Shooting Down Our Drones?

[Matchlock]

There's an Oklahoma Senator who's trying to pass a Bill that will allow homeowners to shoot down drones that fly over their property.

This Senator says that a shotgun's range is only about 30 to 50 feet. Here's the link to the YouTube video. The particular part about the distance is at 4:29

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

.

Another case where politicians know absolutely nothing about what they speak.

Bud

 

[Paul2660]

Sad but follows the logic from the top.

It will get worse before it gets better.

Paul C

 

[Matchlock]

Yes, I'm sure you're right, Paul.

Bud

Sad but follows the logic from the top.

It will get worse before it gets better.

Paul C

 

[MotorCycle-Man]

SHOTS Goooooooooooooooo UP !...and i wonder where they would fall ! whos kids cars suvs...swimming pool or patio ect all them tiny bbs could fall on !....IF it fell on my personal property...including me or my wife or kids or as stated above and if you were looking UP they could hit you in BOTH eyes !...I would surely call the police !

 

[Timinator]

Sad to think that some elected officials believe discharging a firearm is the answer to all their problems. There's a reason why in most countries only the military is authorized to shoot or force down aircraft, regardless of size.

 

[dronesky]

Unbelievable that shooting a drone is being considered law

 

[Erised]

So people that are affraid of drones should shoot them down, how about people affraid of dogs, can they shoot the dog? how about clowns? oopps sorry no clowns, it`s not nice to aim at politicians!

 

[flockshot]

This person's knowledge of drones, is right on par with his knowledge of shotguns.

 

[RocUAV]

It's really to bad the the Senator has not read the actual Supreme Court decisions and what they determine. For anyone willing to do so, you may find them here:

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
Florida v. Riley, 488 US 445 - Supreme Court 1989 - Google Scholar

 

[flockshot]

I tried, but I was falling asleep, even though there were some good arguments.

The first was most interesting because the judge, in the original ruling, perhaps could have made 'case law' had he cited an exact altitude as the limit at which the airspace violation took place. I think it is clear to the average reader though, that had it not been for the 150 dead chickens, bomber style landing lights, and incredible unrelenting noise round the clock, that the airspace violation alone would have never made it to court.