leostrat_54
lvl.3
United States
Offline
|
If someone shoots at an aircraft, even an unmanned one, they are breaking several laws and violating the Constitution (in the US) by depriving someone of their personal property without due process. They might feel like doing it but you also can't just shoot a person because they are trespassing either unless they invoke serious bodily harm against you (even if they are sitting in your living room drinking and eating food from your fridge and watching your TV)! Even in a Castle Law state you need to prove impending harm. That's when you have to call the law and let them sort it out (I know, I know by the time they get there the person or quad will be gone or the situation will have elevated to the worst case scenario, but I am citing law here and not what feels right).
As far as 'owning the airspace above' as someone mentioned for airports and quarries, they still can't just start shooting down things that fly over. They have the right of 'citing for trespass' but that is all. Even the military does not typically shoot down aircraft over their protected space unless it compromises national security. As far as states changing this to allow people to shoot at drones there are two areas where they are either in violation of the constitution or making extremely careless law. The first is the right to property without being deprived using due process (mentioned earlier). The second is : who will be responsible when the projectiles from those weapons start impacting people or property below (to say nothing of the aircraft itself) and if they use rifles it is possible they might strike other aircraft as well. In summary, that approach is about as idiotic as it sounds. IMHO |
|