Oklahoma state bill would let property owners shoot down drones

Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
842
Reaction score
376
Location
Albany, NY
From ARS Technica:

An Oklahoma state senator has proposed a state law that if enacted, would remove civil liability for property owners who capture or shoot down a drone flying over their property.​

From the proposed bill:

Any person owning or controlling real estate or other premises who voluntarily damages or destroys a drone located on the real estate or premises or within the airspace of the real estate or premises not otherwise regulated by the Federal Aviation shall, together with any successors in interest, if any, not be civilly liable for causing the damage or destruction to the property of such person.​

My guess is that the FAA's current rules and laws would make this bill a non-starter. One would hope that this bill would be stopped before it could get passed.
 
Pandering.

As a matter of interest...
What USA, outdoor, drone accessible, airspace is not controlled by the FAA?
 
From ARS Technica:

An Oklahoma state senator has proposed a state law that if enacted, would remove civil liability for property owners who capture or shoot down a drone flying over their property.​


Not exactly and you missed a _very_ important part:

upload_2017-3-7_7-20-58.png



So you are incorrect in that it just applies to flying over someone's property. The flier has to actually be committing a crime that is already on the books. You are also 100% incorrect in that it mentions _anything_ about shooting a drone. No where. I'll agree that it opens the door for this possibility.

I'm not saying that the bill is worth the paper it's written on, it's not. But it's not just as you mentioned.

These idiot lawmakers just keep getting scarier and scarier...

upload_2017-3-7_7-18-20.png


What is a "recoding device"? To me it's obvious that the idiot who wrote this bill was attempting to get around the US Constitution in not specifying a camera.​

upload_2017-3-7_7-22-43.png


What is "within the airspace of the real property"? The real estate clearly does not control any airspace that the FAA is in charge of.

This bill is about as poorly worded as they come. It also would do very little as the person destroying the drone can still be held liable with the argument that there was no invasion of privacy. So it simply gives people the impression that they can take the law into their own hands. I understand the point in the law.
 
Any OK pilots here should 'gently' remind their senator that the proposed law flies directly in the face of FAA juristiction. May be able to legislate no 'civil penalties' (I.e. no law suits), but doing so (downing a sUAS) would still be subject to federal prosecution.
 
I don't see the "Shoot it down" part, but if they replace the airspace - or construe it to mean the land under the airspace or change airspace word to grounds as written - I could see that as meaning that if the land owner spotted a drone on their ground or property, they could destroy it without consequence. In other words, a "No take-off or land on my property" sort of law much like many cities, only now statewide.

Fly 'em while you still can. Ain't gonna get any easier.
 
There may be a small percentage of drone downings that would not be in contradiction to the FAA.

Even though the FAA controls the "national airspace" it likely does so through the interstate commerce act. If a drone build in OK was shot down by a firearm manufactured in OK then the Federal government would not be able to invoke the interstate commerce clause and the law would likely withstand judicial review.

Yeah, so the likelihood is almost, but not quite, 0.
 
This OK bill has nothing to do with controlling airspace. Nothing to contradict FAA rules. It does not attempt to regulate where a UAV can, or cannot fly. The bill really does not attempt to apply any rules to the UAV, or it's pilot.
The bill affects the civil liabilities of the property owner who damages a UAV over his property.
 
Should say "allows property owners to shoot down aircraft" - the FAA considers these devices as aircraft - not drones. Why is the FAA and law enforcement not affording the same protections of civil aviation to sUAS which they have stated are aircraft and are federally regulated? Who bares the liability when the sUAS crashes to the ground, harms others or creates other safety and cost issues? The FAA has been diligent in getting Part 107 up and running, they need follow through and protect access which is getting eaten away every day with senseless proposed regulations like this.
 
BTW the authors email is [email protected]
Be sure to share your opinions. In a professional manor.
 
I can almost see both sides, here. I really wouldn't be okay with my p4 being shot down for merely passing over someone's property. I would venture to say, I'd likely hit somebody in the eye. The part that states "where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists" rings a chord, with me. I do feel like I should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my fenced in yard. An aircraft passing over at a decent altitude doesn't bother me. I could imagine a drone becoming a nuisance, however. For instance , what if a drone was used to livestream you, every time you mow the lawn? People laugh at you in your shorts, swatting at a pesky flying camera buzzing you and there's nothing you could do???
Lol
 
Wasn't I required to register my UAV with the FAA, so they'd actually be destroying an aircraft mid flight?
 
So, you fire a super-sonic projectile into the air to bring down a drone. Nobody has mentioned where the bullet(s) may land. Maybe a neighborhood, or an elementary school yard miles away, or your own backyard.

Geez. What are these idiots thinking? Don't read this the wrong way......I am all for privacy, but resolving one problem by creating another problem is not a viable solution.
 
Geez. What are these idiots thinking? Don't read this the wrong way......I am all for privacy, but resolving one problem by creating another problem is not a viable solution.

Just because a law would make it ok to shoot down a drone doesn't mean that any shoot is a good shoot.

Once you think a firearm needs to be used you still need to go through the process, and part of that is knowing what your target is, as well as what is in front and behind it. If you can't be sure you need to decide if you still need to shoot.
 
With this line... "The measure applies to drones that are not under Federal Aviation Administration regulation" how would this affect us, i.e., registered drone operators?
 
  • Like
Reactions: captainmilehigh
With this line... "The measure applies to drones that are not under Federal Aviation Administration regulation" how would this affect us, i.e., registered drone operators?

That's a good question TJ. I guess if the drone is registered it can't be shot down?

Maybe I should make my FAA number bigger so Buffalo Bill can see it........or I'll have to fly LOWER so he CAN see it.....then it's a better target.........oh, the plot thickens......[emoji33].......
 
It also looks to theoretically absolve the property owner of "civil" liability but does not appear to absolve them of "criminal" liability such as firing a firearm into the air and/or firing a firearm at an aircraft. It would look to me more like an attempt to protect the property owner from you, the sUAS operator from suing them for damages if they somehow bring down your aircraft.

It is all very ridiculous and hopefully will look as ridiculous to other legislators who would see that many property owners might actually read this the way the OP did and feel that they could shoot down these aircraft justifiably.

Moronic legislation!
 
Well if they can shoot up my property why I can't shoot down at yours ? Rooten egg dispenser for the phantom ? Lol...

It wold be extremely hard to shot down a phantom passing by unless you are trying to check out one of his windows. Bird shots don't reach much altitude and rifles will almost need a standing still bird and a extremely good shooter that knows his ballistic to compensate the drop in an unusual up angle . If flying at 120m in movement you will need a expert and he will probably have a hard time with such a small moving target .... it's a waste of time .
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,054
Messages
1,467,297
Members
104,919
Latest member
BobDan