My guess is it would not make any difference since they are operating
under the authority of the FAA and subject to them. Thus you have
limited airspace where they can operate. I don't know of any reason you
could destroy someone else's property.
It is well established that the FAA has sole jurisdiction over the
airways in the US and has exclusive authorization on the use of the
airways. It also has already stated that it is taking that jurisdiction
over drones of any an all kinds.
the Supreme Court has recognized that a landowner had property
rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The
law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air
navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner
owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may
reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying
land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a
reasonable amount of the airspace above the property.
But they also went on to say that a landowner can't arbitrarily try
to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite
poles," for example. While probably not exactly on point, it would tend
to make the argument that you also couldn't shoot down drones.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
You can be arrested and prosecuted for even shining a bright laser at an
airplane. Let's have Gordon shoot down an FAA approved drone, especially a
military one, and tell us what happens. My hunch is the outcome will not be
good and it will very expensive since Predator drones retail for four
million dollars and up, depending on the "option package."
More importantly, they are designed to absorb a significant amount of small
arms fire and still function. Maybe a Vulcan minigun could do the trick but
I don't see any listed on Ebay . . .
AHR - Home of great home repair advice and not so great real-world advice
That probably means that at least a few people on both sides of the issue
are taking it seriously. Especially those who don't know what the word
"symbolic" means. Sadly you don't need to take an IQ test to either vote or
own a gun. I'd support both.
I haven't followed the story closely enough to know whether the declaration
of symbolism was right from the start or made after-the-fact in response to
cries of "you can't do that!" The FAA rules the skies with impugnity and
they've prosecuted more than a few helium balloon/lawn chair fliers on
I'm sure that now the idea has been planted, they're primed to prosecute the
daylights out of anyone stupid enough to shoot down a recon drone that's
sending home pictures of itself being attacked. Or, as others have pointed
out, it could turn out the drone decides to stand its ground and starts
shooting back. If corporations are people, why not robots and drones? You
just know that when humanoid robots get realistic enough, *someone* is going
to want to marry one and will want it to share its employment benefits.
I'm sure in a year or two you'll be able to buy anti-drone drones from
China, probably on E-bay, that you can use to protect your airspace. Or
train a falcon to attack them. I just know that somewhere out there some
evil genius kid is modifying his model rocket as a drone interceptor. It's
the American way. (-:
Oh, look! Little Gordy is trying to stand on his hind legs like a human
being!!! How cute!
Does anyone have a Milkbone for his reward? Make sure it's a plain white
one 'cause I don't think he likes the colored ones very much. (-:
Such a cute little doggie, trying to insult my intelligence when he doesn't
even know that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean "innocent." Now "sit"
Gordy. Good boy! Now roll over.
Monthy Python fans might remember this cat license sketch:
Man: You are a looney.
Praline: Look, it's a bleeding pet, isn't it? I've got a license for me pet
dog Eric, and I've got a license for me pet cat Eric...
Man: You don't need a license for your cat.
Praline: I bleeding well do and I got one. He can't be called Eric without
Man: There's no such thing as a bloody cat license.
Praline: Yes there is!
Praline: I bleeding got one, look! What's that then?
Man: This is a dog license with the word 'dog' crossed out and 'cat' written
in, in crayon.
Praline: The man didn't have the right form.
Man: What man?
Praline: The man from the cat detector van.
Man: The looney detector van, you mean.
I am sure I posted this before about real loons: A westerner was talking to
a 60 Minutes reporter about how the Federal government was just a nuisance
to farmers and the various EPA edicts were made by people in Washington who
had very little hands on experience with the problems of farmers and
ranchers out West. He was actually making a pretty convincing case until he
started to explain that the tiny metalllic strip that had just (at that
time) been added to US currency was there so that the Feds could track every
cash transaction by satelite.
Another time, when I was running cable to a CB antenna I was installing on
the roof of my *garden* apartment (not a plant in sight!) a woman leaned out
of her kitchen window and said "I know what you're doing, you're building a
wire trap for me!"
Why right here in AHR we have someone who routines complains about the
tracking chip the government put in his back. More likely his family stuck
a pet tracking collar on him so they can find him in case he wanders away
from his rubber room. (-:
I seem to recall small blimps in the air over London during WWII to
tangle up low flying enemy aircraft. You could claim to be a ham radio
operator and use big balloons to string wire above your property keeping
it below the altitude that maned aircraft are required to maintain over
homes and cities. I found this on line:
Low Flying Rules in the US
In the US, Part 91 (specifically 91.119) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations controls the minimum safe altitudes by which aircraft can be
operated in the National Airspace System.
500 ft rule An aircraft must maintain an altitude of 500 feet above the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those
cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
1000 ft rule An aircraft must maintain an altitude of 1,000 feet above
the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the
aircraft over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over
any open air assembly of persons.
Other aircraft, such as helicopters, powered parachutes, and
weight-shift-control aircraft, are not required to meet the FAR 91
minimums, so long as their operation is conducted without hazard to
persons or property on the surface.
A barrage balloon is a large balloon tethered with metal cables, used to
defend against low-level aircraft attack by damaging the aircraft on
collision with the cables, or at least making the attacker's approach more
difficult. Some versions carried small explosive charges that would be
pulled up against the aircraft to ensure its destruction.* Barrage balloons
were only employed against low-flying aircraft; the weight of the longer
cable made them impractical for higher altitudes.
*That had to be a nasty sound, when the aircrew heard the cable snag and
then "twang" until the bang.
I was driving under a C5A Galaxy just after they had enlarged a runaway at
Andrews AFB to accommodate them. The pilot was coming in too low and had to
go to full thrust for a go-round. Holy mother of God. The sky went dark
and my teeth started rattling. The only thing that even approached that was
when a flight of six Hueys passed low overhead. Good thing the Seals didn't
have to try to sneak up on Osama in a formation of Hueys.
I remember watching the helicopter assault scene in Apocalypse Now and
thinking to myself that they failed to capture the earth-shaking awesomeness
of the UH-1s arriving in force. A lot of guys, including some I know, owe
their lives to the Huey medevac helicopters and the outrageously bold pilots
who would tilt their choppers at an angle and use their rotor blades to
clear enough vegatation to land if there wasn't a clear LZ. The VC had a
nasty habit of studding out any potential LZ or previously used one with
sharpened ten foot poles.
It's not easy to shoot down drones. Low, they tend to go fast. High, well
I was in a drone battery in the army 70-71 . It was rare for a bunch of
vulcans, firing 100 rounds per second, to hit a target. On some demo's
someone would hit the Shute button, to make it look good.
> Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
> guardian.co.uk' (http://tinyurl.com/o3lp5ao )
Now the NRA is gonna lobby for the legalization of Stinger antiaircraft
After all, the only protection against a crazy drone bent on doing harm
is a public citizenry well armed with modern surface to air missiles.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.