Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Man Shoots Down Drone Hovering Over House

"A Kentucky man thinks it unacceptable when a drone floats over his property. So he shoots it down. Then the drone's owners come calling."

$1,800 drone vs. $0.30 shotgun shell...the great equilizer.

Don't know about Kentucky, but be advised that Virginia law classifies a drone as an "aircraft" (as does the FAA), and Virginia has a statute that makes it a criminal offense to shoot at an aircraft. You can get in a world of trouble for shooting down (or for just shooting at) one of them contraptions.

dorminWS wrote:Virginia has a statute that makes it a criminal offense to shoot at an aircraft.

Correct, however, that doesn't diminish the hilarity that ensued in Louisville.

Maybe for the next group outing, we should drive over to KY in order to drop some drones from the sky. That sounds like a solid team-building activity.

If challenged properly? I think the FAA would be forced to back down from this issue.

too bad we dont' have a bevy of lawyers with a BACKBONE!

dorminWS wrote:Don't know about Kentucky, but be advised that Virginia law classifies a drone as an "aircraft" (as does the FAA), and Virginia has a statute that makes it a criminal offense to shoot at an aircraft. You can get in a world of trouble for shooting down (or for just shooting at) one of them contraptions.

Yep, and for the other side of the fence the "no fly zone" around DC is pretty large. Goes almost all the way down to my area in Woodbridge.................just ask the guys who got theirs forced landed @ Great Falls.

Many issues need to be addressed around "drones" given some cost as little as $50 for one with a camera. This is just one example, doubtful anyone "owns" the air space above their home = even if it's not considered an aircraft it's still destruction of property. On the reverse using the camera would be an invasion of privacy.

Historically speaking, if you owned a piece of land, you owned everything below the soil from the center of the Earth and all the way up to the heavens themselves. What lawyers might call the traditional starting point of property law is often expressed in the maxim
“Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos”
which basically translates to: “whoever owns the soil, holds title all the way up to the heavens and down to the depths of hell“. But that, which can be traced back at least to the 13th century, is just the starting point. After all, in the 13th century, there were no airplanes, drones or skyscrapers.

Generally, the deal today is that a landowner owns below the surface all the way to the center of the earth (if the mineral rights haven’t been previously severed) and as much of the air above the surface as he can reasonably use in connection with the surface, but that is confined to the ill-defined “lower stratum”. That is indeed a murky concept. You couldn’t use land at all if you didn’t own some of the air above the surface because almost any use of the land requires using some airspace above the surface. Obviously, building anything on the surface occupies airspace. Because you can reasonably use your land as long as you don’t unreasonably interfere with others doing the same thing, you have the right to reasonably use both the surface and the air above it unless you thereby interfere with someone else’s rights. And even though you may occupy only 20 feet of the air for a long time, under common law principle, you can later decide to build a 200-foot building unless it would be a nuisance, violate a land-use law, or violate an existing easement that runs in favor of someone else. Yes, there are such things as easements for light, air and even view.

As noted before the upper limit of an owner’s airspace isn’t clearly defined, and it conflicts to some extent with the relatively new (compared to 13-century Latin maxims, at least) concept of “navigable airspace”. The upper airspace, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, belongs to the public and is open to air travel. It’s just one more thing the federal government has seized control of. The FAA says navigable air space begins at 500 feet above the surface, and has recently conceded it has no authority to regulate the use of the airspace below that level. But obviously, many structures are taller than that. So I guess building the Empire State Building 1,453 feet, 8 and 9/16th inches high is by definition and usage, a “reasonable” use of airspace.

There is a semi-famous case on this dating back to 1945 when a chicken farmer named Thomas Lee Causby sued the US government for flying approximately 83 feet above his property, the noise of which caused a bunch of Causby’s chicken’s to accidentally kill themselves by running into walls. Causby won his case and the courts agreed that although a property owner wasn’t entitled to own all of the air above their land, they were entitled to enough so that planes flying overhead wouldn’t kill their chickens.

There is now, in the aftermath of the development and abuse of “drones”, or UAVs some discussion of decreasing the altitude at which “navigable airspace” begins. Just what this country needs: More regulation.

dr;tl - Nobody in the Gov't knows what the hell going on; including how to define, outline, or run a country. It's all "hey, let's see if this works until it doesn't" type of regulation.

As dormin put it..."Just what this country needs: More regulation."

dorminWS wrote:..........As noted before the upper limit of an owner’s airspace isn’t clearly defined, and it conflicts to some extent with the relatively new (compared to 13-century Latin maxims, at least) concept of “navigable airspace”. The upper airspace, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, belongs to the public and is open to air travel. It’s just one more thing the federal government has seized control of. The FAA says navigable air space begins at 500 feet above the surface, and has recently conceded it has no authority to regulate the use of the airspace below that level..................

Lol - yep, and the FAA is taking the position that they'll not be involved in the "drone" drama that's sure to come. As long as you don't interfere with air traffic you can do as you please (with the exception of the no fly zones - all the way down to the ground).

Another rather funny example - some animal rights folks have had them shot down for flying over hunting club lands.

The drone owner released a video showing, what he claims to be the flight data from the flight. In his commentary, he is describing altitudes before, and about the time the drone was shot. The lowest altitude he mentions is 193 feet, and the altitude mentioned just before it was shot, was 272 feet.

By his own description, he ranged from 64 yards (193 ft) altitude to 91 yards (272 ft) altitude just before it was shot.

Thoughts on the chances of dusting a drone at 90 yards, almost straight up, with a shotgun?

Something seems a bit fishy in his numbers.

Actually land owners do own the airspace to a reasonable amount!

Check it: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/t ... space.html

Ironbear wrote:The drone owner [url=http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/upda ... light-path]..................

From the video it looks like a DJI Phantom (or clone) of some model & yes the software that runs it is pretty damn sophisticated. Model dependent you can program it's entire flight path. Built in GPS = the owner is going to have precise flight data & looks like the guy doing the shooting might be in deep doo doo.

Ironbear wrote:The drone owner released a video showing, what he claims to be the flight data from the flight. In his commentary, he is describing altitudes before, and about the time the drone was shot. The lowest altitude he mentions is 193 feet, and the altitude mentioned just before it was shot, was 272 feet.

By his own description, he ranged from 64 yards (193 ft) altitude to 91 yards (272 ft) altitude just before it was shot.

Thoughts on the chances of dusting a drone at 90 yards, almost straight up, with a shotgun?

Something seems a bit fishy in his numbers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If he killed a drone at 90 yards, I'd like to buy his shotgun.

dorminWS wrote:

Ironbear wrote:The drone owner released a video showing, what he claims to be the flight data from the flight. In his commentary, he is describing altitudes before, and about the time the drone was shot. The lowest altitude he mentions is 193 feet, and the altitude mentioned just before it was shot, was 272 feet.

By his own description, he ranged from 64 yards (193 ft) altitude to 91 yards (272 ft) altitude just before it was shot.

Thoughts on the chances of dusting a drone at 90 yards, almost straight up, with a shotgun?

Something seems a bit fishy in his numbers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If he killed a drone at 90 yards, I'd like to buy his shotgun.

You don't think the barrel was strained making that shot?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:

dorminWS wrote:

Ironbear wrote:The drone owner released a video showing, what he claims to be the flight data from the flight. In his commentary, he is describing altitudes before, and about the time the drone was shot. The lowest altitude he mentions is 193 feet, and the altitude mentioned just before it was shot, was 272 feet.

By his own description, he ranged from 64 yards (193 ft) altitude to 91 yards (272 ft) altitude just before it was shot.

Thoughts on the chances of dusting a drone at 90 yards, almost straight up, with a shotgun?

Something seems a bit fishy in his numbers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If he killed a drone at 90 yards, I'd like to buy his shotgun.

You don't think the barrel was strained making that shot?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think the dude had a turkey choke and Ts or BBs in it, and was still not just a fair shot but a lucky one as well. #8 shot, my @ss!

crazy .. read the article and it said ..

"Merideth says he stood his ground: "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'""

40mm glock!?! where can I get one of those?

The Marines have a 40mm... and it chugs grenades like a BOSS!

GregVa wrote:40mm glock!?! where can I get one of those?

Glock 666... Not in the regular catalog. Gotta know people!

My son just told me they arrested the property owner. Surfing the web on my phone is a pain, so I haven't confirmed. Anyone know the ccharges?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

MarcSpaz wrote:My son just told me they arrested the property owner. Surfing the web on my phone is a pain, so I haven't confirmed. Anyone know the ccharges?

First-degree criminal mischief and first-degree wanton endangerment.