A megalomanic, acquisitive, all around daft bunch the Feds are -- but consistent! -- Thus it seems that even as UAS are regulated as real vehicles - So they enjoy the protections of same...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20-years-in-prison-211541710.html#

Can civil rights for Barbie and veterans benefits for G.I. Joe be far off?

Loving it!
HP

 

G I Joe would be better off with civilian health care.
I wouldn't let the docs at the VA hospital wipe his shiney plastic a$$.

 

Just wait until the same idiocy infects the DOT! Four-year olds will need a license to drive a drone "vehicle." And of course, laws against DWI will be strictly enforced.

John

 

I think in many cases the "castle doctrine" will trump some silly FAA ruling. If a device is in your airspace and you have reasonable claim of being threatened, no jury is going to send you to jail for eliminating the threat.

It'll get really messy when the property line is unclear, and the elevation is "high". A device hovering 10 feet above your patio and unquestionably over your property is very different than one passing over the edge of your property at 100 feet elevation.

The law will evolve, slowly. In all matters, bad events make for bad laws. This will be no different.

 

G I Joe would be better off with civilian health care.
I wouldn't let the docs at the VA hospital wipe his shiney plastic a$$.

No worries of that! -- Where the VA is concerned he'd succumb (if only to old age) long before they laid hands on him!

Best regards
HP

 

Just wait until the same idiocy infects the DOT! Four-year olds will need a license to drive a drone "vehicle." And of course, laws against DWI will be strictly enforced.

John

Re: the DMV --- In a (somewhat) parallel vein 'we' recently witnessed a conviction for intoxicated operation of an 'easy chair'
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2009/10/22/la-z-boy-dwi

Curiously, the authorities raised no objection to his not-infrequent (and, quite-likely, 'less than sober') operation of the (unregistered and unregistrable) contrivance on public roadways (including I-35!) in the months preceding the incident... --- Guess there's something sacred about pub car-parks?

Best regards
HP

 

Curiously, the authorities raised no objection to his not-infrequent (and, quite-likely, 'less than sober') operation of the (unregistered and unregistrable) contrivance on public roadways (including I-35!) in the months preceding the incident... --- Guess there's something sacred about pub car-parks?

Anyhow the crash was behind the pharmacy where lounge patrons aren't supposed to park! I say that was the real reason Denny's luck ran out! But what do I know?

 

I think in many cases the "castle doctrine" will trump some silly FAA ruling. If a device is in your airspace and you have reasonable claim of being threatened, no jury is going to send you to jail for eliminating the threat.

It'll get really messy when the property line is unclear, and the elevation is "high". A device hovering 10 feet above your patio and unquestionably over your property is very different than one passing over the edge of your property at 100 feet elevation.

The law will evolve, slowly. In all matters, bad events make for bad laws. This will be no different.

Indeed! A 'straight answer' as to the lower limits of the NAS seems rather elusive --- Though consensus puts it at 200 feet 'above average terrain' -- I've yet to locate an official citation...

Best regards
HP

 

Anyhow the crash was behind the pharmacy where lounge patrons aren't supposed to park! I say that was the real reason Denny's luck ran out! But what do I know?

Ewwwwwe!!! At a break-neck 2 MPH it must have been grisly! Wrenched metal, blood, gibs --- Best not to dwell on it

Best regards
HP

 

Unfortunately, you will never get a straight answer as to what airspace ownership means to the fee simple property owner. Two-hundred feet may sound reasonable, but there are obvious exceptions. One is the overhanging branch from a neighbor's tree. Better check the "tree laws"in your state before you do anything about it. Another is a low flying crop duster that may need to extend its turn over your property to be safe.

And then there is the EPA, which by some interpretations extends it authority from the limits of outer space to well beneath the surface. Here is a statement from the Ohio bar on fee simple (https://www.ohiobar.org/General Resources/LawandYou/TLAY_Chapter08.pdf )

Today, the airspace above the parcel is not exclusive; it is considered to be part of the public domain and subject to rights of navigation, which means that members of the general public can travel through or use that airspace.

Of course, Google has a suggested answer here (https://books.google.com/books?id=EdjhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=fee+simple+airspace&source=bl&ots=hVCvQsWkHl&sig=dKqc69yhnn5N8I_HpVfvT5WoBzw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7g9H9uqTMAhVIuoMKHXf_AU4Q6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=fee simple airspace&f=false ) that slightly different:



Does an antenna on your property constitute something that is reasonably necessary? One had better check with local zoning before doing that.

Personally, I would consider anything I could swat or knock down with a high-volume, high-pressure water hose (about 30 feet vertical with my sprayer) or below the roof line of my house is in my protected space. Do I have the right to use a rifle to shoot it down? Probably not.

As for being the subject of the average voyeur with a drone, there are certain protections, but you need to identify the operator of the drone. You probably have a case for trespass, but not for use of deadly force. The Castle Doctrine does not apply outside one's home, and in some jurisdictions does not even apply to an attached garage. The trespass offense could be a powerful disincentive to the drone operator depending on what images are captured, particularly if children are involved.

John

 

Unfortunately, you will never get a straight answer as to what airspace ownership means to the fee simple property owner. Two-hundred feet may sound reasonable, but there are obvious exceptions. One is the overhanging branch from a neighbor's tree. Better check the "tree laws"in your state before you do anything about it. Another is a low flying crop duster that may need to extend its turn over your property to be safe.

And then there is the EPA, which by some interpretations extends it authority from the limits of outer space to well beneath the surface. Here is a statement from the Ohio bar on fee simple (https://www.ohiobar.org/General Resources/LawandYou/TLAY_Chapter08.pdf )


Of course, Google has a suggested answer here (https://books.google.com/books?id=EdjhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=fee+simple+airspace&source=bl&ots=hVCvQsWkHl&sig=dKqc69yhnn5N8I_HpVfvT5WoBzw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7g9H9uqTMAhVIuoMKHXf_AU4Q6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=fee simple airspace&f=false ) that slightly different:

View attachment 104878

Does an antenna on your property constitute something that is reasonably necessary? One had better check with local zoning before doing that.

Personally, I would consider anything I could swat or knock down with a high-volume, high-pressure water hose (about 30 feet vertical with my sprayer) or below the roof line of my house is in my protected space. Do I have the right to use a rifle to shoot it down? Probably not.

As for being the subject of the average voyeur with a drone, there are certain protections, but you need to identify the operator of the drone. You probably have a case for trespass, but not for use of deadly force. The Castle Doctrine does not apply outside one's home, and in some jurisdictions does not even apply to an attached garage. The trespass offense could be a powerful disincentive to the drone operator depending on what images are captured, particularly if children are involved.

John

The willingness with with which many cast aside their liberty in the name of "The greater public interest" and (alleged) "safety" is nothing short of chilling!

Does an antenna on your property constitute something that is reasonably necessary? One had better check with local zoning before doing that.

At my Um... 'request' The FCC 'schooled' my zoning commission on that score -- to the tune of $50K --- Not often, but sometimes even Feds can be beautiful!

Best regards
HP

 

I agree. Fundamental rights are constantly being eroded by the increasing need to petition the government before the exercise of those rights.

Unfortunately, the government has cost on its side. Most of us just cave in and do it to avoid the ruinous and potentially non-recoverable costs.

John

 

I think there's another consideration here, aside from any issues of property rights, airspace rights or privacy rights: as any responsible gun owner will tell you, firing a gun up into the air, for any reason whatsoever, is a really, REALLY stupid thing to do. Basic gun safety demands that you always be mindful of where your bullet is going to land if it's not stopped by your target.

 

I think there's another consideration here, aside from any issues of property rights, airspace rights or privacy rights: as any responsible gun owner will tell you, firing a gun up into the air, for any reason whatsoever, is a really, REALLY stupid thing to do. Basic gun safety demands that you always be mindful of where your bullet is going to land if it's not stopped by your target.

I hear that! - I suspect the return velocity of even a 1 Oz slug would likely be very dangerous -- to say nothing of the hazard to legitimate air traffic...

Best regards
HP

 

As for being the subject of the average voyeur with a drone, there are certain protections, but you need to identify the operator of the drone. You probably have a case for trespass, but not for use of deadly force.

The drone is not alive, so I don't think "deadly" force has any relevance. If I can legally and safely fire my 12-gauge into the air above my house, if there happens to be a drone in the way, too bad for the drone.

 

The drone is not alive, so I don't think "deadly" force has any relevance. If I can legally and safely fire my 12-gauge into the air above my house, if there happens to be a drone in the way, too bad for the drone.

Not if the FAA gets involved. My use of "deadly force" was ambiguous. I meant shoot it down.

BTW, should I be so inclined, I would use a shotgun too. Much less problem stray projectiles. If it were within 25 feet, my 18-1/8" barreled, 12 gauge would the job, and the sound alone might discourage the operator from investigating further.

John

 

If I had a capture net, I'd use that. Free drone!

 

The obvious has happened as North Dakota allows police to arm drones.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-with-tasers-it-could-happen-in-north-dakota/

 

A follow up from #12's post. Click on the site he quotes. Go to the bottom of the page to 'youtube video' click on it and go to 'prototype quadrotor with machine gun. This is the ultimate in repeling unwanted aerial intruders; every household should have one!

 

Go to the bottom of the page to 'youtube video'

That wasn't easy to find, so here's the link: