My property is a strictly enforced no-fly zone. Sorry about your toy.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
legality of shooting down of drones?
- Thread starter Gordylew
- Start date
Drones? How about dogs, that are killing you chickens?
The FAA claims the airspace above 500 AGL.
SCOTUS ruled in 1946 that a land owner has rights to some of the airspace above his property. U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256. ("if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise, buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" …“The fact that he does not occupy [space] in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it.") The court ultimately ruled that the government's use of the airspace above the owner's property at a level of 83 feet AGL was an encroachment on the real property and compensation was required.
SCOTUS ruled in 1962 that an airport uses the airspace over property in its vicinity, for which it has to pay, and applied the Causby decision to the states. Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84.
SCOTUS ruled in 1946 that a land owner has rights to some of the airspace above his property. U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256. ("if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise, buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" …“The fact that he does not occupy [space] in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it.") The court ultimately ruled that the government's use of the airspace above the owner's property at a level of 83 feet AGL was an encroachment on the real property and compensation was required.
SCOTUS ruled in 1962 that an airport uses the airspace over property in its vicinity, for which it has to pay, and applied the Causby decision to the states. Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,485
- Reaction score
- 15,697
- Location
- Metro Atlanta - Buford to Buckhead
There is a lot of stupid floating around the ODT lately
Lately?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,485
- Reaction score
- 15,697
- Location
- Metro Atlanta - Buford to Buckhead
Well, it got worse lately
In light of recent events across the country, and the police use of "less lethal" ammo on protesters, I am modifying my earlier stance. I don't think people should be using bird shot on drones. I think they should use rubber bullets, bean bags, or, preferably, 40 mm marking rounds. A drone hit with a marking round would not be killed, but would be marked for future action against it as a trespasser.
Over my Property, I consider them target practice..
