Hey, what are you up to in your back yard, neighbor?
In ways I agree with you, in others I don't. You shouldn't just be able to "fly it wherever I damn well please" unless you own the airspace above or maybe if it's land designated as acceptable for that purpose. I think certain laws of public access will probably translate well, if the government doesn't use this as an opportunity to curtail freedoms and liberty again. I for one don't want you "flying it wherever you damn well please" unless that means I can "shoot it down however I damn well please"
Strange, because i remember reading that in the US you actually own the airspace above your property to a certain height (i think 500ft), and the law just requires you allow unrestricted airspace access to any vehicle under the jurisdiction of the FAA, the US military, or the US government. So i guess, technically, you could shot down a civilian drone.
It is a little more complicated than what I said.. The article has a pretty good explanation.
In the article: the first case the supreme court heard on the matter was a chicken farmer who said planes flying overhead were scaring his chickens, and they would fly into walls from fright. He had about 150 dead chickens. The planes were flying at 83 ft. He lost that case.
Here's the Wikipedia "air rights" article... it has a section on the US:
Specifically, the Federal Aviation Act provides that: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."[2] The act defines navigable airspace as "airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight…including airspace needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."[3]
It also mentions a 500ft min limit for sparsely populated areas. But note, that's a limit set by the FAA. They may lower it or raise it if they want to.
In the wikipedia article you'll also find a quote from a case by a property owner suing a nearby airport. I think it perfectly sums up the rights of property owners with regards to the air.. but it's a little long to post here.
Using a infra-red laser to blind it seems a more appropriate and cost effective reaction, unless the device itself is upsetting. Legal elements stand — especially FAA’s reaction to people shining lasers into pilots' face.
In ways I agree with you, in others I don't. You shouldn't just be able to "fly it wherever I damn well please" unless you own the airspace above or maybe if it's land designated as acceptable for that purpose. I think certain laws of public access will probably translate well, if the government doesn't use this as an opportunity to curtail freedoms and liberty again. I for one don't want you "flying it wherever you damn well please" unless that means I can "shoot it down however I damn well please"