Well, yeah, I suppose if a drone were flying at dove range or hovering at squirrel range, then somebody could hit one with a full-choke shotgun or .22. No doubt every cop in central Kentucky is equipped for dove and squirrel hunting on the job. Having served 27 years with a federal law enforcement commission, I'd sue the hell out any cop, local or otherwise, who'd shoot down my drone without justification, and I'd win.
Is it Legal to Shoot Down a Drone?
- Thread starter The Droning Company
- Start date
Seems there are new efforts underway, starting in TX:
legiscan.com
[sorry about the text]
Texas HB2916 | 2025-2026 | 89th Legislature
Summary (2025-02-18) Relating to criminal and civil liability for disabling, damaging, or destroying an unmanned aircraft. [Filed]
[sorry about the text]
[td]
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
[/td]
[td] [/td]A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
[/td]
[td]
AN ACT
[/td]
[td] [/td][td]relating to criminal and civil liability for disabling, damaging, [/td][td] [/td][td]or destroying an unmanned aircraft.[/td][td] [/td][td] BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:[/td][td] [/td][td] SECTION 1. Chapter 423, Government Code, is amended by [/td][td] [/td][td]adding Section 423.010 to read as follows:[/td][td] [/td][td] Sec. 423.010. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: DISABLING, DAMAGING, OR [/td][td] [/td][td]DESTROYING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT. It is an affirmative defense to [/td][td] [/td][td]prosecution for an offense involving damage or destruction of [/td][td] [/td][td]property under Section 28.03 or 28.04, Penal Code, or to civil [/td][td] [/td][td]liability for the damage or destruction of an unmanned aircraft [/td][td] [/td][td]that the person:[/td][td] [/td][td] (1) was on property owned or legally occupied by the [/td][td] [/td][td]person;[/td][td] [/td][td] (2) used a firearm legally possessed by the person to [/td][td] [/td][td]disable, damage, or destroy an unmanned aircraft that the person [/td][td] [/td][td]did not authorize to be on or over the property; and[/td][td] [/td][td] (3) was not prohibited from discharging the firearm [/td][td] [/td][td]under Section 42.12, Penal Code, other law or local regulation, or a [/td][td] [/td][td]dedicatory instrument governing use of the property.[/td][td] [/td][td] SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only [/td][td] [/td][td]to conduct that occurs on or after the effective date of this Act. [/td][td] [/td][td]Conduct that occurs before the effective date of this Act is [/td][td] [/td][td]governed by the law in effect on the date the conduct occurred, and [/td][td] [/td][td]the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For [/td][td] [/td][td]purposes of this section, conduct occurs before the effective date [/td][td] [/td][td]of this Act if any element of the conduct occurs before the [/td][td] [/td][td]effective date.[/td][td] [/td][td] SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2025.[/td]AN ACT
[/td]
You sound proud to kill animals for sport. Great to be at the top of the kill chain, isn't it?
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
I try to make a simple point with a bit of humor in a deliberately overwrought fictional example. All laws are enforced with some flexibility because all circumstances can't be anticipated by lawmakers at the time the law is crafted. This is one of the reasons we have prosecutorial discretion, and judges.
If the letter of the law were simply enforced without regard to mitigating circumstances, there would be far more INjustice than justice, and the public would be restless for revolution. How about we put speed monitors on every car that automatically fines you every time you exceed speed limits within the technical measuring limitations of the device? Similar to Red Light Cameras.
Or is it better that a human cop, in his discretion, decides it's really not a violation of the intent of the law when he sees 66mph on his radar in a 65 zone? Can't safely watch the speedo 100% of the time.
So that's my point in answer to the subject of this thread. Anyone that says "yes" or "no" is wrong. The only truly correct answer is, "it depends". And I'm honestly surprised at the argument.
If the letter of the law were simply enforced without regard to mitigating circumstances, there would be far more INjustice than justice, and the public would be restless for revolution. How about we put speed monitors on every car that automatically fines you every time you exceed speed limits within the technical measuring limitations of the device? Similar to Red Light Cameras.
Or is it better that a human cop, in his discretion, decides it's really not a violation of the intent of the law when he sees 66mph on his radar in a 65 zone? Can't safely watch the speedo 100% of the time.
So that's my point in answer to the subject of this thread. Anyone that says "yes" or "no" is wrong. The only truly correct answer is, "it depends". And I'm honestly surprised at the argument.
Last edited:
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
I don't know nuthin' 'bout morning – or mourning, whatevah! – doves, but pigeons are the rats of the sky, and you can poison, shoot, burn 'em out of THEIR **** SUGAR CANE FIELDS 'TIL THEY'RE ALL SCREAMMING IN HELL!!!!!! YEEEAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Florida resident charged with multiple felonies for shooting at a drone:
Florida man who shot down Walmart drone ordered to pay $5,000 to chain
Florida man who shot down Walmart drone ordered to pay $5,000 to chain
Clearly the state overcharged when a simple single charge would have sufficed but I guess you can do this when you get a confession and you have a habit of loading up on the charges just to get someone to plead to a lesser charge. The man was clearly wrong for what he did but they went overboard. If he committed multiple felonies, how is he not in jail?
Because pre-sentencing reports take into account the totality of the offenders situation. His age, plus likely medical concerns gave him points in the direction of retaining some freedom, and likely only had to give up some pride.
I know of someone convicted of over 40 felonies, that not been incarcerated! Hmmmm, wonder who that could be?
Apparently shooting a drone out of the sky is not impossible. If there ever is a case for 18 USC 32 , this is it; let's see.
dronedj.com
Michigan man shoots police drone during wild standoff
A northern Michigan man is facing multiple felony charges after allegedly shooting a DJI police drone out of the sky during a tense standoff.
dronedj.com
Why would they fly it low enough for a shotgun to be able to reach it? Not very bright in my opinion.Apparently shooting a drone out of the sky is not impossible. If there ever is a case for 18 USC 32 , this is it; let's see.
Michigan man shoots police drone during wild standoff
A northern Michigan man is facing multiple felony charges after allegedly shooting a DJI police drone out of the sky during a tense standoff.
If the drone is hovering I don’t see how it would be hard to down it with most any rifle if a person is a decent marksman.
No I don’t condone shooting a drone out of the sky! It is a federal crime and needs to remain so.
Texans Would Be Allowed To Shoot Down Drones On Their Property If Legislature Passes Bill
A bill has been filed in the Texas House that would allow some Texans to shoot down drones, but there is a catch.
kfyo.com
This was the key sentence that I focused on:
"In this case, the police used the drone to monitor Bessey’s actions safely from a distance. The drone reportedly captured footage of him firing shots at random before he turned his weapon on the drone."
I don't know what distance that would be but based on other similar police drone videos, it's likely the drone wasn't that close but probably not at 400 feet either. I don't think it's easy to shoot down a drone but it's not difficult to impossible either especially when it is hovering or moving slowly. I find it hard to believe a person would try to shoot down a drone (or believe it was a privacy threat) while it is in [fast] motion.
Obviously this guy is a criminal and now would be a good time to add charges (along with all the others) for shooting at a drone (aircraft) otherwise I just don't think they take it seriously. Damaging goods etc we get that because there's no question about the intent to destroy government property but absent that, we either need to send a message that shooting at an aircraft is a crime regardless or....because simply saying it aloud isn't enough. It becomes the same thing as "interfering with a pilot...."
dev_willis
Member
I feel like it's worth pointing out that shooting at an aircraft, manned or otherwise, is a federal offense and thus it does not matter what state you're in.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,997
- Reactions
- 2,514
Texans Would Be Allowed To Shoot Down Drones On Their Property If Legislature Passes Bill
A bill has been filed in the Texas House that would allow some Texans to shoot down drones, but there is a catch.
This proposed Texas law, if ever passed, would sure raise interesting conflict with federal law. Hard to imagine it would pass but wow.
AMann
Well-Known Member
Two drones that nobody would (should) shoot at:
www.sportys.com
and definitely not this one!
R/C Bald Eagle Glider
Representing our nations bird, the Bald Eagle, this radio-controlled flying glider is a demonstration of pride in the air.
www.sportys.com
and definitely not this one!
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
It most certainly does. The state your in can have a profound impact on both conviction, and punishment after conviction.
For example, if your in a state of insanity, this can be used as a successful defense
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
DJI OUT OF BUSINESS for selling Mini 4 Pro in USA !!!!
- Started by GregoryB
- Replies: 5
-
Air 3 Thun Gratitude and Supernova 8 at Foyle Port | DJI Air 3- Started by AerialTom
- Replies: 0
-
Air 3 Grangemouth oil refinery, Scotland.
- Started by Coconut Island Drones
- Replies: 6
-
Forum statistics
