DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Why Shooting A Drone Is NOT A Federal Crime Under 18 USC 32

Shooting down a drown is against the law.. fact discharging a fire arm within city limits or a residential area is against the law as well. so if you shoot a drown either way your violating a gun law... the FAA website does not say it's against the law to shoot down a drone, all they say is it is forbidden to shoot down a drone.... Remember, there are commercial drone pilots licensed and have permission to fly in certain areas by the FAA, so what do you think will happen if you shoot down a commercial drone....... that's why they say its forbidden to shoot down a drown.... problem solved....
 
Last edited:
Shooting down a drown is against the law.. fact discharging a fire arm within city limits or a residential area is against the law as well. so if you shoot a drown either way your violating a gun law...
That varies by city and state. The only printed law you would be breaking shooting a drone is destruction of property. There is no law specifically about drones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScubaBob
its not so much shooting down the drone, as much as it is discharging a fire arm... Most cities and residential areas forbid it... And especially if you discharge a firearm in anger, then you have double jeopardy..... Hell if you shoot a bb gun, or bow and arrow in a residential area or city limits it's against the law....
 
its not so much shooting down the drone, as much as it is discharging a fire arm... Most cities and residential areas forbid it... And especially if you discharge a firearm in anger, then you have double jeopardy..... **** if you shoot a bb gun, or bow and arrow in a residential area or city limits it's against the law....
In most major cities you are correct. BUT not every city and state has the same laws. I live in a city of 60,000 ish. I can shoot a bow, or a BB gun at targets in my back yard. But all the other things you suggest are in effect.
There are cities in the south that you can discharge a firearm, and people often do!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirkclod
It must be hard to be an attorney if you can't even read. Which apparently he can't. He quotes 18 USC 32 and asserts that it only applies to "aircraft in flight", but that is obviously not what it says. At that point his entire premise falls apart.

(a) Whoever willfully—​
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;​
(2) places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;​
(3) sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables any air navigation facility, or interferes by force or violence with the operation of such facility, if such fire, damaging, destroying, disabling, or interfering is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft in flight;​
(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;​
(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;​
(6) performs an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft;​
(7) communicates information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraftin flight; or​
(8) attempts or conspires to do anything prohibited under paragraphs (1) through (7) of this subsection;​
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.​
(b) Whoever willfully—
(1) performs an act of violence against any individual on board any civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in flight, if such act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft;​
(2) destroys a civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which renders that aircraft incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger that aircraft’s safety in flight;​
(3) places or causes to be placed on a civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in service, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to that aircraft which renders that aircraft incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger that aircraft’s safety in flight; or​
(4) attempts or conspires to commit an offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection;​
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. There is jurisdiction over an offense under this subsection if a national of the United States was on board, or would have been on board, the aircraft; an offender is a national of the United States; or an offender is afterwards found in the United States. For purposes of this subsection, the term “national of the United States” has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.​
(c) Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat to do an act which would violate any of paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) or any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b) of this section, with an apparent determination and will to carry the threat into execution shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.​
 
It must be hard to be an attorney if you can't even read. Which apparently he can't. He quotes 18 USC 32 and asserts that it only applies to "aircraft in flight", but that is obviously not what it says. At that point his entire premise falls apart.

(a) Whoever willfully—​
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;​
(2) places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;​
(3) sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables any air navigation facility, or interferes by force or violence with the operation of such facility, if such fire, damaging, destroying, disabling, or interfering is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft in flight;​
(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;​
(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;​
(6) performs an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft;​
(7) communicates information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraftin flight; or​
(8) attempts or conspires to do anything prohibited under paragraphs (1) through (7) of this subsection;​
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.​
(b) Whoever willfully—​
(1) performs an act of violence against any individual on board any civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in flight, if such act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft;​
(2) destroys a civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which renders that aircraft incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger that aircraft’s safety in flight;​
(3) places or causes to be placed on a civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in service, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to that aircraft which renders that aircraft incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger that aircraft’s safety in flight; or​
(4) attempts or conspires to commit an offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection;​
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. There is jurisdiction over an offense under this subsection if a national of the United States was on board, or would have been on board, the aircraft; an offender is a national of the United States; or an offender is afterwards found in the United States. For purposes of this subsection, the term “national of the United States” has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.​

(c) Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat to do an act which would violate any of paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) or any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b) of this section, with an apparent determination and will to carry the threat into execution shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.​

I thought that if he was an attorney, he must know the law, right ?... But you definitely make a good point there too ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bushie
Laws are not as black and white as some think.
That is why we have the court system. Every time someone is accused of breaking a law, they get their day in court to fight it. Laws are interpreted and changed every day. Usually by changing the wording just a little. The text submitted is only part of what is in writing about aircraft I am sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Classic flyer
Laws are not as black and white as some think.
That is why we have the court system. Every time someone is accused of breaking a law, they get their day in court to fight it. Laws are interpreted and changed every day. Usually by changing the wording just a little. The text submitted is only part of what is in writing about aircraft I am sure.

It's certainly true that it can be difficult to determine exactly what is correct, but it's often easy to spot things that are obviously incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSKCKNIT
And in addition to federal law there are some states that have penalties for interference with a UAS (like Oregon):

2017 ORS 837.375¹
Interference with an unmanned aircraft system

• unauthorized control

In addition to any other remedies allowed by law, a person who intentionally interferes with, or gains unauthorized control over, an unmanned aircraft system licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, or operated by the Armed Forces of the United States as defined in ORS 352.313 (Status of members of Armed Forces and certain federal agencies), an agency of the United States or a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, is liable to the owner of the unmanned aircraft system in an amount of not less than $5,000. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff in an action under this section. [2013 c.686 §14; 2015 c.315 §10]


This involves things like the downing/damaging a UAV...OR interference with the crew.
 
The libertarian attorney that authored the article is arguing for a libertarian interpretation of the statute. I am an attorney too, and my guess would be that a court interpreting the statute would not accept his interpretation and would hold that an individual who destroyed a drone in flight would be within the statute defining the crime.

As someone else pointed out, it is up to the United States Department of Justice, through a local United State's Attorney's office, to decide whether or not to bring a criminal charge. The FAA or a law enforcement agency, whether federal, state or local, or anyone else for that matter can refer an incident to the US Attorney, but it is up to him or her to decide whether to file charges.

The act does apply to all aircraft in the special jurisdiction of the United States. Aircraft is defined in the statute:
"§31. Definitions
(a) Definitions.—In this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(1) Aircraft.—The term "aircraft" means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air."

Clearly drones are designed to fly in the air and hence are considered aircraft.

The crime is defined, as a poster above noted:
"§32. Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;"

The libertarian attorney is hanging his interpretation on the definition of the term "in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States." That term is also defined in the statute:

"(2) 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' includes any of the following aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States."

A privately owned drone would be included in the term "civil aircraft,"

That attorney focuses on the "in flight" language limitation in the definition of special aircraft jurisdiction. The statute defines an aircraft in flight:

(1) “aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding—
(A) through the moment when one external door is opened to allow passengers to leave the aircraft; or

(B) until, if a forced landing, competent authorities take over responsibility for the aircraft and individuals and property on the aircraft.

His argument is that since drones don't have doors they cannot be an aircraft in flight, basing his argument in part on the fact that the statute was passed at a time when there were a significant number of hijackings.

I do not believe a court would accept that line of reasoning. Clearly a drone flying in the air is an aircraft in flight. A court will look to the literal language of a statute to see what it covers. Only in the event the language of the statute is ambiguous will a court look to the legislative history.

And the FAA reauthorization act clearly includes unmanned aircraft systems in the term aircraft.

So, no joy there, if you are of a mind to blast someone's drone out of the air. While a US attorney might not be much inclined to prosecute, they might. And as many posters have mentioned you run the risk of violating state statutes prohibiting discharging a weapon within a municipality, or more directly, criminal damage to property, an offense in every state, though sometimes named differently.
 
Sounds like this person has their **** together to me at least! LoL. Either way, anyone that shoots any of my quads down will have "Our" day in court for sure! Not only for shooting my aircraft, but to put\get the word out that this is NOT legal by any means. And no you do not own the airspace above your property, neither do I! And if I wanted to be a voter there's a quieter way to do it LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: drakkor
Shooting down a drown is against the law.. fact discharging a fire arm within city limits or a residential area is against the law as well. so if you shoot a drown either way your violating a gun law... the FAA website does not say it's against the law to shoot down a drone, all they say is it is forbidden to shoot down a drone.... Remember, there are commercial drone pilots licensed and have permission to fly in certain areas by the FAA, so what do you think will happen if you shoot down a commercial drone....... that's why they say its forbidden to shoot down a drown.... problem solved....
OK, thank you. Good retort. Discharge of a weapon is always a dangerous act. The degree of danger is significantly increased if the weapon is discharged within an urban environment. "What goes up, must . . . ! Now, that being said, shooting down a drone over private property does not necessarily make the shooting an illegal action. Further research may be needed, but I believe here in the Good Ol' US of A, the right of personal privacy airspace above personal property is somewhere around 80 feet above personal property. This arbitrary height simply allows the average citizen the space necessary for upward expansion. Now, this still does not mean it is legal to discharge a firearm within certain legally defined areas. While the FAA says "forbidden to shoot down a drone", I would say that (and I am a believer in the 2nd Amendment and life member of NRA) I would not fault an irate rural homeowner (urban homeowner would be acting in a dangerous illegal manner) for taking potshots at a drone that gives the appearance of invading privacy rather than conducting a standard flyover on the way to somewhere else. If I fly over someone's property I would prefer to be at least 100 foot altitude and strictly transverse the property in a straight line so as to definitely make the intentions known as non-invasive. I further believe most 107s would make attempts to let homeowners be aware of actions in their vicinity, if the job is urban, it's good advertising as well. Jimbo69 you are correct in what you stated. Thank you.
 
Whilst you have some pretty crazy gun laws in the US, the basic common law applies: it is criminal damage, therefore a criminal and civil offence. There can be no reasonable excuse for nor defence of proportionality.
 
The argument is apart from gun laws or discharging firearms since those are local laws and the discussion is about a Federal law. The obfuscation with local laws ignores the issue at hand - shooting down a drone. I don't want to further cloud the issue, other than to offer an article from what security professionals have offered their own members....

Before You Pull the Trigger: The Legal Implications of Shooting Down a Drone | 2018-02-13 | Security Magazine

It offers that shooting down a drone is a federal crime and is to be discouraged. Other posts are quite correct to assert that crimes are charged/prosecuted based on a number of factors - political among them and it will often be the case that it is felt more timely/efficient to charge at the State/local level with crimes more easily proven, ie with a history of conviction.

Charged locally with reckless endangerment.....

Man convicted in drone crash that injured woman during Seattle’s Pride Parade

Man charged with piloting drone that struck Space Needle on New Year’s Eve

Clearly, either of those COULD have been charged Federally but they weren't. Likely, in the case of shooting down a drone it would be the avenue of local charges since the use of federal "muscle" might be reserved for more appropriate scenarios.

Leaving this conversation with what the FAA itself offers on this topic.......

FAA confirms shooting down a drone can lead to a potential 20 year jail sentence | Daily Mail Online

The rub will be - and it is likely to happen - that States/local jurisdictions pass laws that ALLOW the shooting down of drones and someone does and claims that as a defense in a case where the US Government takes an interest will get sticky quick!
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,984
Messages
1,558,561
Members
159,975
Latest member
erroos