17 ms·
For what it's worth, shooting at aircraft (including drones) is a federal offense, and the FAA takes that one pretty seriously. Drones also have cameras.
by tjohns 1y ago
For what it's worth, shooting at aircraft (including drones) is a federal offense, and the FAA takes that one pretty seriously. Drones also have cameras.
- pilingual 1y agoWhat if you have a pellet with wings you are doing experiments with above your house and the drone fails to maneuver around it? (This may or may not be a Simpsons reference.)
- Hamuko 1y agoAre rocks still kosher?
- rolph 1y agoif a drone is close enough to be hit with a rock, its operating ilegally.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rolph 1y agodischarging projectile is not quite legal, but a catty shot is nowhere near as severe as a firearm. you do have recourse if such a short distance is taken, you would however have to identify the operator to the satisfaction of authorities.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- CobrastanJorji 1y agoWhich law? Is there an FAA rule concerning minimum drone height over someone's property? I understand there's generally a maximum of 400 feet for drones, but I don't know about any rules for minimum height.
- rolph 1y agohttps://ageagle.com/blog/drone-regulations-usa-fly-over-people/ https://ageagle.com/blog/drone-regulations-usa-fly-over-peop... https://ageagle.com/blog/european-union-drone-regulations-explained/ https://ageagle.com/blog/european-union-drone-regulations-ex... https://www.dronepilotgroundschool.com/kb/can-i-fly-my-drone-over-people/ https://www.dronepilotgroundschool.com/kb/can-i-fly-my-drone... https://nexttools.net/how-close-can-you-fly-a-drone-to-a-person/ https://nexttools.net/how-close-can-you-fly-a-drone-to-a-per... https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/light/topics/flying-drones-close-people https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/light/topics/flying-drones-clo... https://www.dronelaw.pro/faa-rules-say-you-cant-fly-your-drone-within-500-feet-of-people-or-property/ https://www.dronelaw.pro/faa-rules-say-you-cant-fly-your-dro... https://dspalliance.org/new-rules-for-ops-over-people-rid/ https://dspalliance.org/new-rules-for-ops-over-people-rid/
- CobrastanJorji 1y agoWow, these rules are incredibly poorly defined. I'll take the bit that says "20-30 feet high with propeller guards over a small family gathering in the park wouldn’t necessarily require any additional documentation" to mean that flying 30 feet in the air over people is legal. And people can definitely throw a rock 30 feet high.
- rolph 1y agoyes its all very weaselly, the wieght class of the drone, and the participation of those people in the drone usage is considered as well. this allows you to film your own family & friends enjoying a picnic, but not endanger, harass, annoy or intimidate some other group, from enjoying thier lives in context this is about ireland and private property so to be purist about -on topic, we need to look at EU rules regarding flights over homes and yards.
- Hatrix 1y agoHow about microwaves? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6XdcWToy2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6XdcWToy2c
- hattmall 1y agoFireworks seem like a reasonable compromise.
- thih9 1y agoThe question is so common that it has its own section in the FAA’s drone FAQ > Can you shoot down drones above your property? > It’s illegal under federal law to shoot at an aircraft. A private citizen shooting at any aircraft – including unmanned aircraft – poses a significant safety hazard. An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air. Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in a civil penalty from the FAA and/or criminal charges from federal, state or local law enforcement. https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/what-know-about-drones https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/what-know-about-drones
- zelphirkalt 1y agoWell,not my country, but I think it is quite a silly and too general rule: What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my roof, 24/7? What if one of their drones crashes without my doing and hurts _me_? So the actual rules need to be more nuanced than this, to prevent people doing crazy shit with their tech gadgets hurting others. They cannot be given free reign in that matter.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my roof, 24/7? What if your neighbours climb on your roof and start banging on your windows at night?
- s1artibartfast 1y agoI'm not categorically opposed to the idea of shooting them.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoAnd I'd argue they deserved it. (I'd also expect you to get charged.)
- throw933884 1y ago[flagged]
- esseph 1y agoThis is blatantly incorrect. See above.
- jlund-molfese 1y agoThis is dangerous and untrue advice. Drones are considered aircraft in the US, and there is no altitude limit or license requirement for something to be considered an aircraft. See 49 U.S. Code § 40102 [0] and explicit FAA regulation of airspace under 400 feet [1] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40102 [1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/laanc https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/laanc
- ncrc74 1y agoThey absolutely are aircraft and governed by the FAA. They call them Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's). FAA also has jurisdiction over all airspace in the US starting at ground level. There's plenty of reference material on the subject you can read.
- SoftTalker 1y agoWhen do you differentiate between a toy and a UAV?
- tjohns 1y agoThe FAA has lighter regulation for drones under 250g, for this reason. But even then, small toy drones of any size are still regulated by the FAA.
- biomcgary 1y agoSometimes (often?) technical legal definitions considered without context lead to absurd conclusions that don't manifest in practice. Does the FAA have jurisdiction over paper planes? What about the airspace in my house and does it matter if the doors are open? On the other hand, I don't think government agencies have much incentive to preemptively limit the scope of their authority, but would be happy to hear of counter-examples.
- rz2k 1y agoThey likely know their neighborhood. In my semi-rural neighborhood even discharging a firearm might lead to someone calling the Sheriff. In other neighborhoods armed gangs can apparently confront FEMA without any repercussions. In yet others, they can occupy parts of national parks and have an armed standoff with federal agents, again with no real consequences.
- mulmen 1y ago> In yet others, they can occupy parts of national parks and have an armed standoff with federal agents, again with no real consequences. What situation are you referencing here? First one that comes to mind is Malheur but one of them was killed and 7 went to prison.
- anonymars 1y agoI imagine they're thinking of the Bundy standoff (which was federal BLM land but not a national park) To wit: > The Bundy standoff’s most significant legacy may be the precedent it established: that armed resistance against federal authorities could succeed without serious legal consequences for participants. This outcome has had a profound impact on antigovernment extremist movements, creating what experts describe as “a straight line” connecting Bunkerville to the Capitol riot. https://lasvegassun.com/news/2025/apr/13/a-decade-of-defiance-the-standoff-at-bundy-ranch-a/ https://lasvegassun.com/news/2025/apr/13/a-decade-of-defianc...
- mulmen 1y agoInteresting. Malheur was led by the same Amon Bundy.
- anonymars 1y agoClose! The 2014 standoff was led by Clive Bundy, Ammon's father
- ty6853 1y agoAmon Bundy was tried on many charges and his case was closed with prejudice. The media and government tried and tried to paint him as a criminal but ultimately all the kings horses, men, and prosecutors weren't able to persuade a jury.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- gigel82 1y agoIf drones have cameras and are hovering above someone's property I'd argue that's an extra incentive to the property owners to do something about it... unless we're saying it's perfectly legal to spy on anyone's property from above.
- op00to 1y agoMost localities have laws against invading someone’s privacy. There don’t need to be special laws for every specific type of surveillance.
- gigel82 1y agoI think more legal clarifications are needed here. If someone comes into your property to mount a trail cam or spy device, I believe you're allowed to remove it (even in a destructive manner). Not sure why the FAA insists a spy device that happens to hover a couple feet above is entitled to more protections...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Brian_K_White 1y agoBecause projectiles don't stop at any particular distance and can reach vehicles with humans which are flying over other humans, all of which were innocent of any spying, and most people are complete shit at judging size and distance when looking at objects in the air. (lots of great examples of this with the mystery drones in nj a while back) I would like to shoot them down too but then I became 12 and a half years old instead of just 12. As a policy that has to just apply across the board by default, of course the rule has to simply be be that you can not shoot at things in the air. I have no idea how bird hunting is handled but I bet it simply fails a logic test and shouldn't be allowed for the exact same reasons. Now a tazer or a net or harpoon, all with physically limited tethers... Well there can be no safety argument about whacking something with a baseball bat, and anything with a tether that isn't rocket powered with 1000 feet of range is basically as safe for legit aircraft as a kid with a bat. IE it doesn't matter how inept the yahoo is, their capacity for harm to others is limited to a few people physically very near them, which is the same danger evrryone is to everyone else all the time.
- gosub100 1y agowhats sad is that in many jurisdictions, it's perfectly legal to shoot animals on your property, including other peoples' pets. In my home state, there was recently an issue where a neighbors dog dug under the fence or otherwise got into the back yard, in a residential suburban neighborhood. The property owner blasted it (with a gun) and there was nothing the DA could do. It made the news due to the outrageous use of force, but no charges were filed. What a time to be alive: mess with Uncle Bezos' trillion-dollar empire for appropriating your property? arrested with federal charges. kill a family pet? nothing we can do.
- tjohns 1y agoThe reason why it's illegal to shoot at airplanes has nothing to do with "Bezos's trillion-dollar empire", it's because it's categorically unsafe and you're likely to kill people by doing it, eiter in the sky or on the ground. It's just a really dumb idea. As for killing animals that wander onto your property... that's been controversial for at least the last 160 years, when a similar incident almost started a war between the US and the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)
- gosub100 1y agoI didn't say shoot at an airplane, and invoking disputes that happened 160 years ago is hardly relevant to the point I made. Follow the money
- beefnugs 1y agoIf it is legal for them to fly anywhere they want, then your drone with a giant net dangling under it is just as legal, that is their fault for flying through your net ridden airspace
- wiether 1y agoWhat if I'm playing with a kite on my property and a drone collide with it?
- averageRoyalty 1y agoIn Ireland?