|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 4, 2017, 05:57 PM | #26 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
Likewise bird shot. It may reach 500 yards, but it won't be doing much when it gets there. And, as someone has already commented, there's a big difference between carrying 200 yards horizontally vs. 200 yards basically straight up. |
||
March 4, 2017, 06:09 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 27, 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 329
|
Some moron drone pilot flew his drone over a group of Elk at a feed line on the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole Wyoming. He caused 1,500 Elk to stampede. Winter is a critical time for wildlife, and scaring them and getting them to panic can cause cows to abort and cause injuries to others. The idiot was from Washington DC, which explains a lot. He was ticketed & fined for harassing wildlife. Fools and their toys.
|
March 6, 2017, 11:16 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
March 6, 2017, 01:11 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Based on the summary found at the link provided by carguychris, the FAA wisely stayed out of the property rights arena. The maximum operating altitude is 400 feet AGL (above ground level). Nothing about "trespassing," but the summary does include the following:
Quote:
|
|
March 6, 2017, 02:52 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Here is an interesting and very exhaustive report from the Congressional Research Service regarding drone operations that touches upon property rights, private owner liability, and privacy concerns.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42940.pdf Keep in mind that this was written prior to the FAA's enactment of the current UAS rules. Quote:
The challenge posed by drones is that they've effectively detached safety concerns from privacy concerns. It's an obvious and egregious safety hazard to hover a Bell 407 next to someone's bedroom window, but this is not necessarily true of a DJI Phantom 4! I get the sense that the FAA punted with regards to the privacy and property rights issues, probably since they were under pressure not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg by passing draconian regulations that stifle the United States UAS industry (and, by extension, prompt the industry to move to other countries that lack such regulations). I predict that a few states will start regulating drones, and some of these regulations will go overboard, prompting a showdown with the Feds. Time will tell. Of course, another glaring possibility is that there will be a mid-air collision between a drone and a commercial airliner resulting in loss of life, which may force the issue.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; March 6, 2017 at 02:59 PM. |
|
March 6, 2017, 11:11 PM | #31 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 24, 2016
Posts: 20
|
A number of cities have outlawed drone use in their jurisdiction and that usually includes use by law enforcement. Drones have given the FAA an excuse to try and govern all manner of RC aircraft use wanting those of us who fly to register with the FAA and put ID numbers on our aircraft. So far I have decided I have enough airman certificates that they already know who I am and where to find me if need be.The FAA holds the position that it controls all airspace in the US from ground level up no matter whose land is involved. One of my RC buddies in a neighboring state, also an enthusiastic shooter, had a problem with a drone hovering around his property until it finally crashed there. He decided he'd hold on to it until someone knocked on his door to claim it. So far no one has. And I've had some experience with current drone technology so I know I can program a flight mission to wherever I want it to go within battery range under autopilot operation. I can fly it using first person view video technology with similar range limitations. New drones have a return to home switch that brings them home on command and many of them will come home automatically when battery levels drop to the point where it has only enough power to get home. And I know of one person contracting with the federal government to disable any drone it doesn't want to see in operation. It gets better though. Using over the counter equipment I am able to program a fixed wing RC aircraft to fly anywhere I want it to go at any altitude I choose and return. Battery technology will give me 12-24 hours of use and on board generators are easy to set up and have been for decades. All that is needed is enough fuel and that is easily done. Autopilot technology will perform both takeoff and landing at gps coordinates. All this came from guys working in their garage and experimenting. Sooner or later this capability is going to be put to some nefarious use and I won't be surprised when a few get shot down.
Rick H. |
March 7, 2017, 09:52 AM | #32 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Although the case effectively nullified the common-law doctrine that property extends indefinitely upwards, it simultaneously held that a property owner retains rights to the airspace necessary for "full enjoyment" of the land, extending to the "immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere." However, Causby did NOT establish a definitive altitude or horizontal distance limit, nor any other "bright line" definition of where federal sovereignty ends and private property rights begin. As it relates to the court case discussed here, the Restatement of Torts (Second)—widely relied upon in state courts for general principles of common law—states in § 159(2): Quote:
This issue will surely have to be hashed out in the courts in the coming years. Here's another discussion of airspace rights and drone flights that I found on the Interwebz: https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/02/RULE.pdf
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; March 7, 2017 at 09:58 AM. |
||||
March 7, 2017, 12:47 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
March 8, 2017, 11:32 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Drone pilots are welcome to fly their drones in a linear fashion up and down the public roadways, like any pilot following the highway to the next town.
When you leave the public airspace and intrude on the private airspace controlled by the landowners adjacent to the public roads, you're trespassing. There are minimum altitudes for flight for a reason. One is that landowners are considered to control their airspace for a few hundred feet above their property in order that they be allowed to enjoy the full use of their land. If you're trespassing with a camera, you're invading someone's privacy. |
March 8, 2017, 01:37 PM | #35 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
FAR/AIM § 107.51 (also codified in the corresponding section of 14 CFR) establishes no minimum altitudes for small unmanned aircraft. For that matter, neither does FAR/AIM § 91.119 establish any minimum altitudes for helicopters, powered parachutes, or weight-shift-control aircraft "if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface." This safety-hazard prohibition—together with various general prohibitions on reckless flying—makes it difficult to justify short-range surveillance of an occupied structure from a full-size helicopter (as I facetiously noted already), but this case is harder to make when talking about a drone weighing only a pound or two. Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
March 8, 2017, 04:18 PM | #36 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
|
Quote:
Quote:
With all of this being said... I have 3 daughters and I would fight and die for any one of them. I would probably exhaust all other alternatives for dealing with a drone trying to spy on them before I shot it down with a shotgun. You have to know that you will be inviting a legal fight on your hands at that point. If I can find a way to prevent that, I will. |
||
March 8, 2017, 07:35 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2008
Posts: 3,224
|
That Ain't Right.....
I, for one, am glad this subject came up. I'm also glad the shooter was exonerated. You do own the airspace over your home and property, to a reasonable distance. If it's in shotgun range, that is well within that reasonable zone. Even if the law says otherwise, it doesn't make it right. This issue is a legal frontier at the moment, and I'm sure the score will fluctuate to one side or the other before it gets fully hashed out. I'm glad there is a precedent being set by this that leans towards privacy rights. Only 93 feet of airspace? Heck, the trees here are a lot taller than that. If someone's drone is violating the airspace and rights of another, they should have no recourse if they lose their drone, to a shotgun, or other means of protection. In fact, they should be held liable for tangible consequences, perhaps even be fined, at least, for the trespass. But that involves the law, which has an imperfect interpretation of right and wrong. This fellow took matters into his own hands at peril of being arrested, which he was. The law would have done nothing about it. Now, because of this man's actions, the law has to face the matter. I admire his guts. I wouldn't have done it, because I'm not willing to go to jail if I can avoid it. So, he has my applause. It doesn't matter how expensive a drone is; it has no rights. And it's owner has no right to violate your rights. One may have a right to own and operate a drone; but that right is forfeited if is used to violate the rights of others.
Now that I've expressed my sentiments and been emboldened in this matter, I think I should go down to Bi-Mart and see if they got those new Super-X Drone Eliminator 12 gauge shells in stock. "Ah say, that was a joke, son." |
March 9, 2017, 09:51 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 1,996
|
Clays
Back fence loads of #8 can break clay pigeons @ 70 yards. It's not easy, but can be done.
I would think it's easier to take a drone down vs. a clay pigeon. I pellet striking a rotor will probably do the trick. I often walk the field picking up clays for use in a hand thrower. Lot's of them have one or two holes in the dome. Again, it just takes a couple pellets to take out a drone. All it takes is to damage one of the four rotors, and down they come.
__________________
ricklin Freedom is not free |
March 9, 2017, 05:41 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2013
Posts: 888
|
Coming from the RC plane world, I was pretty surprised when I found out about "drones", and how folks were flying them pretty much anywhere they wanted with minimal repercussions.
If you want to fly a small RC vehicle, go to a park, a club, or your own property, its just common courtesy. As to shooting "drones", I'd suggest trying to express your concerns to the pilot first, if thats too hard to accomplish, please keep your surroundings in mind and be safe. |
March 9, 2017, 09:26 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Common courtesy has gone the way of common sence, rare indeed.
Does someone make a jammer for these things?
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
March 9, 2017, 10:33 PM | #41 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
ok, I know that's not helpful, but it felt good...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
March 9, 2017, 11:09 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
|
Quote:
Drones: Most people think in terms of .MIL AIRCRAFT and so does the FAA. In reality we are mostly talking about Consumer R.C. Aircraft. Jammers: Here we are talking about F.C.C. regulations as well as Internationally agreed upon Spectrum Management. Shoot at a drone you may well be considered to be shooting at an AIRCRAFT. Think shooting at a Cessna. Jam a drone and you may well be violating FCC / International regulations. Jamming a drone is problematic even for the Aerospace Community due to FCC. They have the means, but FCC denies them the ability. |
|
March 10, 2017, 01:09 AM | #43 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
|
My gut feel is that you're probably better off shooting them down then running a jammer. Discharge of a firearm in city limits is a relatively minor charge/offense/penalty compared to running afoul of the FCC.
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
March 10, 2017, 04:24 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,755
|
Honestly, if you had access to an "instant-on" jammer that could disrupt a drone... how on Earth would you -ever- get caught by the FCC or anyone?!
You would have to broadcast your signal often and for drawn out periods of time to even garner any attention in the first place and only after someone at the FCC even believes someone has broadcasted a jamming signal could they even travel nearby you to attempt to localize the source. A GUNSHOT is a better idea?!?! In any case, I know what my first attempt would be... IZH-46. This thing is ridiculous!
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss. |
March 10, 2017, 10:06 AM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Case in point: http://www.startribune.com/rural-min...ges/389798121/ Again, the ballgame changes when it's a 2 lb drone with electric motors rather than a 1,200+ lb aircraft with a pilot, a gasoline engine, fuel tanks with gasoline in them, and a rapidly spinning propeller or rotors.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; March 10, 2017 at 11:26 AM. Reason: reword |
|
March 10, 2017, 10:29 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 25, 2016
Posts: 169
|
Let's see, a drone not hovering but mearly flying over his property and he had time to go inside, open his gun safe, choose the appropriate weapon, go to his ammo storage vault, retrieve some #8 shotgun shells, load the shotgun and go outside and shoot down a high flying drone with miraculous shot.
He must be a great shot and it must have been a really s l o w moving drone to be able to do that. I'd guestimate it probably was almost "standing still"... Yup, I'm assuming and commenting on a bunch of facts but no more than anyone else on here that hasn't seen\heard the evidence presented in the case. I fly drones. I know others that do also and there's a bunch of them with the attitude that they can do what they want and there's little or nothing you can do about it. They might get the hint if a few more were removed from the sky. Just my opinion |
March 10, 2017, 11:43 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
bow practice with a blunt tipped arrow is a possible solution
|
March 10, 2017, 12:39 PM | #48 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
|
March 10, 2017, 08:38 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
Quote:
even better! haha |
|
March 10, 2017, 10:57 PM | #50 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
|
Quote:
Quote:
One could also attempt to choose a "winner" by trying to guess the chances of being caught instead of focusing on the penalty. All I'm saying is that if you are going to break the law, you're probably better off ending up in trouble with a municipality vs. in trouble with a federal agency. Just in case it's not clear, I'm certainly not advocating that anyone take either action.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|