Authorities given right to shoot down private drones in US
 

I hope that the authority people, eager with their guns, are well trained to recognize "unmanned" vs manned!

Or, "private" (whatever that means) versus other.
Tootle pip!!

I see the beginnings of a new sport. What command would replace "Pull!"?

There's a bit more to the story than that. Weaponized drones started showing up around the soutbern border last year on the south side. Appears the cartels found a use for them. There was no legal means to target drones that may present a danger under current law. The opponents state it is an over reach, but a quick look at the ISIS videos or the Venezue!a incident last month point to a different trend. As I tell my friends, a trip to the border will clear up any other questions.

This is not new and it is a problem the 'drone' industry has failed to check. See Judge rules man had right to shoot down drone over his house
There is also considerable uncertainty on who 'owns' the airspace above private property. The Causby case where chickens were panicked by overflights at low level has set 'trespass' or 'taking' as any flight over private property below 83ft. is legally trespass. Drone Wars: Who Owns The Air?
There is a morass of rules, regulations and local legislation that need to be clarified.

I think the law needs to state, 'shoot down with a shotgun'... Using an RPG might cause other problems, if they keep missing.
.

The law in the U.K.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernst...26_General_Ltd

I assume from the snarky comments that authorities in Europe have no right to defend government facilities from drone attack.

Because "Europe" is just one country with one set of rules.:=

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...i-drone-loads/
Don't try this at home...

Based on the comments, that's from 2013.

A few things to clear up. First off, in the US the authorities do not have 'rights', when acting in their official capacity. The rights in all cases are reserved for people, some powers are delegated to authorities, and the state. Which is why it was necessary for congress to authorize their action.

Next, living in a border state I can tell that there are uses for drones along the border, to check for authorities location and direct border jumpers to the right direction. There have been stories around of some of those Mexican drones crossing into the US and taking pictures, and in general being a nuisance. The law as written is not intended to stop JUST these kind of drones, but gives very wide discretion to authorities(I would guess border patrol) when using weapons against a drone. Our representatives need to protect the citizens both from those who would do us harm from outside, and those who would use their expanded powers to harm us from within(border patrol). Only some experience will sort out the limitations as the use expands into the interior of the country, and more private drones are blasted out of the sky.

What's important for me is that there be NO restrictions on the private citizen protecting the airspace above and around them with the same vigor. Whether that is a 12Ga with a load of #6 bird shot, or some electronic jamming means, whatever the feds have, should not be denied to the citizens. So far, there is no precedent either way. The one case in TN was dismissed, but no finding went to a jury for us to hang our judicial hat on. The way I see it, and I am not a lawyer, and have a very anti-authority interpretation - that anyone can blast a private drone out of their airspace, and let the cops use whatever law they want to try to stop it. As there is no specific law on the books it will come down to an unlawful discharge of a weapon. If the reason the weapon was discharged was to protect liberty and property, my argument would be that it was lawful under the 2nd Amendment, and the 13th. Not sure if all juries in a liberal location would see it that way, but that's why I live in a very conservative area.

Ethicalconundrum is correct on several points.
1. In the US, government agencies have no "rights". Only people have rights and various laws give government the power to infringe/regulate those rights.
2. One of the rights people have is the right to privacy and the right to property (be secure in their person and their property.) The government may only infringe on that right with a warrant issued by a judge. This law is alleged to give the government the power to intercept the signals from a private UAV without a warrant, infringing on the owners right to privacy.
3. Another right people have is the right to be compensated for any "taking" by the government. The government may seize or destroy private property, but only after due process, and even then must reimburse the owner of that property its fair market value. This law is alleged to give the government the power to destroy or take a private drone without due process and without reimbursing the owner.
4. Private citizens are not currently prohibited from intercepting the signals of a private drone nor prohibited from downing a private drone. However, they could be prosecuted for unlawful discharge if a firearm was used to down the drone. And regardless of what method was used to down a drone, the owner of the drone can sue the person who downed the drone in court for damages related to the downing. Of course they would have to prove the defendant actually downed the drone and had no right to do so.

Regarding private use of firearms to down drones over private property, it's not always as simple as defending your vertical airspace. In a crowded suburban environment, unless you're shooting straight overhead, then you might be lobbing projectiles into a neighbor's yard.

I remember one New Year's Eve party I held for neighbors in my side yard in Miami FL. At midnight, among the usual fireworks I heard a clatter of what I first thought was rain falling on the nearby palm leaves. I held out my hand, and caught some shotgun pellets. Harmless, but still annoying. There could be other situations where you might take out a neighbor's window or worse, if you shoot at a drone hovering over your yard at a low enough angle.

Maybe the regulations could be flexible enough to allow it in rural areas, but I don't see this being practical in the suburbs. The answer seems to me to be regulating against private use of drones over personal property airspace period, with exceptions for things like roof inspections, real estate photos, etc. when commissioned by the home owner.

What's needed is a way to easily ID each private drone so they can be reported, when busting local laws. During a town parade recently, someone's drone flew briefly over my yard, presumably shooting photos of the parade route a block away. It was annoying. All I have is a photo taken on my phone, showing a tiny drone over my roof, without enough information to ID and report it. There must be some technical answer for this. Maybe each drone required to broadcast a signal that can be picked up on any smartphone as an ID and linked to a photo, so people could document incursions over private property.

Wasn't it the FAA who had jurisdiction and said that nobody gets to shoot down aircraft - be it 747 or a drone - unless it's a shoot-down order from the pres, etc?

Section 1602 of the legislation specifically outlines the “protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft,” The bill further permits US authorities to neutralize a potential threat using “reasonable force."

You probably aren't member of "US authorities" and your backyard grill isn't a "certain facility."

The FAA is an administrative dept of the DOT. while they have some limited powers to regulate the airspace, they have no police powers(authority) of any kind that I know of. They can make a regulation that it is unlawful to shoot down a drone, and they can then have an administrative hearing if such an action happened, but the FAA itself cannot open a criminal case. It would need to be referred to one of the LEO powers of the US govt. I have no idea which agency would get involved. As I said before, it doesn't really bother me too much that US authorities are given the power to shoot down a drone in the protection of facilities it deems important. There may at some time in the future be a case where the US authorities acted rashly in shooting down a drone which is flying 100' over a state library, or monument, or some other non-critical facility of the state/nation. All I care about is that the citizen retains the RIGHT to protect life, liberty, privacy and property from unwanted exposure via drone.

My opinion and mine only is that one should be able to enjoy one's backyard grill without being observed by a drone, particularly when one BBQs in the nude, as I am wont to do. So, I guess that's a piece of advice, if one is a drone operator, in TX and one flies around my place - it may not return in the same condition it left, if it is able to return at all. :}

For the private person defending their own property, there is a possible issue that you would need to have appropriate warnings at or near the boundary etc, as the drone that you are shooting at is obviously a discovered trespass, and that means that there is a duty of care under common law in many jurisdictions. Personally, I think that it makes for great sport, but the shot needs to be pretty fine to make sure no one else gets hurt on the far side.

There is an old precedent of a neighbour shooting across one property and getting a target on the next one over. The case was supposedly one of trespass of the property in the middle, hazy on the details.

drones make great observation posts, and are pretty useful as weapons. Defence from them is now gathering steam, with some neat technology that is already rolled out in places where it is worthwhile to have it. Overall, they make for a fascinating disruption to tactical ops. They also have great utility for contraband activities, enough to mess up a lot of basic assumptions that border protection rely on today. All the hallmarks of a techno arms race.