Flying camera shot down at pigeon shoot

[The Keymaster]

Maybe they were pressured into not shooting pigeons, and decided to shoot aerial spy devices instead...sounds like a lot more fun to me.

 

[Stang51d]

Over cities, it's 1,000' above the highest obstacle. Sparsly populated areas there is not really a min alt. It is 500' away from a person, vehicle or structure, but that applies to "aircraft" and that 500' can be horizontal. Now what exactly is an "aircraft"? The FAA says "Aircraft. A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.". That being said, by the federal aviation Regulations, they should have been properly certified by the FAA to operate this "aircraft" and stay 500' from the people they were spying on.
List of charges?
Stalking
Harassment
Operating an aircraft without certification
Operating an aircraft at an unsafe distance from people
Operating an aircraft from an area that has not been approved for an "airport"
Maybe more

 

[N8RV]

Drones

While this is technically not a "drone," it's being used as one in spying on the Club's activities.

There is currently a brewing controversy over the use of unmanned drones in the airspace above the CONUS. The government and various law enforcement agencies on one side, citizen groups concerned about privacy issues on the other side -- and pilots in the middle, literally, with drones about to invade their airspace.

Drones, as they exist today, were not an issue until recently. Advances in computer and video technology have revolutionized the entire concept of aerial video surveillance, and the rules haven't even been developed yet. Whatever laws might apply here now will certainly change as the rules evolve.

That said ... I'd shoot it down, too. And it wouldn't have made it back to its owner.

 

[hooky]

My favorite comment on the article:

"Send more drones! We need the practice."

 

[threedhuntr]

Maybe they just misidentified the spyplane as a pigeon. That would be my story.

^^^^^^ That's many story ..... and I'm sticking' to it.

 

[XDLover]

Tem some funny looking pigeons!

 

[! twitty]

This is a dupe

 

[need4speed255]

Over cities, it's 1,000' above the highest obstacle. Sparsly populated areas there is not really a min alt. It is 500' away from a person, vehicle or structure, but that applies to "aircraft" and that 500' can be horizontal. Now what exactly is an "aircraft"? The FAA says "Aircraft. A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.". That being said, by the federal aviation Regulations, they should have been properly certified by the FAA to operate this "aircraft" and stay 500' from the people they were spying on.
List of charges?
Stalking
Harassment
Operating an aircraft without certification
Operating an aircraft at an unsafe distance from people
Operating an aircraft from an area that has not been approved for an "airport"
Maybe more

I see where you are coming from but the above is not quite accurate. You don't need a license for an ultralight aircraft. You don't need a license for an RC aircraft as far as I know. The drone would be more like an RC helicopter or plane.

 

[Mark 1911]

Isn't that where the NYPD goes for target practice? Dang it!! Missed again!!

 

[! twitty]

Original post here

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ssion/247156-animal_rights_drone_damaged.html

 

[jbell_64]

Do they have a hunter harassment law there by chance?

 

[Slawburger]

Does Pennsylvania have a daily limit on Octocopters?

 

[walleyepw]

Sounds as if they needed to shoot it a few more times. Let them keep sending the drones and keep shooting. Ammo is cheep compared to drones.

 

[canav844]

Over cities, it's 1,000' above the highest obstacle. Sparsly populated areas there is not really a min alt. It is 500' away from a person, vehicle or structure, but that applies to "aircraft" and that 500' can be horizontal. Now what exactly is an "aircraft"? The FAA says "Aircraft. A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.". That being said, by the federal aviation Regulations, they should have been properly certified by the FAA to operate this "aircraft" and stay 500' from the people they were spying on.

Remember though, those altitudes are minimums for the aircraft, the FAA says after 200ft they own the airspace, and it may be less if you're within certain areas within 5mi of an airport.

But IN has other laws that apply here regardless of altitude, as in IN it's illegal to interfere with legal hunting activities. I need to go dig up the cite though, unless INGO beats me to it. Not saying that means you can shoot it down without trouble....but the trouble makers can get arrested instead of a press conference.

Edit/
here's the cite:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title14/ar22/ch37.html

IC 14-22-37-2
Violations
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally interferes with the legal taking of a game animal by another person with intent to prevent the taking commits a Class C misdemeanor.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) disturbs a game animal; or
(2) engages in an activity or places an object or substance that will tend to disturb or otherwise affect the behavior of a game animal;
with intent to prevent or hinder the legal taking commits a Class C misdemeanor.
(c) A person who knowingly or intentionally enters or remains:
(1) upon public land; or
(2) upon private land without permission of the owner or the owner's agent;
with intent to violate this section commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.15.

Only a C Misdem though, so not expecting much for sanctions in the real world.
/Edit

Now as soon as the first PD drone gets shot down, the INSC will say you can't shoot anything flying, spying on you legally or not...then the next year SB1 will allow you to shoot down anything illegally flying over your property and the airline industry will make erroneous claims about how IN residents are too stupid to know airliners have legal grounds to fly over the state.

 

[gunman41mag]

wow they could afford the $4,000 to keep fixing the shark