The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 4, 2017, 05:57 PM   #26
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
And every box of .22 short I've ever seen has a notice on the box: "Range 1 mile. Be careful!"
.22 ammo has a tremendously longer range than birdshot. Birdshot is considered to be completely safe at 400 yards from the muzzle--much shorter than the safe distance for any rimfire or centerfire bullet.
That was pretty much my point. But there's .22 ammo, and there's .22 ammo. A .22 short doesn't have nearly the range or the down-range energy that even standard velocity .22LR has -- to make a .22 short carry a mile you'd have to really work at it.

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.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 4, 2017, 06:09 PM   #27
shootbrownelk
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.
shootbrownelk is offline  
Old March 6, 2017, 11:16 AM   #28
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmhyer
My guess is that it's just a matter of time before the operation of drones falls under some sort of federal guidelines...probably under the purview of the FAA.
They already do, under the fancy title "Unmanned Aircraft Systems." New rules were implemented late last year. Read away.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old March 6, 2017, 01:11 PM   #29
Aguila Blanca
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:
Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation,
not under a
covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary
vehicle.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 6, 2017, 02:52 PM   #30
carguychris
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:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Based on the summary found at the link provided by carguychris, the FAA wisely stayed out of the property rights arena.
Correct. One vital thing to understand is that the FAA is a regulatory agency tasked primarily with promoting aviation safety and efficient air transportation and commerce. They are NOT a law-enforcement agency; ensuring citizens' privacy and property rights is not directly their job. These issues often emerge on the fringes of what they do, which has resulted in a patchwork of court precedents regarding various aviation issues, but few apply directly to drones.

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.
carguychris is offline  
Old March 6, 2017, 11:11 PM   #31
f2shooter
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.
f2shooter is offline  
Old March 7, 2017, 09:52 AM   #32
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by f2shooter
A number of cities have outlawed drone use in their jurisdiction and that usually includes use by law enforcement.
IMHO such regulations are sure to eventually run afoul of the Feds. There is court precedent; City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc. (1973) held that a municipality may not prohibit aviation operations conducted in accordance with FAA regulations, and International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 et al v. City of Morris, Illinois (2014) recently held that this precedent clearly applies to aviation conducted for nominally recreational purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by f2shooter
The FAA holds the position that it controls all airspace in the US from ground level up no matter whose land is involved.
True, and this is codified in 49 USC § 40103(a)(1).
Quote:
The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
This strongly implies that the federal government intends to occupy the field of aviation regulation within (and over) the United States (field preemption). However, as discussed at length in the CRS report that I linked earlier, prevention of trespassing and invasions of privacy has traditionally been within the powers of the states, and the proverbial granddaddy of court precedents involving airspace in the U.S.—United States v. Causby (1946)—held that the federal government's sovereignty over airspace is NOT unlimited.

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:
Flight by aircraft in the air space above the land of another is a trespass if, but only if, (a) it enters into the immediate reaches of the air space next to the land, and (b) it interferes substantially with the other’s use and enjoyment of his land.
It can certainly be argued that a low-altitude drone flight over someone else's property constitutes trespassing under this definition. Ergo, it is arguably also appropriate for the property owner to use a legally prudent level of force to stop the trespass.

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.
carguychris is offline  
Old March 7, 2017, 12:47 PM   #33
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Highly unlikely that the homeowner could have shot down the drone if it was at 200 feet or higher, and moving. The purported telemetry "evidence" was supplied by the owner of the drone, not from law enforcement, thus immediately suspect.
After doing the research I've summarized, it occurs to me that the judge may have considered the property owner's ability to disable the drone with short-range birdshot as prima facie evidence that the aircraft was in fact within "the immediate reaches of the air space next to the land," and thereby concluded that the drone owner's telemetry was bogus.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old March 8, 2017, 11:32 AM   #34
kilimanjaro
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.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old March 8, 2017, 01:37 PM   #35
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro
There are minimum altitudes for flight for a reason.
According to the FAA, the primary reason is safety, not the prevention of trespassing. From what I've read, the FAA and its predecessor agencies have carefully avoided directly addressing the trespassing issue.

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:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro
...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.
Not exactly; as discussed earlier, AFAIK there is no simple cut-and-dried minimum altitude or proximity limit that defines trespass by an aircraft, either in the FAR/AIM, common law, or federal court precedent.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old March 8, 2017, 04:18 PM   #36
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
After doing the research I've summarized, it occurs to me that the judge may have considered the property owner's ability to disable the drone with short-range birdshot as prima facie evidence that the aircraft was in fact within "the immediate reaches of the air space next to the land," and thereby concluded that the drone owner's telemetry was bogus.
^^^This is my thought on the matter. 200 feet almost straight up at a moving drone with #8 is probably doable, but doubtful. That's nearly a 70 yard shot with a shotgun, and #8 is losing a lot of steam at that point. I would probably err to the argument that places the drone a good bit closer and slower moving than this "evidence."

Quote:
It’s just as reckless, irresponsible, and criminal as shooting into the air to ‘celebrate’ the New Year.
While I agree that shooting in the air, or into a berm for that matter, to celebrate the New Year is a little "redneckish" in my opinion; I do not agree that it is always reckless and irresponsible. If it is always reckless and irresponsible to shoot into the air, then no one would ever bird hunt with a shotgun. Or shoot clays. This tradition is haphazardly practiced by many, but there may be some that partake responsibly. In other words, they live in the country and they send a few rounds of low brass # 8 into the air on New Years. Nothing reckless or irresponsible about that.


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.
5whiskey is offline  
Old March 8, 2017, 07:35 PM   #37
Pathfinder45
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."
Pathfinder45 is offline  
Old March 9, 2017, 09:51 AM   #38
Ricklin
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
Ricklin is offline  
Old March 9, 2017, 05:41 PM   #39
ttarp
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.
ttarp is offline  
Old March 9, 2017, 09:26 PM   #40
pnac
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
pnac is offline  
Old March 9, 2017, 10:33 PM   #41
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
Does someone make a jammer for these things?
It appears #8 birdshot works...


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.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 9, 2017, 11:09 PM   #42
SHR970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
Quote:
Does someone make a jammer for these things?
Here is where things get sticky with US law / Regulation and the tortoise nature of our Elected Officials and the Bureaucrats.

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.
SHR970 is offline  
Old March 10, 2017, 01:09 AM   #43
JohnKSa
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:
Shoot at a drone you may well be considered to be shooting at an AIRCRAFT.
I'm not claiming to have done any study on the topic, but at the same time I'm not aware of any legislation or rulings equating RC planes or commercially available drones of the type under discussion on this thread with more conventional aircraft. I'd be interested to see anything along those lines to get a feel for how they read.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old March 10, 2017, 04:24 AM   #44
Sevens
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.
Sevens is offline  
Old March 10, 2017, 10:06 AM   #45
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHR970
Shoot at a drone you may well be considered to be shooting at an AIRCRAFT. Think shooting at a Cessna.
AFAIK there are no laws specifically against shooting at an aircraft. That being understood, consider that in the past, if you shot at an aircraft, you were generally also shooting at a PERSON inside the aircraft, or directly and gravely endangering that person by potentially disabling critical aircraft systems. In a populated area, a potential crash would also seriously endanger people on the ground. Hence, laws against aggravated assault, attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and so forth were adequate to ensure prosecution of an offender.

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
carguychris is offline  
Old March 10, 2017, 10:29 AM   #46
xcc_rider
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
xcc_rider is offline  
Old March 10, 2017, 11:43 AM   #47
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
bow practice with a blunt tipped arrow is a possible solution
heyjoe is offline  
Old March 10, 2017, 12:39 PM   #48
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Tiger kites!

http://laughingsquid.com/kite-fight/
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 10, 2017, 08:38 PM   #49
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
Quote:
Aguila Blanca Tiger kites!

http://laughingsquid.com/kite-fight/

even better! haha
heyjoe is offline  
Old March 10, 2017, 10:57 PM   #50
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
Quote:
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?!
I'm talking about the difference in penalties if you do get caught.
Quote:
A GUNSHOT is a better idea?!?!
Again, I'm talking about the relative penalties of two illegal activities.

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?
JohnKSa is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.13535 seconds with 9 queries