Posted on 05/30/2014 3:38:29 PM PDT by Theoria
There are lots of entrepreneurs who would love to fly drones — tiny unmanned aircraft — all over the country. They dream of drones delivering packages and taking photos, but there's a battle in the courts right now standing in their way. The battle is about whether it's legal for drones to take to the sky.
The question at the core of the battle: Who owns the air?
It's a question that goes back to the Middle Ages, to a Latin phrase that translates to "he owns the soil owns up to the heavens." In England, this phrase was the law of the land for centuries, and it worked well when disputes involved simple things like overhanging tree branches and lopsided buildings.
But once hot air balloons and airplanes came into the picture, things got a lot more complicated. In 1926, Congress created what we now call the FAA, and declared that the air above 500 feet is the public domain. But what about the air below that?
Thomas Causby was a chicken farmer in North Carolina who lived near a tiny airport. During World War II, the Army took over the airport, and suddenly big military planes were flying over Causby's chicken coops all the time. The planes scared Causby's chickens. They flew into the walls of the coop and died.
Causby sued the government, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In the end, the court sided with Causby, ruling that landowners own the sky above their homes up to at least 83 feet.
But the decision still left a gap. If the air above 500 feet is public property, and the air below 83 feet is private property, what about the space in between?
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
When TSHTF the people — without an air force — will need to kill the enemy’s planes, choppers AND crews while they are still on the ground.
Ping.
Is it Drone Hunting Season?
Well, since the people are superior to the government, and the government evidently has the right to do so, then I guess that settles it.
My friend’s neighbor - here in Los Angeles - had a drone hover over their house for about 15 minutes. Sheriffs did not know anything about it. The neighbor was furious. I would have thought about shooting it down, I think. How terribly invasive.
I’ve lived around coastal areas for years(not now) and have watched high-rise buildings build along the coast blotting out the view and it always made me wonder who owns the views? Should a developer be able to build a building that blocks views of nature for the few that own the building?
If you owned a single-family home in a picturesque area and a large building went up, is that ok? Thee wonders.
Well we can be damn certain the people don’t.
The big question is how big will be the black market in anti-drone technology.
The motto of the Air Defense Artillery applies:
“If it flies, it dies.”
Even higher altitude drones are not entirely safe, because a smaller anti-drone drone might attain altitude with a weather balloon, and descend down on its target.
1- no one
2- yes
3- yes
That’s overly simplistic. “Ownership” is a bundle of rights. Many places have regulations to control views. When you buy a lot, where regulations protect views, your “ownership” rights do not include the right to block someone else’s view.
I’d have to say I own the air at least up to shotgun range.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
