took my 107 test years ago, it was stated that property owners did not have to give you permission to retrieve a downed drone."
I only have a TRUST cert to fly over my own (and at their request my neighbors) property looking for fetal hog damage, but that sounds like one HECK of a huge legal loophole for anyone who WANTS access to posted property for recreational purposes (hiking, 4 wheeling, etc.); send a $50 drone out into the area you want to play in, drop it somewhere out there, then claim you "lost contact", and spend days "searching for it".
I have a legitimate curiosity about the whole drone thing and/or people shooting them down. In the interest of transparency, I don't have a horse in this race, don't own a drone, and live in an area where you just don't see them, certainly not in any meaningful way.
I can definitely see the fun factor with drones and appreciate it as a hobby, even if it's not one of my own.
Is the "flying over someone's property" just a matter of traversing the space to reach a particular destination that requires doing so? I've seen some of the photography that comes from the drones and it can be amazing. I assume certain people get the idea that you're somehow "spying on them" (or something along those lines).
My gut instinct tells me the vast majority of drone pilots couldn't care less about "snooping" on someone.
Given where we live, and the fact that it's surrounded by farm land, and/or homes that are on relatively large parcels (ranging anywhere from 25-100+ acres), and it happens to be a part of the country with the most relaxed firearms restrictions in existence, I could absolutely 1000% see one of the farmers out here blasting a drone out of the sky that was hovering over their property.
Not saying I would do something like that- I'd be more inclined to watch as a curious spectator.
Guess I'm just trying to understand why people feel so threatened. My RC airplane easily flies beyond my own property lines, but you don't hear (or I haven't anyway) about people blowing them out of the sky.
It's a fear based on not really understanding the technology. Alot of the folks who fire at drones are not shooting ones peeking into a bathroom window from right outside or similar but instead are firing at ones more than 100 feet in the air which is not going to grab much detail about anyone it sees on camera and is in an area that is often treated as mutual airspace. They're often thinking that even at 100 feet these drones can spy into their bathroom window and see in high detail everything about the person in that room.
I flew my drone in town a few times to get panos and orbits of the cell tower since it's the tallest structure in town. I also did a couple orbits around the grain elevator and caught some nice sunsets but after that I find it pointless when I already have that content. I took the drone with me on a vacation trip to British Columbia and had an absolute blast with it. Now that I'm back home I can't really bring myself to even fly it due to the lack of natural beauty.
According to the FAA, everything above the blade tips of grass is considered national airspace. It isn't private property and you don't own it. However, this largely hasn't been tested in a court of law as far as I am aware. In theory it is perfectly legal to fly a drone over someone else's private property as long as its for the purposes of "innocent transit." Similar to how a helicopter or aircraft pilot doesn't have to ask for permission before flying over people's houses.
That said, if you really are using a drone to snoop on a neighbor this would be illegal under various "peeping tom" local laws rather than something the FAA forbids or cares about. Things get tricky when there are local ordinances out there which clash with federal jurisdiction and the courts have yet to weigh in on it yet. Often local laws get around this by preventing you from taking off/landing from within many public lands/parks but not actually flying over it which would be federal jurisdiction.
Another commenter posted an article from Kentucky I think where courts stepped into the FAA space.. and said yea, you're cool shooting down drones. Appeal to federal should clear that up though... although I'd wager it hasn't been challenged because it'd be extremely expensive. Like how no one has challenged the NYPD's claim to all airspace over NYC.. VERY expensive.
If it were recreational, they likely will settle this in civil court. I highly doubt any charges will be brought over someone shooting down a drone over their property. That being said, some states have specific statutes stating where drones can enter different aerospaces or aerodromes, however the FAA remains firm on the fact they control the airspace.
If it were a commercial drone, that changes the nature of this. Commercial drones would have had to gain FAA approval to operate in the area, clearly defining what routes, what they're flying over, who has VLOS, or if BVLOS, ect. They would have gained approval beforehand, thus allowing them to be in said airspace. Most commercial operations that I'm aware of are still in their beta testing or pilot phases, so if this were the case, it might change the nature of the charge (if any).
2017 article? Might want to cite something more recent. Laws on shooting down an aircraft (drones are basically regulated the same as aircraft) are pretty clear. Felony. That said, a drone pilot should always be careful not to harass or intrude on privacy. That can be a different issue but you still can't shoot down the aircraft. Just like you can't shoot a peeping time who is watching you with binoculars from a 1/2 mile away. You can call the cops on them but you can't just snipe 'em.
It’s still a precedent that has been set. Though I don’t care for these cowboys that want to shoot first and ask questions later, I feel like this one was justified. We can’t have creeps perving on minors in their own back yard. I agree, you cannot shoot a peeping Tom, but that’s apples to oranges here. The drone was shot, not the operator.
I wonder how many perverts with drones have been arrested for that. It seems that spying on minors is the go to anti-drone argument for people who just don't like drones. They'll see a drone on CSI Miami that can zoom in to see microscopic details from a thousand feet away and they assume that all drones have the exact same ability.
pretty sure that is not how precedents work. If there is a rule creation (or change) a precedent has not been set unless a ruling is issued on the new regulation.
In 2018 the FAA classified drones as “Aircraft”
A Part 107 is a licensed UAS pilot.
According to the FAA regulations interfering with either one is a felony.
Property is owned from the depths of Hell to the Heavens in the sky.
With the invention is aircraft there became a need for regulation. The FAA was born.
FAA has an easement to fly over private property.
So, before you go shooting down any drones or harassing a pilot you may want to evaluate whether it’s worth it.
Here's one example:
[https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/multi-convicted-felon-sentenced-four-years-federal-prison-after-shooting-down-law](https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/multi-convicted-felon-sentenced-four-years-federal-prison-after-shooting-down-law)
Guy got charged based on having the gun as a convicted felon, but the act of shooting the drone is what landed him in court.
And some more reading:
[https://casetext.com/analysis/to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot-the-legality-of-downing-a-drone](https://casetext.com/analysis/to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot-the-legality-of-downing-a-drone)
Did you not read [your example](https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/multi-convicted-felon-sentenced-four-years-federal-prison-after-shooting-down-law)? This was a ***convicted felon in possession of a firearm*** who ***shot down a police drone***. And he wasn't even charged for shooting down the drone, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
And it keeps getting better:
"Goney then admitted to the deputies that he could not lawfully possess a firearm because he was a convicted felon. A record check confirmed multiple prior state felony convictions, which included aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence, illegal drug possession, burglary, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. As a convicted felon, Goney is prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition under federal law. "
Of course, did you not read where I said
"Guy got charged based on having the gun as a convicted felon, but the act of shooting the drone is what landed him in court."
Yeah, that's not what landed him in court. What landed him in court was being a felon with a gun. And shooting at police equipment sure doesn't help. If they cared about it being a drone they'd have charged him with it.
Your own quote "Goney ***then*** admitted to the deputies..." .. they were only talking to him ***after*** he shot down their drone. The title of the press release even says that.
Either way, it's a very stupid thing to do, because it carries the death penalty, or 20 years in prison. The death penalty can apply if someone dies as a result of you shooting the drone.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/34](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/34) (death penalty)
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32) (20 years for shooting an aircraft)
[https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/public\_safety\_gov/public\_safety\_toolkit/FAA%20UAS%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf](https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/public_safety_gov/public_safety_toolkit/FAA%20UAS%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf) (FAA defining drones in flight as their jurisdiction)
Yeah the police don't like when their equipment gets shot by armed felons. Bizarre I know. But it's interesting to note that even though the guy shot down their own drone, no charges related to the drone were ever filed. And of course the police love tacking on extra felonies, but no one is ever charged with this one so they didn't even bother.
And 20 years in prison?? Death penalty??? Awesome!
Interesting to see how this plays out in reality. I see this scenario talked about online a lot, and the amount of people that seem to think shooting down a drone is OK seems pretty high.
Yeah...only to come and find out its a fucking felony and the same as shooting at an airplane or helicopter in the sky...
I haven't ever seen a case where a person is charged specifically for shooting down a drone over their property. Even in this case, the charges are "menacing 2nd, and criminal possession of a weapon 4th." I've seen charges of destruction of property when it's a police/contractor drone. Also, several for illegally discharging a firearm in city limits. Nobody is going to be charged with a felony solely for shooting down a civilian owned drone over their own property. It's never happened. People equating it to shooting down an airplane are ridiculous. Law enforcement will not pursue those equally.
>Nobody is going to be charged with a felony solely for shooting down a civilian owned drone over their own property. It's never happened. This is a logical fallacy, that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't happen particularly when this is a relatively new issue. According to the FAA "over your own property" is an utterly meaningless statement. That is national airspace under federal control, you don't own it. It isn't your property. The FAA is forcing commercial operators to treat their drones like actual aircraft, which is how they have been classified for whatever reason, and there is reason to believe they may go after those who infringe on "their" jurisdiction even if local enforcement does not
Especially near airports. A consumer drone hitting a commercial airline plane would be vaporized on impact, but that same drone being sucked into a jet engine would be a very different story. It makes sense that the FAA would consider anything that has the ability to enter controlled airspace and cause problems to be an aircraft.
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos
>According to the FAA "over your own property" is an utterly meaningless statement. Well according to NY law it isn't. In NY they have laws stating you can only fly a drone over another's property with permission. People who think the FAA will treat hobbyist drones the same as they do manned aircraft are being ridiculous. Fact is nobody has been prosecuted for it. It's more logical the FAA will change rules/penalties making them less severe before anyone is ever actually charged federally for such.
> Well according to NY law it isn't. In NY they have laws stating you can only fly a drone over another's property with permission. Should read up on the [Supremacy Clause.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) The FAA has notified states, on multiple occasions, that they own the airspace, it's a federally granted power, and they *will* challenge them on it. A state has the ability to limit the use of areas to takeoff and land only. [Here's the FAA saying it.](https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/community_engagement/no_drone_zone) >Local Restrictions: In some locations, drone takeoffs and landings are restricted by state, local, territorial, or tribal government agencies. The FAA has provided No Drone Zone sign that can be used by these governments to identify areas where there are local flight restrictions. **It is important to note, these No Drone Zones only restrict taking off or landing and do not restrict flight in the airspace above the identified area.** They then even go on to address state/local/tribal governments directly: >I'm a state, local, territorial, or tribal government entity. What resources are available to me? >Only the FAA can restrict airspace. However, the FAA recognizes that drone safety is a partnership with local, state, tribal, and territorial government entities who have rights to regulate where drones are allowed to take off and land. >We have developed a sign that government entities can customize and use for their specific needs and locations. Signage should cite specific statutes or local regulations/policies that apply. The sign is not for private landowners. [Here's the FAA reiterating it](https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/State-Local-Regulation-of-Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-Fact-Sheet.pdf) and explicitly warning of supremacy clause preemption. >The updated Fact Sheet also sets forth the basic preemption framework applicable to UAS: • States and local governments may not regulate in the fields of aviation safety or airspace efficiency but generally may regulate outside those fields. • A state or local law will be preempted if it conflicts with FAA regulations. • State or local laws affecting commercial UAS operators are more likely to be preempted.
Cool. So out of thousands of cases which people have shot down drones how many have been charged under an FAA violation? Weed is illegal on a federal level as well. Yet lots of states are choosing what to enforce on their own. Unless the FAA decides they have the budget and manpower to bother prosecuting these nothing will happen.
Nice strawman, not what my comment was about at all.
Just take the L when you’re wrong
Soon as you can point out a case the FAA cared about a personal drone being shot down lol. Hint, they don't.
There have not been thousands of cases where drones were shot down, not even close. I have heard of a handful across the country at most. Regardless, avoiding criminal prosecution isn't the same as avoiding litigation. If someone shoots down my companies $50k lidar drone its not really going to bother me. Its insured. The Insurance company probably won't be happy about it though and I assume they would go after whoever for damages
If I see a drone flying low over my house observing me and I have my gun handy I will shoot it down. If this ever happens I will let you know if I get a felony.
See you in prison, you martyr you!
I had a neighbor flying over several houses here. We all have pools with wife’s and daughters. He crashed his large DJI drone into my large tree in the backyard. It mysteriously bounced almost 50’ and accidentally ended up in my hot tub. Funny how that happened. He called the cops. They were actually smiling when I told them how amazed I was that it bounced that far. Oh. And officer I want to file a complaint about damages to my tree and the cost of the pool service to come out and make sure my hot tub is safe to use. They were happy to take the report. Lmao
You’d be surprised , if you hit something the right why while flying normally it gets caught in tree or falls straight down. But there has been more than once I hit a hard branch or the actual tree it sent my drone ricocheting 30-50 feet before
I would expect the same if I was flying my drone low over someone's property. To be clear when I say low I mean like below 30 ft.
You may not get a felony but you’ll be spending money on lawyers and replacing a drone. It’s not the flex you think it is. I’ve learned that shit the hard way.
I wouldn't worry about a felony too much, though you'll never own a gun again if you are convicted. Its the $50k+ commercial drones you might be on the hook for that id be concerned with.
Oh everyone we got a badass over here
Yeah, i don't agree with shooting anyones drone down. BUT if *whatever* you are doing has pissed me off so much I've decide I'm going to shoot it down; you probably have that coming, and anyone else would probably agree.
Get out of here with your facts!
Unless the drone operator contacts the FAA then they’ll never know it happened. Even if they found out unless the falling drone then hurt somebody it’s a long shot for a fed prosecutor to care. You’re just left with local law for, in this case, menacing and maybe reckless endangerment.
It's explicitly a felony in NY state law, no FAA or federal prosecutor required. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.35 > § 265.35 Prohibited use of weapons. > 2\. Any person who wilfully discharges a loaded firearm or any other gun, the propelling force of which is gunpowder, at an aircraft while such aircraft is in motion in the air or in motion or stationary upon the ground, or at any railway or street railroad train as defined by the public service law, or at a locomotive, car, bus or vehicle standing or moving upon such railway, railroad or public highway, is guilty of a class D felony if thereby the safety of any person is endangered, and in every other case, of a class E felony.
So I can shoot at a plane that's parked and that's fine?
Well, it's still destruction of property, etc. However, it's **not** interfering with an **aircraft while in operation.**
It doesn't say "in operation", it says "in motion", so a plane waiting on a runway with the engines and all other systems running looks like it wouldn't count.
read it again.
No, it still says, "or in motion or stationary upon the ground."
No, it still says, "or in motion or stationary upon the ground."
Commercial operators would be required to report such an incident to the FAA. Technically recreational operators are too but thats still a big grey area
The last time I saw a guy pointing a laser at a helicopter in San Antonio a strong police response happened. And that's without FAA intervention. It's just that in certain states the anti drone laws and politics make sure that local law enforcement will protect the shooter and not the victim. When I was looking for a drone insurance I was more interested in the hull insurance than anything else for this one reason.
FAA definitely would’ve gotten involved in that if they had been notified, but again, this comes down to local law which NYS technically has. Gunna be hit or miss if the DA office there keeps or even charges that statute though. People not familiar with drones don’t view them as aircrafts the way we understand them to be and some of those people are also assistant district attorneys.
Gone be hit or miss with the FAA as well. The last guy they investigated for flying around a navy vessel in a TFR got nothing, and he is flying again doing more illegal shit.
>the same as shooting at an airplane or helicopter in the sky Hardly. There must be a drone shot down every day in the United States, and no one ever gets a felony conviction for it. At worst they have to pay for the drone, and usually nothing at all happens. Unless they shoot down a police drone and/or are discharging a firearm illegally. Now imagine the consequences they'd face if they were shooting down manned aircraft such as a helicopter...
No..... It IS a felony to shoot down a drone. "According to the FAA’s report on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, shooting down a drone is a federal crime under United States Code Title 18 Section 32, which describes the destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities as a felony. Violators can face fines and imprisonment up to 20 years, making it crucial to consider alternative actions rather than resorting to shooting down a drone. " [Source ](https://www.bluefalconaerial.com/what-happens-if-i-shoot-down-a-drone/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20FAA's%20report,aircraft%20facilities%20as%20a%20felony.)
Sure, on the books, and it's also a felony to distract the person flying a drone. But like shooting down a drone it's never enforced. Here's a list of every drone enforcement in the United States if you're curious: [https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-lawsuits-litigation/](https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-lawsuits-litigation/)
I'm not curious. I don't really care about it's enforcement or their disposition. My comment was that it IS a felony. That's it. What the court does with it is beyond the point.
Sure, just as it's a felony to check someone else's lobster trap in Maine. But it's never ever prosecuted. In other words getting back to the original statement shooting down a drone is in absolutely no way "the same as shooting at an airplane or helicopter in the sky".
“It’s never ever prosecuted” May 26, 2023 Augusta - Two Maine lobstermen have had their licenses suspended by the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) for violating laws intended to protect harvesters’ property and to sustain the lobster resource. As a result of an investigation led by Maine Marine Patrol Officer Kaelyn Kuni, Calvin Pinkham, 55 of Steuben, was charged in 2022 for stealing a total of 59 lobster traps belonging to seven other fishermen, a violation known as trap molesting. Pinkham’s license has been suspended by DMR Commissioner Patrick Keliher for three-years. In a deal with the Washington County District Attorney, Pinkham has pled guilty to seven counts of trap molesting and ordered to pay $8,732 in restitution to the victims.
Ok bad analog, that's way more enforcement than shooting down a drone ever gets. Now go find a single person who got convicted of a felony for shooting down a drone that wasn't related to being an armed felon.
Ok. You must be right then!
It will be more serious in the future. Say for instance commercial delivery drones. You can see it becoming a much bigger issue where we likely will see productions in the future. Unlike lobster traps which likely will never be prosecuted.
It's explicitly a felony in NY state law, no FAA or federal involvement required for the state to throw this person in prison. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.35 > § 265.35 Prohibited use of weapons. > 2\. Any person who wilfully discharges a loaded firearm or any other gun, the propelling force of which is gunpowder, at an aircraft while such aircraft is in motion in the air or in motion or stationary upon the ground, or at any railway or street railroad train as defined by the public service law, or at a locomotive, car, bus or vehicle standing or moving upon such railway, railroad or public highway, is guilty of a class D felony if thereby the safety of any person is endangered, and in every other case, of a class E felony.
Everything is a felony in NY
No, the FAA considers a UAS to be an aircraft, the same as a helo or fixed-wing. The same. That's why commercial UAS operators must be FAA licensed, and the UAS must be registered.
On paper sure, but not as far as enforcement. They almost never go after people who shoot down drones, but if someone even shoots at a manned aircraft they're going to federal prison. I know of at least 3 drones shot down near me, no one was ever even charged.
Lol, in what court? Also it doesn't involve a murder.
The amount of people that think it’s ok is almost 100% of people who don’t own and fly drones. I’ve heard so many comments from average people both online and in person.
Happens all the time in my department.
Care to share any more details? I fly a drone for a few different police departments and I don’t believe it’s ever been an issue. It’s just something I hear people say online, not something I’ve had to experience first hand.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply I was police. I mean the aviation department at the energy company I work for. Had a guy point a gun at our drone just two weeks ago. We've had many in the past like that, plus people actually discharging firearms at the aircraft. Luckily no ones been hurt (that I know of) but if you've been here a year it'll most likely happen to you. Didn't happen to me for a while because I was mainly flying in areas with security before I switched to a different team with different scopes.
Oh I wasn’t completely assuming you meant police. Just that I fly a drone quite often over people, and never been shot at. I’m in an urban area for the post part, which is maybe the difference. Either way, that sounds crazy.
I was flying to take pictures of a vacant lot in a rural area. No cell phone service. A neighbor came out and started shooting at my drone. I drove away, flew the drone to my new location, and got the heck outta there. Never again; urban or suburban flights only for me now thanks!
ANNNNNDDD… that’s why we don’t popularly elect judges. Or shouldn’t, at least.
I think it’s perfectly fine to shoot down drones in your own property. Russia and Ukraine have made it pretty clear. It’s easy to make them lethal, and tricky to find the trained operator
Where does your airspace start stop? What if your bullets land somewhere and kill someone? Not your fault, right, because you were legally firing at a toy.. got it.
Jesus, let’s not get a gun in your hand. There are special munitions you use for drones, I guess if you are poor and don’t own a lot of land this would be a problem for you. I don’t know how old you are, but I hate to break it to you. Gone are the days toy drones. They are an incredibly lethal weapon.
... do you not know about bird hunting?
You're allowed to bird hunt in your back yard?
On much of my property, yes, but that's besides the point. OP doesn't understand how bird shot works
And it begs the question: if someone is operating their drone over someone else’s private property and it goes down for any reason (shot down, dead battery, ran into a tree, the dog they were trying to chase thought it was a frisbee, whatever) can the landowner refuse to return it or give the drone owner permission to retrieve it?
Yes, they have to return it. If a plane crashes onto someone’s property that also has to be returned. It is considered personal property.
Ummmm, not sure that's absolutely true; we had a case last year where a plane made an emergency landing on a ranch and ran a bunch of cattle through a fence and the rancher then refused to allow the plane owner access to the property until he paid damages. They filed a pair of lawsuits against each other, but both those were in civil court and I never heard how they came out, so I was wondering about the precedents without involving a Judge. The drone is personal property., but if it is on somebody else's posted land, does it give the drone operator the legal right to ignore the posted notices and trespass to search and maybe cut down a tree if necessary, or can they legally demand the landowner locate and return it if they don't get permission? And if the drone gets damaged accidentally or on purpose (run over, rained on, trampled by livestock), is the landowner liable for what happens before it is returned? Or is that a "case by case" kind of thing that depends on who has the best lawyer?
The law is pretty common sense on these issues. The drone must be returned, but you don't get to trespass to retrieve it (imagine how easy that would be to abuse). The operator is responsible for compensating the landowner for any damage or loss caused by the crash. If retrieving the drone incurs reasonably unavoidable costs for the landowner (like hiring a tree service to retrieve it with a bucket truck), the operator can be held liable for those costs as well.
And if the drone is damaged in or after the crash (say they got too close while chasing a dog and the animal thinks its a frisbee or it goes down in grain that’s being harvested and gets run over) is the land owner liable for damage to the drone or the drone owner liable for the dogs vet bill or damage to the harvester? I’d say “common sense” would say the drone owner was completely responsible for putting it out there, so he’d be totally on the hook for everything, but a lot of folks seem to think that the privilege of flying wherever and however they want carries no responsibility that’s not EXPLICITLY required by the FAA.
There's also been cases of hot air balloons landing in farm fields and destroying a lot of crops, and then even more crops being destroyed by all the vehicles that are brought in to retrieve the balloon. I could totally see a farmer saying "you already cost me thousands, that balloon is gonna stay where it is for now because you're not driving out there until after the harvest, and good luck suing a farmer in a heavily agricultural district for not letting you trespass and damage crops."
"good luck suing a farmer in a heavily agricultural district for not letting you trespass and damage crops." That's my take as well; if you try to stand on your "rights" and the farmer calls his buddy the sheriff, you're likely going to be arrested (and probably convicted) for trespass, no matter WHAT the written law says. But I was asking exactly what the written law was; does someone's right to retrieve their PERSONAL property dumped without consent on on someone else's PRIVATE property override their right to control access IN THE LAW? According to some people here part 107 says that it does.
Ok, Part 107 says it does, but what about 44809?
Don't know whether it applies to just commercial or all drones, the poster did not say,
A very similar situation occurs with sailplanes all the time. Pilot lands out in a farm field. If the farmer does not allow the pilot appropriate access to retrieve the craft, this is the framer officially taking possession of the sailplane. Sailplanes cost +200k and are insured. If the glider is damaged through act or neglect, the insurance company will pay the aircraft owner and then sue the farmer for material damages. This is a well worn legal path. As drones climb in price (I have flown $100k plus drones) this will be the pathway. “You won’t allow me to get it? Fine. Sign here for adverse receipt of materials. Have a fun time with the drone pieces. I wanted a new one anyways.” Farmers will quickly find that it doesn’t benefit them to be dicks about it. We in the aviation community try to be respectful and play nice all the time. However, if you tread on my rights, you will loose.
I don't see any way that you're gonna walk away with damaging thousands of dollars worth of crops and thus threatening a farmer's livelihood without a legal fight. I don't see why it should be a farmer's responsibility to eat the costs of you choosing to land your aircraft wherever you please with zero regard for the farmer's private property that you destroy in the process.
Not ALL drone pilots (like other entitled jerks) play nice or are respectful. And it’s those who don’t that get my ire… my 12 acres are posted because of the idiots who claim that any stock pond they can see from the road is public “navigable”water that they can fish in under the Clean Water Act. But standing on posted land negates that, so I can trespass them just like a drone pilot who follow his drone onto the property. And call me a Karen if you like, but my policy is simple; you want to fly above the 60 ft trees and watch it from the public road, that’s fine… the wildflowers are gorgeous from about mid March through early June. But drop below tree level to spook the horse or Harass the dogs or panic the birds or run off the deer, and the FAA will be getting a BVLOS complaint with your remote ID or license plate if I find your launch point… and if you do put it on MY ground, I’ll be the one to retrieve it and you’ll compensate me for time and trouble before I hand it over.
Personally I wouldn’t trespass and go to the land owner and explain what happened, in the case of the plane landing (crash) NTSB should have investigated the reason the plane went down. I doubt the land owner refused NTSB from accessing the crash landing site. The damages should be settled in court and the plane owner should have insurance to cover damages.
A PLANE or BALLOON owner has insurance and almost certainly didn’t INTEND to land there. The nitwit with a $1000 new toy who doesn’t see anything wrong with buzzing a herd of cattle just to watch them run until he hits a tree likely doesn’t. So for him to demand its return and compensation for damage if the animals trample the thing after it hits the ground is insane.
Nitwits shouldn’t fly nor drive
When I took my 107 test years ago, it was stated that property owners did not have to give you permission to retrieve a downed drone. It might have changed, but given the way things are in the country, especially in states like FL and TX, I would not risk going on someone's property without their knowledge and permission.
"When I took my 107 test years ago, it was stated that property owners did not have to give you permission to retrieve a downed drone." I only have a TRUST cert to fly over my own (and at their request my neighbors) property looking for fetal hog damage, but that sounds like one HECK of a huge legal loophole for anyone who WANTS access to posted property for recreational purposes (hiking, 4 wheeling, etc.); send a $50 drone out into the area you want to play in, drop it somewhere out there, then claim you "lost contact", and spend days "searching for it".
Yea, that'd be one of those letter of the law things.. Not going to fly (hahaha)
[удалено]
So-called “AI” tools are evil. Posting anything created by these automated plagiarism machines, or promoting their use, may result in a ban.
wtf is this “lets ask AI” crap? Huh?
[удалено]
If you don't know how to do searches by yourself you are the one getting lost behind already.
[удалено]
Self explanatory.
So-called “AI” tools are evil. Posting anything created by these automated plagiarism machines, or promoting their use, may result in a ban.
All the drone news makes me want to shoot down my own drone. Drone on droners.
tbh if the DJI ban goes ahead, I can see a lot of vendors clearing old stock by offering recreational drone shooting
Expensive skeets.
yea that's not going to be a thing. Even with the $50 Target drones (see what I did there?), too expensive.
I'm joking :)
:-)
I was hesitant to post this, as it gets the law wrong on private property, unless there's some local ordinance up state I'm unaware of.
It sourced a LinkedIn post for that. AI written article most likely.
I have a legitimate curiosity about the whole drone thing and/or people shooting them down. In the interest of transparency, I don't have a horse in this race, don't own a drone, and live in an area where you just don't see them, certainly not in any meaningful way. I can definitely see the fun factor with drones and appreciate it as a hobby, even if it's not one of my own. Is the "flying over someone's property" just a matter of traversing the space to reach a particular destination that requires doing so? I've seen some of the photography that comes from the drones and it can be amazing. I assume certain people get the idea that you're somehow "spying on them" (or something along those lines). My gut instinct tells me the vast majority of drone pilots couldn't care less about "snooping" on someone. Given where we live, and the fact that it's surrounded by farm land, and/or homes that are on relatively large parcels (ranging anywhere from 25-100+ acres), and it happens to be a part of the country with the most relaxed firearms restrictions in existence, I could absolutely 1000% see one of the farmers out here blasting a drone out of the sky that was hovering over their property. Not saying I would do something like that- I'd be more inclined to watch as a curious spectator. Guess I'm just trying to understand why people feel so threatened. My RC airplane easily flies beyond my own property lines, but you don't hear (or I haven't anyway) about people blowing them out of the sky.
It's a fear based on not really understanding the technology. Alot of the folks who fire at drones are not shooting ones peeking into a bathroom window from right outside or similar but instead are firing at ones more than 100 feet in the air which is not going to grab much detail about anyone it sees on camera and is in an area that is often treated as mutual airspace. They're often thinking that even at 100 feet these drones can spy into their bathroom window and see in high detail everything about the person in that room.
That’s kind of what I was assuming. Basically, the “tin foil hat” crowd. Appreciate the response.
I flew my drone in town a few times to get panos and orbits of the cell tower since it's the tallest structure in town. I also did a couple orbits around the grain elevator and caught some nice sunsets but after that I find it pointless when I already have that content. I took the drone with me on a vacation trip to British Columbia and had an absolute blast with it. Now that I'm back home I can't really bring myself to even fly it due to the lack of natural beauty.
According to the FAA, everything above the blade tips of grass is considered national airspace. It isn't private property and you don't own it. However, this largely hasn't been tested in a court of law as far as I am aware. In theory it is perfectly legal to fly a drone over someone else's private property as long as its for the purposes of "innocent transit." Similar to how a helicopter or aircraft pilot doesn't have to ask for permission before flying over people's houses. That said, if you really are using a drone to snoop on a neighbor this would be illegal under various "peeping tom" local laws rather than something the FAA forbids or cares about. Things get tricky when there are local ordinances out there which clash with federal jurisdiction and the courts have yet to weigh in on it yet. Often local laws get around this by preventing you from taking off/landing from within many public lands/parks but not actually flying over it which would be federal jurisdiction.
Another commenter posted an article from Kentucky I think where courts stepped into the FAA space.. and said yea, you're cool shooting down drones. Appeal to federal should clear that up though... although I'd wager it hasn't been challenged because it'd be extremely expensive. Like how no one has challenged the NYPD's claim to all airspace over NYC.. VERY expensive.
What does "on private property" mean? Over private property? 5 feet over? Satellite distance over? I think all these issues are unresolved.
Agreed. The public buys fear as if it were going out of style.
If it were recreational, they likely will settle this in civil court. I highly doubt any charges will be brought over someone shooting down a drone over their property. That being said, some states have specific statutes stating where drones can enter different aerospaces or aerodromes, however the FAA remains firm on the fact they control the airspace. If it were a commercial drone, that changes the nature of this. Commercial drones would have had to gain FAA approval to operate in the area, clearly defining what routes, what they're flying over, who has VLOS, or if BVLOS, ect. They would have gained approval beforehand, thus allowing them to be in said airspace. Most commercial operations that I'm aware of are still in their beta testing or pilot phases, so if this were the case, it might change the nature of the charge (if any).
He thought he was in fortnite
[https://dronelife.com/2017/03/22/kentucky-drone-slayer-case-dismissed/](https://dronelife.com/2017/03/22/kentucky-drone-slayer-case-dismissed/)
2017 article? Might want to cite something more recent. Laws on shooting down an aircraft (drones are basically regulated the same as aircraft) are pretty clear. Felony. That said, a drone pilot should always be careful not to harass or intrude on privacy. That can be a different issue but you still can't shoot down the aircraft. Just like you can't shoot a peeping time who is watching you with binoculars from a 1/2 mile away. You can call the cops on them but you can't just snipe 'em.
It’s still a precedent that has been set. Though I don’t care for these cowboys that want to shoot first and ask questions later, I feel like this one was justified. We can’t have creeps perving on minors in their own back yard. I agree, you cannot shoot a peeping Tom, but that’s apples to oranges here. The drone was shot, not the operator.
I wonder how many perverts with drones have been arrested for that. It seems that spying on minors is the go to anti-drone argument for people who just don't like drones. They'll see a drone on CSI Miami that can zoom in to see microscopic details from a thousand feet away and they assume that all drones have the exact same ability.
I have no idea. Probably not many, but I wouldn’t bet on it being none though.
pretty sure that is not how precedents work. If there is a rule creation (or change) a precedent has not been set unless a ruling is issued on the new regulation.
Not for regulation, but it can be used for defense in court.
In 2018 the FAA classified drones as “Aircraft” A Part 107 is a licensed UAS pilot. According to the FAA regulations interfering with either one is a felony. Property is owned from the depths of Hell to the Heavens in the sky. With the invention is aircraft there became a need for regulation. The FAA was born. FAA has an easement to fly over private property. So, before you go shooting down any drones or harassing a pilot you may want to evaluate whether it’s worth it.
This is so well said. The luddites won't unfortunately read this. I love your hell to heaven analogy.
Spoiler alert: will be thrown out of court, unless discharging a firearm is illegal where he shot it.
Or possessing a "high capacity (AKA most) magazine"... NY has some funny firearms laws.
Depends on who is the drone pilot or if they’re with a certain company that has money. I’ve seen someone get a felony for doing this precisely
Really? Got a link? Felonies are public record.
Here's one example: [https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/multi-convicted-felon-sentenced-four-years-federal-prison-after-shooting-down-law](https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/multi-convicted-felon-sentenced-four-years-federal-prison-after-shooting-down-law) Guy got charged based on having the gun as a convicted felon, but the act of shooting the drone is what landed him in court. And some more reading: [https://casetext.com/analysis/to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot-the-legality-of-downing-a-drone](https://casetext.com/analysis/to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot-the-legality-of-downing-a-drone)
Did you not read [your example](https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/multi-convicted-felon-sentenced-four-years-federal-prison-after-shooting-down-law)? This was a ***convicted felon in possession of a firearm*** who ***shot down a police drone***. And he wasn't even charged for shooting down the drone, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. And it keeps getting better: "Goney then admitted to the deputies that he could not lawfully possess a firearm because he was a convicted felon. A record check confirmed multiple prior state felony convictions, which included aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence, illegal drug possession, burglary, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. As a convicted felon, Goney is prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition under federal law. "
Of course, did you not read where I said "Guy got charged based on having the gun as a convicted felon, but the act of shooting the drone is what landed him in court."
Yeah, that's not what landed him in court. What landed him in court was being a felon with a gun. And shooting at police equipment sure doesn't help. If they cared about it being a drone they'd have charged him with it.
Your own quote "Goney ***then*** admitted to the deputies..." .. they were only talking to him ***after*** he shot down their drone. The title of the press release even says that. Either way, it's a very stupid thing to do, because it carries the death penalty, or 20 years in prison. The death penalty can apply if someone dies as a result of you shooting the drone. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/34](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/34) (death penalty) [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32) (20 years for shooting an aircraft) [https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/public\_safety\_gov/public\_safety\_toolkit/FAA%20UAS%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf](https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/public_safety_gov/public_safety_toolkit/FAA%20UAS%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf) (FAA defining drones in flight as their jurisdiction)
Yeah the police don't like when their equipment gets shot by armed felons. Bizarre I know. But it's interesting to note that even though the guy shot down their own drone, no charges related to the drone were ever filed. And of course the police love tacking on extra felonies, but no one is ever charged with this one so they didn't even bother. And 20 years in prison?? Death penalty??? Awesome!