Hubby and friends have noticed a drone hovering over our house...when they point to it, it takes off.  Can we shoot it with a pellet gun?    We live on a dead end street....it's happened a couple of times that we know of.  Hubby doesn't notice so maybe it's more?  If I see it, should I follow it or shoot it?   

Hubby and friends have noticed a drone hovering over our house...when they point to it, it takes off.  Can we shoot it with a pellet gun?    We live on a dead end street....it's happened a couple of times that we know of.  Hubby doesn't notice so maybe it's more?  If I see it, should I follow it or shoot it? 

They are doing nothing illgeal, Following it and confronting the owner could be considered harassment and could result in a TRO/loss of 2A rights,

Shooting at it with anything would be a felony and same result. (not to mention anything else they want to throw at you on a state level.)

2. Aircraft Sabotage (18 U.S.C. 32)

Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 32 enacted in 1984 expand United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to include destruction of 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. This statute now also makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. In addition, the United States is authorized under the statute to prosecute any person who destroys a foreign civil aircraft outside of the United States if the offender is later found in the United States or, effective as of April 24, 1996, a national of the United States was aboard such aircraft (or would have been aboard if such aircraft had taken off) or a national of the United States was a perpetrator of the offense. See USAM 9-63.221, et seq.

Nope. Shooting a pellet gun outside your residence is reckless endangerment.
Don't shoot my drone!

Green lasers have the potential to destroy the camera sensor.

At a minimum, green lasers can blind the camera for as long as the laser is hitting near the lens.

Just be certain there are no "real" aircraft in the area, as pointing a laser in their direction is a serious crime.

Green lasers have the potential to destroy the camera sensor.

At a minimum, green lasers can blind the camera for as long as the laser is hitting near the lens.

Just be certain there are no "real" aircraft in the area, as pointing a laser in their direction is a serious crime.

Again see. 2. Aircraft Sabotage (18 U.S.C. 32)

Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 32 enacted in 1984 expand United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to include destruction of 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. This statute now also makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. In addition, the United States is authorized under the statute to prosecute any person who destroys a foreign civil aircraft outside of the United States if the offender is later found in the United States or, effective as of April 24, 1996, a national of the United States was aboard such aircraft (or would have been aboard if such aircraft had taken off) or a national of the United States was a perpetrator of the offense. See USAM 9-63.221, et seq

Nope. Shooting a pellet gun outside your residence is reckless endangerment.

If you shoot into the air and the pellet lands back on your property, how is that illegal?  Only a different trajectory from shooting across the yard.

Drones are toys, not "aircraft".  The fly far below what is considered airspace for aircraft if they are low enough to be peeping at your wife by the pool.

If you shoot into the air and the pellet lands back on your property, how is that illegal?  Only a different trajectory from shooting across the yard.

Drones are toys, not "aircraft".  The fly far below what is considered airspace for aircraft if they are low enough to be peeping at your wife by the pool.

No they are aircraft.
Because I have the need for speed!

The FAA says private drones are "aircraft", but I believe that was done in an attempt to regulate them. 

The drone registration regulations have been repealed for hobbyists.  So, even if the technical designation by the FAA remains, there are cases in court deciding on where the limits between drones and privacy lie.

The case against the Kentucky man who shot down a drone flying over his property has been dismissed by a US District Court, citing “lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

In July of 2015, William Meredith of KY shot down a drone belonging to David Boggs as it flew over his property.  While Meredith was subsequently arrested on a criminal mischief charge, local judge Rebecca Ward dismissed the charges against him, saying that the drone did indeed represent “an invasion of their privacy,” and that Meredith “had the right to shoot” the drone.

Meredith was quick to capitalize on the ruling, dubbing himself “the droneslayer” and introducing droneslayer t-shirts for sale.  Boggs, however, stunned over the dismissal and recognizing a potentially dangerous precedent, decided to appeal the case.  While the drone industry awaited a potentially significant ruling – one that would clearly establish who ultimately owns the sky – Meredith asked for the case to be dismissed, with his lawyers arguing that the case’s important was exaggerated:

Code: [Select]

          The Plaintiff, in response to the criminal charges being dismissed against the
          Defendant, is using the declaratory remedy to attempt to create subject matter jurisdiction
          – the proverbial mountain out of a molehill.  A careful reading of the Complaint reveals the
          argument to be as follows: The Defendant damaged the Plaintiff’s drone.  In reality,
          this is a Bullitt County small claims court case.

http://dronelife.com/2017/03/22/kentucky-drone-slayer-case-dismissed/

If the drone had a min-gun, maybe you can claim self-defense.  Otherwise, shooting at a drone to protect privacy rights is overkill.

I suspect that the Aircraft Sabotage rule is applicable to aircraft that require a pilot license to fly but sounds like that's no longer needed for drones.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/21/11978308/new-faa-rules-mean-us-companies-can-fly-drones-without-a-pilots

Drones are not aircrafts and not regulated by the FAA.



The court ruled that the FAA’s drone registration rules, which have been in place since 2015, were in violation of a law passed by Congress in 2012. That law, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, prohibited the FAA from passing any rules on the operation of model aircraft — in other words, rules that restrict how non-commercial hobbyist drone operators fly.

Drones are not aircrafts and not regulated by the FAA.



The court ruled that the FAA’s drone registration rules, which have been in place since 2015, were in violation of a law passed by Congress in 2012. That law, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, prohibited the FAA from passing any rules on the operation of model aircraft — in other words, rules that restrict how non-commercial hobbyist drone operators fly.

If I understood it right it just ment they dident have jurisdiction over them, not that they are not aircraft.

If they don't have jurisdiction they cannot be aircraft under the FAA Reform Act.

you in Waipahu? I live on a dead end street

If they don't have jurisdiction they cannot be aircraft under the FAA Reform Act.

Sorry jurisdiction to create licensing , they can still regulate where and how they are flown. Also their commercial use.


49 USC:40102
 (6) “aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.

Technically a frisbe is an aircraft.

If you had a net gun you could shoot at it, anything else is a no-no, unless perhaps you can guarantee the projectile does not put anyone at risk. I have shot paintballs and pellets in my back yard, but never in the air.

 I don't know if a signal jammer (illegal) would work or not. A lot of them now have computers that will return if signal is lost.

If you had a net gun you could shoot at it, anything else is a no-no, unless perhaps you can guarantee the projectile does not put anyone at risk. I have shot paintballs and pellets in my back yard, but never in the air.

 I don't know if a signal jammer (illegal) would work or not. A lot of them now have computers that will return if signal is lost.

A net gun would be no different to use if an air rifle or paintball gun

2.4 ghz is commonly used
DJI's Lightbridge uses it for their Phantom 3 Advanced, Mavics, Inspires and Spark (to an extent)

Jamming those freqs are illegal

2.4 ghz is commonly used
DJI's Lightbridge uses it for their Phantom 3 Advanced, Mavics, Inspires and Spark (to an extent)

Jamming those freqs are illegal

No one here ever Does anything illegal

A net gun would be no different to use if an air rifle or paintball gun

It wouldn't be putting others at risk so you wouldn't have to worry about reckless endangering charges.

One could always try to train birds to take out the drone!