I'd stop flying over your place, but I have friends who would laugh and tell you to pound sand - then they'd fly over your place a few more times for fun.
Remote ID won't solve this either, it doesn't apply to drones <250g. You're going to have to just deal with it.
A landowner in the United States owns the air space above their land up to the height that the FAA has classified as Navigable Airspace in that area, generally either 500ft or 1000ft. Flying over someone’s property below that height is trespassing, and after a good faith effort to identify the trespasser and inform them to stop trespassing, the landowner is entitled to destroy the drone (for example with buckshot) or report the trespassing to the police for investigation.
> the landowner is entitled to destroy the drone (for example with buckshot) or report the trespassing to the police for investigation.
Citation?
> But today the FAA in response to my questioning confirmed that shooting down a drone is a federal crime and cited 18 USC 32. That statute makes it a felony to damage or destroy an aircraft.[1]
> the statute also prohibits interfering with anyone "engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Since drones are considered aircraft, threatening a drone or a drone operator, according to Ms. Alkalay, would also be a federal crime subject to five years in prison under this same statute.[1]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/04/13/faa-confi...
> Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 32 enacted in 1984 expand United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce.
The special aircraft jurisdiction in question requires the aircraft to be “in flight”, where the definition of “in flight” oddly enough depends on the aircraft having “doors”.[1]
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it does not apply to unmanned aircraft unless they are engaged in interstate commerce. But I am not a lawyer.
> engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft
Perpetrating a crime like criminal trespass or harassment is by definition not an authorized operation of any aircraft.
An FAA advisory on the topic [2] claims broad authority to supersede local regulation, but is careful to refer only to “navigable airspace”, and notes that
> Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.
I should have been more careful in my wording in the above comment. What you can and cannot do to a trespassing unmanned drone operating below the navigable airspace ceiling on your property is going to depend on the applicable state and local laws. For example, most municipalities have laws against use of firearms within city limits.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
[2] https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/policy_library/media/UAS_F...
https://www.thedronelogic.com/drone-laws-by-state/california...
> Keep your drone within sight. If you use First Person View or similar technology, you must have a visual observer always keep your drone within unaided sight (for example, no binoculars).
https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2...
> The drone operator is operating within the law
No. I checked and the law is that they must be within line-of-sight. These two drone were both flying all over a residential neighborhood and the operators aren't in line-of-sight.
> you do not have a right to talk to them.
That makes no sense. Of course I have a right to talk to anyone.
> I have friends who would laugh and tell you to pound sand - then they'd fly over your place a few more times for fun.
Then we would have a serious problem.
> You're going to have to just deal with it.
No one wants that.