Shooting Down Drones

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsid=76381

"Myth #3: The FAA doesn't control airspace below 400 feet

Fact—The FAA is responsible for air safety from the ground up. Under 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2), the FAA has broad authority to prescribe regulations to protect individuals and property on the ground and to prevent collisions between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects. Consistent with its authority, the FAA presently has regulations that apply to the operation of all aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, and irrespective of the altitude at which the aircraft is operating. For example, 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 prohibits any person from operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

I would say in this case, it's reasonable to assume a hovering drone with a camera, pointed at your house is reckless enough to warrant suspicion from the homeowner, and allow him to act accordingly.

1) Model Aircraft (your first FAA link) are not "Aircraft" in the sense of operating under the rules and regulations of private aircraft or commercial aircraft.

2) Within the definitions of personal property, the owner has rights about what they can and cannot do to other property that intrudes on that space.

So in the 2nd case, if a "toy" (aka Model Aircraft) was on their property intentionally (which is to say the owner put it there), there is a bunch of case law that says that can impound it or do what ever they want with it. From errant baseballs breaking windows to toy airplanes (or rockets) which land on their land. Further the owner is liable for any damage it does. So in that regard the landowner was well within their rights to "shoot"[1] a toy airplane out of the sky above their house if they felt threatened. The means employed, a shotgun, only has an effective range of about 250' so by definition the flying vehicle was within the 400' exclusion zone. It doesn't matter if it was a $1500 quad-copter drone or a $1.50 balsa wood wind up airplane.

But then there is the whole question of police usage and surveillance. So for a police unit to be lawfully surveilling you under the 400' limit they need a warrant (currently). Its possible it extends farther than that given opinions like this one [1]. And as the article points out, if you can't tell its the police you can't really be expected to know you aren't within your rights in disabling it.

[1] "Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 3-13." - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html

This impacts the legality of shooting at the aircraft. To what degree this impacts will be up to the courts and the attorneys.

Of course, the shooter was an idiot for shooting at something in the sky, where the bullets would remain stable and lethal for potentially miles. He should absolutely be punished for that, but not necessarily for destroying the UAV operating illegally aside his house.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/kentucky-man-shoo... [2] http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.shotgun-shells.html

A more useful police function is to investigate and prosecute offences after the fact. If you know you won't get away with doing something, you'll be discouraged from doing it. In this case, what are the cops going to do? How about follow the drone, figure out who it belongs to, then go and have a word with them? Is 'conducting a criminal investigation' government overreach?

The only way around that is to make the gun yourself, which you can legally do, but you then can't sell it.

Technically not a license plate, but a lot closer to one than what drones carry.

This is of particular personal interest to me, because I fly gliders and sometimes we end up making emergency landings on other people's property when the weather doesn't quite cooperate with us.

My understanding of the law there is that I'm liable (and covered by my insurance) for any damage I cause to their property in the course of landing and retrieval, but the property owner can't stop me from retrieving my aircraft, and can't intentionally damage it.

Now, the fact that it's technically an emergency landing does change things a bit, for example my actions aren't a crime the way normal trespass would be. But I don't believe it changes the property owner's rights and responsibilities.

I had a neighbor who was shooting his assault rifle into the ground in his back yard (a typical suburban neighborhood). After a few shots, the police were called, and they showed up with an entire SWAT team. Confiscated his weapons and threw him in jail for a couple days. He wasn't waving it around, and wasn't threatening anyone. It was only 3 rounds, actually, but it was enough.