You mean an empty aircraft, right?

I remember hearing that shooting into the air was illegal. Some dunks routinely do that on New Years Eve. I just did a search, it's called "Celebratory Gunfire". I don't see much difference between that and what the drone gunman did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

I'm not looking for a debate, just sharing a thought.

Yes, very similar, if the drone gunman missed.

Now that the FAA requires you to register your drone, that makes them an aircraft like any other, so shooting them down is illegal.

Nah. If you are going to be a-hole with your drone, people should be able to remove it from their presence.

Shooting in the air is done all the time during duck season. This is just a case of a new emerging sport.

If only you knew how relaxing it is to be in a society where hardly anyone has a gun!

While I have not read many of the articles, one subject that is very rarely spoken is the simple fact that, property owners retain the right of air space within their property rights.

A drone at low altitude is violating that private air space and with the advent of cameras in them, one can argue that their privacy is being violated.

Where a utility company is granted an easement, to maintain the utility and service, a drone operator must receive permission to utilize the air space.

The thought process is also similar to hot air balloons. Besides the logistics of landing or taking off, an operator can not just set down the balloon where ever they want.

Drone industry's bubble will burst, because the "wow" factor is becoming less interesting and the laws are adapting to the new technologies.

I am not advocating for one side or the other, but I think everyone involved should practice a bit of the old adage. "Just because I can, doesn't mean I should." Just my 2 cents.

- Chad

astar said: "Shooting in the air is done all the time during duck season. This is just a case of a new emerging sport."

Ducks are usually targets in the wild, not where people live.

Also, shooting a drone should not be considered a sport. It is someone's property.

I agree with GeeBax. Shooting at an aircraft should be, if it is not already, illegal. I don't care if there are people in it or it is empty. A precedence has to be set, and now.

Dach said: "One subject that is very rarely spoken is the simple fact that, property owners retain the right of air space within their property rights."

I definitely don't know much about this from a legal point of view. Personally, when you go outside of your house you give up your privacy. It is outdoors.

Also, the use of a any gun is to defend yourself and family, and that is only when they are coming towards you, not running away. Someone in the space above your property or viewing at an angle looking at your property is not a physical threat to be defended.

There has been aerial photography for the last 100 years or so, with very little problems until recently. There has been aviation restrictions and rules for about the last 70 years. Through these years aviation and aerial photography/filming has developed without direct violation of privacy rights concerns, at least by most.

I would think, the cost of conducting aerial filming has been a part of the natural progression, and restricting those who are haphazard because there is no cost to their actions.

Recently, it has been possible for almost anyone, with a thousand bucks or so, to get into aerial filming and with that, comes a few, whose dictionary doesn't include the words privacy or infringement. And, until very recently, absolutely no requirement for training, certification, accountability or liability (at least in the US).

The property rights of airspace for many years has pleasantly coexisted with aviation safety, which for the most part break at around the 500' AGL point.....below 500' property rights, above 500' aviation safety (there are of course some exceptions and the laws and regulations differ between jurisdictions).

I would hope most drone operators are courteous and respectful. Unfortunately when the process is opened to almost anyone with little investment, it seems there will always be a few you muck it up for the others! Hence, contentions build until everyone faces more regulations, rules, and laws resulting in training, certification and some form of licensing!

Fortunately for me, I live where almost all my neighbors have guns, and there aren't many reasons for drones flying overhead. Like everything else, this issue will work itself out, whether it is to the liking of all, or not.

I appreciate Chad's comments and quote, "Just because I can, doesn't mean I should"


Best Regards......George

Maybe it would have gone down differently if the drone had actually been in the shooters airspace..

I guess I still live in this idyllic small, Midwestern community where people (old and young) approach me when I'm flying with curiosity about the technology. I use my skills for the benefit of the community and folks enjoy seeing their community and life showcased from a perspective they seldom see. I don't hide what I'm doing. First stop was at the local police department to tell them what I was doing. I've assisted some local non profits with footage. As an old fart, I feel like a kid again when I can be out flying and practicing my photo and video skills. I'm sorry for the paranoia and fear I increasingly see in our society. I'm amazed at how many are so self focused they actually believe someone is "spying" on them. Of course they willingly use a mobile phone and give up more privacy than they could ever hope to understand. Yet, they're enthralled with a visible, buzzing little drone. Yes, one can choose to see it as annoying and intrusive. But no more than Harley's with straight pipes or barking dogs or an outdoor band performing or God forbid someone shooting a picture or some video that I might show up in . . . or whatever. I've made my share of noise over six decades and the authorities and neighbors chose to cut me some slack. I'm glad and thankful they did. Now, I do the same knowing the space and freedom we afford each other is what constitutes life and the process of growing up and becoming a neighbor that cares as much about others as myself.

-- tom

"Personally, when you go outside of your house you give up your privacy. It is outdoors."

Sounds like an argument a paparazzi lawyer would use. Surely, it's not whether one is outside but whether one is in a public space.

Someone in the space above your property or viewing at an angle looking at your property is not a physical threat to be defended.

Sure, tell that to children living in Yemen.

I just think we need to get a grip on how we use technology and what is acceptable and what isn't. I'm not really in favour of gunning. I don't look forward to the day when the sky is filled with delivery bots and surveillance bots. When we need to think we can do something that is usually a sign that we shouldn't. End of grumble.

Kit:

The link you have about the children living in Yemen is about drones used for war and are used for killing people. That is sad, but not relevant to this thread. It is a completely separate issue.

I don't want to see a lot of delivery bots. There will be accidents some day when they start bumping into each other or people on the ground. Look up some day and you may see you package about to hit your head. (Probably not. Just a crazy comment.) Maybe they will even darken the sky and there will be no sun. (OK, that last sentence is an extreme exaggeration. I said it just for laughs.)

Surveillance is necessary in the days we are living in. It is sad, but true. Some government organization should not have to get a warrant for every time they want to see what some suspicious person is doing. No, I don't call this a police state. I call it safety, prevention, whatever.

Some individual just buzzing around and spying on people is a pain in the neck. At the same time that person is putting people in danger. They are often amateurs with entry level equipment who don't know what they are doing. It is an accident waiting to happen. They will ignore the laws anyway.

OT: I don't like all of the planes owned by individuals flying around. Most of the aviation accidents involve these planes. It may be two planes, a plane crashing to the ground (mechanical malfunction, out of fuel, pilot error). I don't care what the reason is, someone is often hurt or killed. You seldom see that happening with the commercial flights or private planes piloted by professional pilots.

I believe what is lost in this conversation thread is the unwarranted response on the part of the shooter to what has become an over hyped, and imagined threat to privacy. Personal multi-rotor model aircraft have become the new boogeyman of the local nightly news. The old news adage that says "If it bleeds, it leads" has now been replaced with "If if fly's, he lies". Everyone flying a multi-rotor model aircraft is assumed to be pervert.

Last Fourth of July I attended the annual picnic and family reunion that my cousin holds on his farm in rural Pennsylvania. This is the farm my grandfather purchased when he emigrated to the USA in the late 1800's; and where my mother and all of her brothers and sisters were born in the early 1900's.

I decided to bring my Phantom 2 along to get some aerial shots of the farm, so while me and my son were flying the Phantom, my wife was sitting at a picnic table next to a woman who was bitchin' about my "toy". My wife heard her make the comment "That guy is probably some pervert trying to look down the blouses of the girls on the ground". I don't know who this woman was, because she wasn't one of the family. Probably someone who came to the picnic with a friend of the family. But her comment struck me as being the result of all the hype, and scare tactics being spread on the local nightly news to gin up ratings.

Anyone who owns a personal drone, or for that matter, anyone who has ever shot any footage with a GoPro camera knows that the little fixed focus lenses that lack any optical zoom capability are completely worthless for shooting detailed images beyond a few feet. Put one in a drone a couple hundred feet in the air and you can kiss goodbye any hope of sneaking in some voyeur photos. Here is the peeping Tom video I shot on the farm. Can anyone honestly say that any person on the ground ahould be concerned about a breech of privacy?

Gary James:

I like your video - Very clear, steady.

I hope I did not want to imply owners of drones are a threat to privacy or they are perverts. In fact they should be able to fly their aircraft as long as they do it in a safe way. It is just like using a camera years ago, but with wings.

Nobody should shoot any weapon in a neighborhood. That should be done only at a shooting range and in fields where hunting is allowed. That does not include shooting in the air. What goes up must come down and sometimes it hits a person. The result can be anywhere from ouch to death.

Your Honor, I thought it was a duck.

"Your Honor, I thought it was a duck"

Well son, you are guilty of a minor felony charge of Unlawfully discharging a firearm within City Limits, a charge that means your gun has been confiscated, and your firearm ownership privileges are revoked; and you must pay a $500 fine.

This is a real sentence that people can get for recklessly shooting a gun into the air in a populated area. Many people here have made flippant remarks about shooting down model aircraft because someone had the audacity to fly it over their property. But those same people don't give an iota of thought to what may happen when that shotgun slug or .45 cal bullet drops back to earth after it misses the drone. People, animals or property can be seriously damaged, wounded or killed. How smug will you be when you're arrested and appear in court for the accidental killing of a 4 year old playing in his backyard two blocks down the street, when your shotgun slug came down and split his skull.

The blame for most of this lies squarely with the media "Done= Pervert". Anyone flying around over someone's else property may not even have the camera recording, nor are they necessarily interested in your property, they may fly over it to get somewhere else.

And as for the airspace over your property, you do not own it. No local or state government has any jurisdiction over it either, it is under federal law and only the FAA can enforce it. And that applies to most countries, substitute FAA for your local aviation administration.

Here is my problem with drones. Let's say I live in area where the houses have 8ft fences, solid fences in order to protects ones privacy. How is my privacy now protected when my neigbor decides to fly his drone around? As a bystander, I would not know what he is filming with what equipment or filming at all. So, let me know when you have a solution to the problem, because to say I dont own the airspace is one thing but I do have a right to privacy in my backyard, or don't I? I think law makers having figured that out yet but I hope they will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

OldSmoke, let me ask you this. Given your example of a backyard with an 8' privacy fence surrounding it, what would be your solution to your neighbor putting his Prosumer grade HD video camera on a 15' pole and raising it above your fence while he's standing in his own yard? I believe in both cases the local municipalities have peeping tom laws that would come into play. There's no need to start shooting at drones or video cameras.

Gary James, I didn't say I would shoot at the drone, but I don't think a "peeping tom" law would extent to drones, or does it?