So some idiot shot my phantom3 advanced WITH 22.

[Ajginger]

I have a lot of ammo
I believe the 303 woulda passed on through but ya never know . From the chunk of lead in that picture I would say a 22 .
At anyrate it was a lucky shot for the shooter or hopefully a bad one

A 303 would have ripped the guts right out of the quad.

It would have been dead before it hit the ground.

 

[Air Ontario]

That caliber isn't very popular anyway in the USA, more a Canadian/British thang.

 

[JKDSensei]

I really don't agree. They can get jail time and sued civilly. No new laws needed for destruction of property or discharging a firearm over a roadway. He admitted it I presume. If you did that in my state they would arrest you and seize your firearm. Nobody wants some yokel running around shooting indiscriminately into the air. He could have actually injured someone with the bullet or the falling UAV.

I did not say new laws were needed. My emphasis was on the need for enforcement.

I respect your disagreement but I will add the following....
You say they "Could" get jail time and "Can" get sued.....yet crimes have been committed and they haven't. So somethings wrong.

"Drones" are so new and different to most people (outside of the hobby) that the even the FAA scrambled to come up with a entirely new set of rules pertaining to this technology.

You failed to take in the "newness" of drone technology. And I firmly stand behind my assertion that being a relatively new technology many people are confused as to the legalities and proper behavior in dealing with it. Human nature. People are very emotional about "drones' because of the media hype and sensationalism....plus fear of new technology. Most people know that shooting into the air is wrong...so why do they do it when a drone flies overhead? First because they perceive it as a new and unique threat that the law has not fully addressed. Secondly, they hear of the William Merediths who have taken it into their own hand to use armed force against drones....and so far the law has not taken a clear and consistent stand...in fact it has waffled with a judge in Kentucky dismissing the charges. Yes, we need the laws updated but mostly enforced because people are confused over this relatively new tech and many feel that actions known to be illegal are ok in this situation.....wrong.

 

[JKDSensei]

You are absolutely right.

Personally, I don't know why people are hung up on the UAV aspect of it. It doesn't matter where the UAV was or if it had a "right" to be there. The bigger problem in this scenario is the reckless discharge or a firearm into the air. They guy could have been aiming at a bird or a cloud. Most states have rules for discharge. Firing over a public roadway is generally illegal.

Sure, I would be upset if someone damaged my property. That, however is a small issue compared to human safety. Firing a gun in an unsafe direction can get someone killed.

In my state as well, an intentionally negligent discharge would very likely get you arrested. Bye bye pistol license. Bye bye long guns. Hello NICS denied list. People have lost their rights for less.

Who said new laws are needed....what do you think will stop people from shooting at them? Dismissing charges when they do?

As I said, what's needed is enforcement. I don't think anyone is neglecting the safety aspect of it. That's everyones point along with their property rights.

 

[StratocasterDave]

If I shot at a maned aircraft, that is grounds for a felony charge here in the States. The FAA seems like they consider drones as aircraft....

Hmmm

 

[joe21]

Check out the last episode of the Goodwife on CBS. All the legalities were brought up. Don't know how accurate they were but interesting legal views. Long and short of it was if you were above 87 feet and below 500 feet you may have some legal standing. Even better, if your bird had an N number or any federal registration you might want to let the FAA know.

I don't mean anything personal or argumentative. I realize you are just pointing out a TV show that touched on the same topic. Just find the above funny.

I don't trust the NEWS to give me complete factual information, especially on legal issues. Heck, two different news networks can have two different lawyers and/or ex judges on a show to make cases for completely opposite viewpoints. And that's when Dan Rather and Brian Williams aren't just making things up as they go along.

A TV drama written by some twits in Hollywood is a step down from just about anything else... you are better off getting info from a forum like this. In fact, I bet the writers got most of their material from thread like this one, and then further fictionalized the info to make it more "entertaining."

TV shows and movies are among the major culprits for the spread of incorrect "facts."

 

[Reed L]

But We're talking about Louisiana, one of the last states to completely hold up the 2nd amendment. You can carry open or concealed, buy ammo anytime and enjoy living at peace and safely armed with no licenses needed. It's really a nice state when it comes to firearms but being that the DA has already contacted him and said charges are being filed, it will be interesting to hear what they are. Being that he pissed off the Police with lies... where he is located maybe he'll be sent to the farm to work off his debt before he is even charged

 

[JKDSensei]

I hope he has to replace the guys Phantom and gets schooled on how dangerous shooting into the sky can be. He "probably" missed more than hit is mark......just a guess tho.

 

[joe21]

Who said new laws are needed....what do you think will stop people from shooting at them? Dismissing charges when they do?

As I said, what's needed is enforcement. I don't think anyone is neglecting the safety aspect of it. That's everyones point along with their property rights.

I'm not sure why you posted this in response to me. I wrote nothing about new laws or dismiss of charges. Nor, as far as i can tell, did I question anything you wrote.

I'm the first in line to promote property rights, but realize it is a bad idea to go down that road on this forum. I only suggested that human safety is a much more important issue than a $1,000 piece of plastic. In the areas I am familiar with, those gun safety laws are on the books and vigorously enforced. If I saw some yahoo shooting randomly into the air and endangering people, my last concern would be a plastic toy and if it had the "right" to be there.

On the other hand, if the drone was endangering my safety or that of my family, then I could also see situations where a firearm might be safely and legally discharged to end the threat. But that's a whole different topic.

 

[JKDSensei]

I'm not sure why you posted this in response to me. I wrote nothing about new laws or dismiss of charges. Nor, as far as i can tell, did I question anything you wrote.

I'm the first in line to promote property rights, but realize it is a bad idea to go down that road on this forum. I only suggested that human safety is a much more important issue than a $1,000 piece of plastic. In the areas I am familiar with, those gun safety laws are on the books and vigorously enforced. If I saw some yahoo shooting randomly into the air and endangering people, my last concern would be a plastic toy and if it had the "right" to be there.

On the other hand, if the drone was endangering my safety or that of my family, then I could also see situations where a firearm might be safely and legally discharged to end the threat. But that's a whole different topic.

M0j0 disagreed with something I posted which is fine....and it seemed you agreed and I backed up my POV.

The danger to the public from firing into the air is the most serious offense I agree.
But since this is a DJI Phanton Forum, I felt including the loss of the phantom was also appropriate.
I think gun safety debates in general are not our focus, but rather the disturbing trend of people shooting at DJI Phantoms and drones in general.

 

[joe21]

M0j0 disagreed with something I posted which is fine....and it seemed you agreed and I backed up my POV.

The danger to the public from firing into the air is the most serious offense I agree.
But since this is a DJI Phanton Forum, I felt including the loss of the phantom was also appropriate.

Ahh, Fair enough. I missed the back and forth that preceeded my comment.

I'm with you on both points - firing into the air being more serious and the phantom mention being appropriate here.

My point about the Phantom loss was more in relation to other comments here. Many seem focused on the same old "you can't fly xx feet" arguments (none of which are definitely settled). To me it simply seemed as if the bigger problem of shooting into the sky at random was being minimized. Being personally involved with gun safety, I have trouble seeing beyond that point.

 

[Air Ontario]

If he is found guilty he will pay restitution, may do probation and community service.

Louisiana has some decent victim's right laws.

 

[JKDSensei]

Ahh, Fair enough. I missed the back and forth that preceeded my comment.

I'm with you on both points - firing into the air being more serious and the phantom mention being appropriate here.

My point about the Phantom loss was more in relation to other comments here. Many seem focused on the same old "you can't fly xx feet" arguments (none of which are definitely settled). To me it simply seemed as if the bigger problem of shooting into the sky at random was being minimized. Being personally involved with gun safety, I have trouble seeing beyond that point.

No worries...and I may have misinterpreted your messages context

 

[tcope]

No they can't. Not in the USA. It is not a trespass.

My post was not clear. To be more clear, if a person is standing on someone else's land then they are more then welcome to pursue trespassing charges.

 

[tcope]

If your flying 100' above, he has zero rights or say so about that airspace.

My response was to someone mentioning trespass... as if the OP was standing on someone else's land. I was not clear.

However, a person does indeed have a say so as to what is flying over their property. An aircraft (or really anything) cannot interfere with someone's right to use their land as it was intended. You also have nuisance laws that govern the person on the ground who is controlling the UAV.

 

[m0j0]

I think we are all on the same page. The real issue is not the UAV. The real issue is the irresponsible discharge of a firearm. I should have been more clear. I do disagree with this statement though

the general message is that the law is unclear how to deal with this......so....open season until otherwise notified.

I think most people completely understand that discharging a firearm for any reason is a serious issue. They 100 percent know the consequences for doing it. Which prompted my statement that no new law was necessary. I'll add to that and say no epiphany is necessary either. Where I live this knucklehead would absolutely be charged.

The perceived fine for discharging a firearm into the air at xxxxx - $ Zero.

This I also disagree with. The gun carriers in my state know they would go down for discharging a firearm under the circumstances here.

That is all. The remainder of your statements I agree with totally.

Cheers



Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Mike-m1911a1]

If I shot at a maned aircraft, that is grounds for a felony charge here in the States. The FAA seems like they consider drones as aircraft....

Hmmm

That is correct! The FAA in their infinite wisdom has determined that it has FEDERAL jurisdiction from the ground up. Therefore, shooting ANY aircraft including a drone is a federal offense. That is regardless of whether over private or public land. However, being over private land can get you in trouble with other local, state and federal laws. Just doesn't allow shooting of an aircraft.



Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Imabiggles]

My response was to someone mentioning trespass... as if the OP was standing on someone else's land. I was not clear.

However, a person does indeed have a say so as to what is flying over their property. An aircraft (or really anything) cannot interfere with someone's right to use their land as it was intended. You also have nuisance laws that govern the person on the ground who is controlling the UAV.

and at 100' - what interference/nusance could it cause. Regardless, it isnt a 'right', but you could make a civil case about it.

 

[Imabiggles]

Personally, I don't know why people are hung up on the UAV aspect of it.

Might be because this is a UAS forum

 

[dino]

As a Police officer in NY state there would definitely be charges against the A HOLE who shot your drone. Firing in the sky is considered reckless endangerment, Criminal Mischief for damaging your drone. I do live in the state that has the strongest gun laws in the states.