Posted on 09/30/2014 12:19:11 PM PDT by Paul46360
#9 birdshot coming down on you couldn’t hurt unless you were looking up.
Not really. A shotgun has a very limited range. There is a skeet range in Nashville that is about 300-400 yards from a major street. At several stations, the pellets are going directly towards the street yet no cars are ever hit.
A Washington D.C. man, Burk Obummer, was arrested after police say he shot down a remote control drone over his White House..”
It’s a Tardrone.
In how many parts of the US is the population density low enough that it’s OK to “point a rifle into the air, the bullet comes down where?”
It’s a matter of time before terrorist groups equip them with IR night vision and attach a noxious or explosive payload, imho. Guide a couple of the things in over a compound at night, drop the payload strategically, then kaboom.
Wonder how much I can get for “ pneumatic net throwers”.
Throws a bolo type net and balls several hundred feet with repeatable range and accuracy. Not a firearm as per ATF.
A good name for it is “NoDrone”.
He should ask for a jury trial. <^..^>
You wouldn’t even have to get the net around it. Just tangle up a prop, and it’s coming down.
Good for him.
I have a 500 mw Green Laser which should be excellent for blinding any drones...
This is in Lower Township, Cape May County — the southernmost part of New Jersey. Rural, undeveloped pine forests and some beach communities (Cape May, Wildwood).
This is not “Newh Joisy”.
See: “tshirtgun.com”
You do to a reasonable distance.
In the case of United States v. Causby,[4] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain. At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."[5]
Good.... you got it right!!! I own one of these. Anyone dumb enough to shoot mine down, will most certainly not like how the rest of their day goes.
first off, the house was under construction......but with that aside, am I breaking the law if I take pictures of your house from the sidewalk?
How about if I view an already available satellite photo of your house from Google Earth?
As of this date, I haven't heard of any laws that say it's illegal to fly a remote controlled toy over anyone's property.......If the property owner was so upset, he should have either talked to the toy helicopter owner in person or called the police and let them talk to the toy owner......
Negligent use of a firearm and subsequent personal property destruction should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law..........
Do you mount a camera on it and fly it over other people's property?
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.