Drone threats to be shot by shotgun down.

[iaincaradoc]

The FAA claims and it is written. It is a federal crime to shoot down a drone. as it is considered a legitimate aircraft.

"The FAA considers unmanned aircraft of any size to be covered under Title 18 of the United States Code 32, which describes “sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.” Violation of this code carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. In other words, it’s illegal to shoot down any aircraft in the U.S., including a drone, according to federal law. And lest you decide that simply jamming or intercepting control of the offending drone might be more your style, know that the FCC considers any form of “jamming” or otherwise interfering with radio transmission to be a violation of the Communications Act of 1934. Between these two federal laws, most anti-drone technology on the market (including net guns and jamming guns) could put you into some legal hot water."

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that jamming a drone and causing it to crash or otherwise no longer be under the control of the PIC would get you a twofer: one count for sabotage of the aircraft, and one count for jamming.

 

[chazzm]

"The FAA considers unmanned aircraft of any size to be covered under Title 18 of the United States Code 32, which describes “sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.” Violation of this code carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. In other words, it’s illegal to shoot down any aircraft in the U.S., including a drone, according to federal law.

Your 100% correct!! What goes up will come down!

 

[spsphotos]

It's most unlikely it would be considered the same way, even though people here seem to think it would.
Law enforcement are only going to treat it as damaging your property, not like shooting down a real plane.

People don't own airspace at all, but keeping well out of their way is always a good idea.

I don't think you'll find any laws that specifically say it's an offence to shoot a drone and drone flying regulations aren't going to make any difference to angry neighbours.
Just keep out of their way in future.

Sigh. I'm going to assume Meta4 is not a Part 107 certified drone pilot so let's clear up a few things.

1) Drones are considered aircraft. No if, and, but, or maybes. Laws for interfering with one (i.e. shooting or any other method of disabling) are covered under 18 U.S.C. § 32. I saw a TV show recently where someone knocked a drown down with a broom or something like it. I was flabbergasted as this just reinforces the misconception that it's OK to do that.

2) While it is true that the FAA governs all airspace from the ground up, there are other localized laws that find creative ways to mess with that. One of the most common is setting laws as to where you can take off and land, how law enforcement can use them for surveillance, and some States are trying to implement "fees" for flying in certain areas. But the rule of thumb at the moment is that it's legal to fly anywhere the FAA permits you to.

3) There are some privacy laws that can in certain situations come into play if you linger for example over someone's house and try to peep into the windows, etc.

But, like any law, if you don't know they exist you will have no qualms about breaking them. So the neighbor could potentially shoot at the drone blissfully unaware that he's breaking federal and local laws (i.e. destruction of private property comes to mind). The best bet here is to grab a sixpack and go visit your neighbor, bring the drone and some images you took, and in a friendly manner discuss the situation and let him know (in a non-threatening way) that he might not want to shoot at the drone and let him know why it's a bad idea. I think you'll find that most people are reasonable and once educated will not be so jumpy.

 

[spsphotos]

There's a big difference between an individual FAA employee saying ... that shooting down a drone is illegal under the same federal aviation laws that make it illegal to shoot down a crewed aircraft, and someone actually being dealt with in the same way for shooting down a drone.

As it happens he was charged with criminal damage to property and reckless discharge of a weapon within city limits.
And that's the most likely outcome if anyone else commits a similar offence.
Law enforcement people aren't going to be as excited about it as many enthusiastic drone forum members are.

True, you are more likely to get arrested for criminal destruction, but that does not mean it's still not a federal crime. . I imagine the FAA would get move involved if someone does it to a delivery drone rather than a small personal one.

 

[Meta4]

Sigh. I'm going to assume Meta4 is not a Part 107 certified drone pilot so let's clear up a few things.

You're 100% correct. I'm not a US citizen but whether I was 107 or not has no bearing on what I wrote.

1) Drones are considered aircraft. No if, and, but, or maybes. Laws for interfering with one (i.e. shooting or any other method of disabling) are covered under 18 U.S.C. § 32.

When someone knocks down your drone, try and bring a federal case and see how far you get with that.
No if, and, but, or maybes.

But the rule of thumb at the moment is that it's legal to fly anywhere the FAA permits you to.

If you think that the FAA is the only authority that can say where you can/can't fly, you need to do a little more study Mr 107.

 

[spsphotos]

You're 100% correct. I'm not a US citizen but whether I was 107 or not has no bearing on what I wrote.

When someone knocks down your drone, try and bring a federal case and see how far you get with that.
No if, and, but, or maybes.

If you think that the FAA is the only authority that can say where you can/can't fly, you need to do a little more study Mr 107.

Since you are NOT a citizen of this country you should NOT be giving advice on the laws of this country. I am not qualified to give an opinion on the laws of other nations, and I would never presume to do so. But as a U.S. citizen with a UNITED STATES FEDERAL AVIATION AUTHORITY PART 107 CERTIFICATION, I feel that I am way more qualified to comment on that front. Do not comment on matters that you are not qualified to speak about. Maybe in your country things are different...I don't know...I really don't care. But to give dangerous advice to someone about laws you have ABSOLUTELY no understand of (and this is based solely on your continued incorrect statements) is not something you should be doing. If you want to learn more about actual U.S. laws there is this new fangled thing called Google that would a great asset to try.

 

[Meta4]

But as a U.S. citizen with a UNITED SATES FEDERAL AVIATION AUTHORITY PART 107 CERTIFICATION, I feel that I am way more qualified to comment on that front. Do not comment on matters that you are not qualified to speak about.

Maybe it's beyond your ability, but it is possible to understand more than just what goes on in your own country.
I'll comment as I see fit.

But to give dangerous advice to someone about laws you have ABSOLUTELY no understand of (and this is based solely on your continued incorrect statements) is not something you should be doing.

Absolutely no idea ??
Dangerous advice ??

 

[spsphotos]

Maybe it's beyond your ability, but it is possible to understand more than just what goes on in your own country.
I'll comment as I see fit.


Absolutely no idea ??
Dangerous advice ??

What you do not understand is that this is a discussion that has NOTHING to do with the rest of the world. What YOU and other countries think/do/feel has no relevance. Telling people that it is OK to shot at/swat at/take down a drone is ILLEGAL in the United States. Whether that is true in any other country I am not qualified to speak on. But unlike you, I admit and understand that. Now whether federal law enforcement will go after Joe Blow for swatting down a drone in his backyard is another point entirely. Odds are Joe Blow would be arrested for destruction of private property, or if discharging a weapon in an urban area, that would lead to other local charges. But the point is, it is STILL a U.S. Federal crime to do so.

 

[Meta4]

What you do not understand is that this is a discussion that has NOTHING to do with the rest of the world.

I never suggested it was.

What YOU and other countries think/do/feel has no relevance.

Rubbish

But the point is, it is STILL a U.S. Federal crime to do so.

I'm pretty sure that there's never been a case to support that assertion.

 

[spsphotos]

Seems Meta4 is being a troll.

 

[spsphotos]

I never suggested it was.

Rubbish

I'm pretty sure that there's never been a case to support that assertion.

Pretty sure is now a legal defense? HAHHAHA.

18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities​

(a)Whoever willfully—​

(4)
with the intent to damage, destroy, or disable any such aircraft, sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables or places a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, any appliance or structure, ramp, landing area, property, machine, or apparatus, or any facility or other material used, or intended to be used, in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading or storage of any such aircraft or any cargo carried or intended to be carried on any such aircraft;

From DOJ:

1423. Destruction Of Aircraft -- 18 U.S.C. 32(a)

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Drone's are considered Aircraft under FAA regulations:

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or Drones

www.faa.gov

 

[spsphotos]

BTW, not going to respond to the troll bait anymore.

 

[blabel75]

I never suggested it was.

Rubbish

I'm pretty sure that there's never been a case to support that assertion.

There are most certainly cases;

Minnesota Man Arrested in Drone Shooting

A Minnesota man faces criminal charges after a pilot reported a drone shooting as the aircraft flew over a meat-processing plant.

dronelife.com

 

[Meta4]

There are most certainly cases;

There might be, but what you posted backs up what I said.
It reports two cases, one where the shooter was charged with criminal damage to property and reckless discharge of a weapon within city limits.
There are lots of reports of him being charged back in 2016, but Google finds nothing to say how the court case went.
The second case mentioned in the article was dismissed by the judge.

I can't find a single case where someone shooting down a consumer drone has been charged with a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code § 32.
Shoot a $1000 drone and no-one in authority is going to treat that the same as bringing down a real aircraft.
No matter how many times forum lawyers confidently assure you.

 

[blabel75]

There might be, but what you posted backs up what I said.
It reports two cases, one where the shooter was charged with criminal damage to property and reckless discharge of a weapon within city limits.
There are lots of reports of him being charged back in 2016, but Google finds nothing to say none to say how the court case went.
The second case mentioned in the article was dismissed by the judge.

I can't find a single case where someone shooting down a consumer drone has been charged with a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code § 32.
Shoot a $1000 drone and no-one in authority is going to treat that the same as bringing down a real aircraft.
No matter how many times forum lawyers confidently assure you.

I suspect things will change when commercial drone delivery becomes more prevalent and big corp and big dollars are involved.

I also suspect the number of cases of a drone being shot down are probably pretty low.

That case where the charges were dismissed, seems like the judge made up laws that didn't really exist. It was never challenged to a higher court. The drone owner could have also file a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator and we may not know the outcome. Possible still that no civil lawsuit was filed because it simply wasn't worth the time and money.

 

[sar104]

The FAA has confirmed more than once that UAVs count as aircraft for the purposes of 18 U.S. Code § 32, but they have been notably coy on the question of what would lead them to initiate a prosecution under that law. And, as @Meta4 noted, they have so far failed to take action in any of the many cases of UAVs being shot at/down. But I think it is fair to conclude that shooting down a UAV is unambiguously illegal under Federal law, irrespective of whether a Federal prosecution is ever brought.

The situation is much less clear if the UAV is flying close enough to people to be simply knocked out the air. Obviously that's not a scenario that was ever envisaged in relation to manned aircraft, and it would be absurd to suggest that if a small UAV is directly endangering a person that they cannot take steps to protect themselves from it. And that's the main pitfall of these kinds of discussions - blind application of the law without any application of common sense.

 

[SkyeHigh]

It is far easier to add a new form of aircraft to existing legislation than create one from scratch. That does not mean it is the most effective or practical, and in some cases may be lacking in commonsense, but, with a fast evolving technology like UAVs and the many and varied uses for them, legislating a moving target (pun intended) is expensive and fraught with loopholes.

I would expect over time that commonsense will prevail and our small aircraft will come under a different classification than commercial or military aircraft.