This is the type of article that spreads incorrect information. The author is a twit. Typical attorney BS (and the authors isn't even an attorney)... they are always in the right until they are wrong.
The author claims that "under current law it's illegal to shoot down a drone, even if it's hovering above your own property." This is an overly broad and highly misleading statement. There is no such specific law (there may be in some specific jurisdiction, but it would be rare).
If there was a law then why isn't it cited? Why did police charge Meredith with "criminal mischief and wanton endangerment." and not the law the author claims exists? Same for the other cases referenced in the article.
If the authors claims are demonstrably true, why does he state: "There's an alternate theory, though, from law professor Michael Froomkin. He argues that self-defense should be permissible against drones simply because you don't know their capabilities." Apparently there is a differing viewpoint and neither has been settled in court.
Why are companies allows to develop and sell items that have the express purpose of breaking this "law?" ("Defenses are being developed. Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing sell anti-drone laser weapons. One company sells shotgun shells specifically designed to shoot down drones.")
I'm not claiming it is advisable to shoot a drone or even fire a weapon into the air (always know your target and what is behind it). My point is that there are other laws at state and local levels which may - or may not - turn a drone shooting into an illegal act. This article is an _opinion_ piece masquerading as a news article. No one is going to be arrested under the "illegal to shoot down the drone" law, because such a law does not exist.
EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE POST IS FALSE.
The overall law does not need to be read/written into the article, because anyone who knows the smallest bit of information about aviation law understands that
drones are codified as aircraft.
There is no legal difference between a UAV and a Cessna 182 or a Boeing 747. The circumstances are identical. If you really wish do dig in;
(18 USC § 32) and you'll have your answer.
In short:
(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;
...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
Nothing more to say on that topic.
Well, just realized, there are those flying drones who don't understand drones are classified the same as Civil Aviation.
Well...this is why we have the 333 Exemption, exempting drones from some of the same standards as Civil Aircraft (no radio needed, no transponder needed, no IFR, etc). You might want to read:
Self-Defense Against Robots and Drones by A. Michael Froomkin, Zak Colangelo :: SSRN for additional information.
If you don't know this information, you'll have little chance of passing the Part 107 written exam which will be required later this year if you're flying in anything but recreational circumstances.
Persons have ALREADY been arrested for shooting down drones. A firefighter was arrested and charged for downing a drone with a firehose, and a New Jersey man has been arrested and jailed for shooting down a drone. Two US Forest Service ranger heli pilots have been suspended for forcing a drone down with their helicopter.
Know your facts before spewing opinion.
State law has zip to do with the conversation. Even a 13-year old Boy Scout with his Citizenship in the Nation merit badge can tell you that Federal law supercedes state law in most instances. Federal law says you can't shoot a drone, nor interrupt it's flight in any way.
UAV operators/drone operators need to get their **** together if they're going to fly in the NAS. It's not that hard, but it does require a tiny bit of effort that goes beyond charging batteries.