You cant legally shoot at drones even if they are tresspassing.
Well, technically they wouldn’t be tresspassing since FAA owns all airspace, they’d be inside FAA airspace.
Shooting down a drone is treated the same as shooting down a manned aircraft, a felony. (not that they would actually enforce it, but its technically on the books)
Signal jammers are also illegal (again, not that someone would enforce it, but its on the books)
What would happen happens is:
If a rich person shoot down a non-rich person’s drone, the drone operator gets punished for “reckless drone flight” slap a huge fine if first offence, potentially jail time for future offences. The illegal act of shooting down a drone would not be enforced.
If a rich person flew a drone to harass a non-rich person, and the non-rich person shoots it down, boom, felony conviction for the person shooting down the drone, zero punishment for the drone operator.
According to Article L. 6211-3 of the Transportation Code, airspace does not belong to the landowner. Therefore, a drone can fly over your property as long as it does not infringe on your property rights.
The Penal Code, Article 322-1, specifies that destroying a drone is equivalent to damaging someone else’s property, punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of 30,000 euros.
If the drone flight reaches an intensity that the owner of a property considers a nuisance, this justifies a shooting. This is also how the Riesa District Court saw it, which on 24. April 2019 (file number: 9 Cs 926 Js 3044/19). The facts: A drone flew over a property and followed the movements of a woman and her daughter. The woman’s daughter felt threatened by the drone.
This flew around at a height of 5 to 15 meters above the two women. The woman’s husband first called out to the drone to leave. He also signaled this by clear hand signals. Since the pilot did not steer the drone away from the property, the defendant shot at the drone with an air rifle.
After the drone was shot down, it fell from the sky and was completely destroyed. There was a damage of 1,500 euros. The owner of the drone filed a criminal complaint for property damage in accordance with § 303c of the Criminal Code.However: According to § 228 BGB, the man was allowed to shoot the drone. He acted in a state of emergency and averted imminent damage from his family. There was a threat of further images.
Like with all emerging technologies let’s wait for jurisprudence on those… though in europe we generally frown upon anything firearms I guess there will be some interesting evolutions with drones.
As platforms they open too many possibilities and a rather constraining framework is already preventing their operation unless you have a license… which could become more of an access barrier if abuses become more prevalent.
Anecdotally I have seen first hand in 2 occasions unlicensed operators getting caught and largely fined; which was in the end more expensive that having the little drone shot.
Anyway having references that broadly seem to offer protection to drone operators isn’t necessarily a good news even where gun maniacs aren’t plentiful.
You cant legally shoot at drones even if they are tresspassing.
Well, technically they wouldn’t be tresspassing since FAA owns all airspace, they’d be inside FAA airspace.
Shooting down a drone is treated the same as shooting down a manned aircraft, a felony. (not that they would actually enforce it, but its technically on the books)
Signal jammers are also illegal (again, not that someone would enforce it, but its on the books)
What would happen happens is:
If a rich person shoot down a non-rich person’s drone, the drone operator gets punished for “reckless drone flight” slap a huge fine if first offence, potentially jail time for future offences. The illegal act of shooting down a drone would not be enforced.
If a rich person flew a drone to harass a non-rich person, and the non-rich person shoots it down, boom, felony conviction for the person shooting down the drone, zero punishment for the drone operator.
This is how drone issues would be resolved
All that doesn’t matter in international waters.
Which jurisdiction?
USA, sorry my American-centrism was kicking in, my bad 😉
Interesting I dig up a bit for Europe :
France
Germany
Like with all emerging technologies let’s wait for jurisprudence on those… though in europe we generally frown upon anything firearms I guess there will be some interesting evolutions with drones.
As platforms they open too many possibilities and a rather constraining framework is already preventing their operation unless you have a license… which could become more of an access barrier if abuses become more prevalent.
Anecdotally I have seen first hand in 2 occasions unlicensed operators getting caught and largely fined; which was in the end more expensive that having the little drone shot.
Anyway having references that broadly seem to offer protection to drone operators isn’t necessarily a good news even where gun maniacs aren’t plentiful.
Interesting research, thanks.
If you own a yacht, you are already rich enough to be above the law.
What if instead of shooting them, I hit them with a really long stick? Or throw a rock or a spear?