12-Gauge-Skynet-Drone-Defense

[motorcarman]

I don't know if anyone has tried these rounds to bring down a drone???

http://www.chkadels.com/12-Gauge-Skynet-Drone-Defense-–-3-Pack-35975

Most people on this thread probably want their drone NOT downed!!!!!!!!!!!

I have half a dozen R/C model aircraft, mostly.25 to .45 sized glo-fuel powered but my nephew gave me a quad-copter with a camera that you can download video once it lands. I have not let it get more than 50 feet from me.

Just thought it was an interesting way to tell the neighbors to stop flying over my property if they ever try????

bob

 

[Younggun]

Not sure if it would work, but in 99% of cases it would be illegal as shot if it did.


Would suck to shoot down a quadcopter only to have to by the person a new one. I'd take the money and upgrade to a Mavic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheDan]

I would think some heavy bird shot would be sufficient.

 

[motorcarman]

If I shot down a drone, it would be legal because it would be on my property. I live in an unincorporated rural area and shoot my shotgun anytime I feel like it.
I guess if it were 500 feet above my property it might be legal to fly it??? Just as aircraft can fly over above 500 feet. Any lower and the FAA will need to know about it if I get the tail number!!!

bob

 

[zincwarrior]

If I shot down a drone, it would be legal because it would be on my property. I live in an unincorporated rural area and shoot my shotgun anytime I feel like it.
I guess if it were 500 feet above my property it might be legal to fly it??? Just as aircraft can fly over above 500 feet. Any lower and the FAA will need to know about it if I get the tail number!!!

bob

I would be very very careful with that assumption. While emotionally satisfying (i'm sensing a new shooting sport), the legal ramifications might be significant.

 

[Younggun]

If I shot down a drone, it would be legal because it would be on my property. I live in an unincorporated rural area and shoot my shotgun anytime I feel like it.
I guess if it were 500 feet above my property it might be legal to fly it??? Just as aircraft can fly over above 500 feet. Any lower and the FAA will need to know about it if I get the tail number!!!

bob

That's not what the law says. All opinions of the law aside, it's not legal to shoot down any type of aircraft (including sUAS) unless there are some extenuating circumstances other than "it was above my property".

The last ruling from SCOTUS on such matters related to height that property is being used and seems to generally come down to just about the trees, or tallest structure. But it's an old ruling from WW2.

At any rate, your local SD may side with you but if someone were inclined to get a lawyer and drag the mess in front of a judge you'd likely not have a legal leg to stand on. Most of the current "drones" that you might see cross your property also record GPS logs as well as transmit a record to the pilot. If you were going to justify (legal justification) the destruction of the sUAS it would likely not be a "he said/she said" situation, as the log would show location/height/direction it was facing at all times during the flight. It's also likely that any video being recorded at the time would be saved both on the sUAS and whatever device was being used to view the video.


I'm not saying people should fly over your place, only that you could find yourself in an expensive situation if you choose to shoot down what the FAA has started treating as an aircraft flying in a way that currently doesn't fit all that well in to a legal definition which allows for use of force or destruction of property.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vaquero]

So, how do we legally protected our privacy?

 

[Younggun]

That's a tough question. You could contact your local SO and see if anything can be done, same as you would if your neighbor set up a camera or telescope with zoom lens.

Aside from that you could work to have laws changed, although most laws are written poorly and would have side effects (think of Bens past post on photography laws).

But generally I'd say that whatever you would use to stop the neighbor with a zoom lens would be used to stop a person shooting aerial video or taking pictures.

Or work to have property rights improved or get new case law established regarding the rights to airspace above property. As it is now, pretty much anything above the altitude being "used" falls under the jurisdiction of the FAA.

Best answer I can come up with right now. It






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[outdare]

Just setup up the skeet set and ooops I didn't see or hear that little bugger.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Funny, but likely not an adequate defense. We are all responsible for every round that leaves the barrel.

It would most likely make you even more liable for any damages since you wouldn't be claiming any reason behind it.


I'm gonna bow out of this because I don't want to get pushed in to a side I'm not trying to take. Lots of bluster, preconception, some joking, and often much emotion in the subject and I don't want to get too tangled up in it. Just wanted to clarify the possible ramifications as the laws stand now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vaquero]

Funny, but likely not an adequate defense. We are all responsible for every round that leaves the barrel.

It would most likely make you even more liable for any damages since you wouldn't be claiming any reason behind it.


I'm gonna bow out of this because I don't want to get pushed in to a side I'm not trying to take. Lots of bluster, preconception, some joking, and often much emotion in the subject and I don't want to get too tangled up in it. Just wanted to clarify the possible ramifications as the laws stand now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I certainly respect that.
I do wonder about the rights of privacy though.

Sadly, our legislature is way behind the technology curve.
I hope the state acts before the feds.

 

[Younggun]

Here's a link that gives some explanation as to why the laws are so muddled in this area.

https://ontheradar.foxrothschild.co...rty-rights-end-and-navigable-airspace-begins/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[outdare]

Here is another route. http://jammers4u.com/drones-jammer

Guess we'll have to check the FCC rulings on these.

I have no dog in this hunt. Just playing Devils advocate.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

It's highly illegal to interfere with radio signals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[outdare]

As far as I know drones or RC planes are not covered by any FCC regulation. This may fall under a FAR for safety, but broadcasting on the 2.4ghz spectrum is open game. To certain power limits.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Due to the frequency hopping nature of current RC equipment, at least anything considered hobby grade (spectrum/tactic/Futaba/LightBridge/DJI) you would have to literally blast everything at the drone well above legal power limits in order to wash over the entire 2.4ghz spectrum.

They aren't like a 2.4ghz cordless phone, closer to a sincgars radio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Jamming GPS signals is a big No-no. A company developed one in hopes of selling it to the government and even then ran in to a lot of issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

You could build a hammer from the stuff at radio shack if you really wanted to though, it would just be really illegal to use and you probably bleed in to about a dozen other frequencies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Here is another route. http://jammers4u.com/drones-jammer

Guess we'll have to check the FCC rulings on these.

I have no dog in this hunt. Just playing Devils advocate.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

You got me curious about how they were even selling these, company is in Taiwan. In the US they would be getting a visit from the FCC and probably a staggering fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

So, how do we legally protected our privacy?

Sue them for trespass.