Proposed New Law Allows Private Homeowners to Shoot Drones Trespassing

[Donald Roth]

Shooting drones out of the sky

 

[Steve Carr]

At least we know the motivation behind the author of the bill:

"The Oklahoma bill was initially offered by Oklahoma state Sen. Ralph Shortey, who last week was charged in a child prostitution case and has been subjected to sanctions that prevent him from having authorship of bills. An Oklahoma Senate spokesperson told the Washington Examiner on Thursday that S.B. 660 is still pending Senate floor action, and according to the Oklahoma State Legislature website the bill's authorship has been given to another senator."

 

[Murray Martz]

That wouldn't "fly" in Canada. Unless you are hunting with a shotgun, the risk to human life would out weigh that silly law. Random pellets and rounds coming back to earth...not brilliant.

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Any chance the title of this thread could be edited to say: "Proposed Oklahoma (USA) law..."

Very misleading to say "New Law..." in the title, implying it is already in place.

Thanks!

Jeff

 

[FlushVision]

That wouldn't "fly" in Canada. Unless you are hunting with a shotgun, the risk to human life would out weigh that silly law. Random pellets and rounds coming back to earth...not brilliant.

Nor in the U.K. Such a law would never EVER be proposed in the U.K. The mere suggestion of firearms being used for such a purpose (or pretty much any purpose) here would bring the police down very heavily against the shooter and would attract a lengthy stay at one of the Queen's places of reform.

In my mind, a very silly proposed law for any country/state to consider, and clearly not properly thought through weighing up all the consequences.

 

[Steve Carr]

Any chance the title of this thread could be edited to say: "Proposed Oklahoma (USA) law..."

Very misleading to say "New Law..." in the title, implying it is already in place.

Thanks!

Jeff

Done.

 

[Vonov]

Since the FAA has jurisdiction over the National Airspace, and they consider any and all drones aircraft, and currently, AFAIK, shooting at manned or unmanned aircraft is illegal, I doubt this law will "fly"...

 

[BillyTexas]

Since the FAA has jurisdiction over the National Airspace, and they consider any and all drones aircraft, and currently, AFAIK, shooting at manned or unmanned aircraft is illegal, I doubt this law will "fly"...

Pun intended?

 

[Steve Carr]

If someone shoots down your aircraft you wouldn't have any recourse or protection if this law were to pass. The FAA is not going after the shooter and local LE is not going do anything and might actually issue you a citation. So the bottom line........if it becomes law it will be totally out of pocket expense for you to challenge that law.

 

[Vonov]

Pun intended?

Who, me??? ((((innocent look))))

 

[mcbutler]

Nor in the U.K. Such a law would never EVER be proposed in the U.K. The mere suggestion of firearms being used for such a purpose (or pretty much any purpose) here would bring the police down very heavily against the shooter and would attract a lengthy stay at one of the Queen's places of reform.

In my mind, a very silly proposed law for any country/state to consider, and clearly not properly thought through weighing up all the consequences.

Your forgetting that the NRA rule the USA, nobody else..

 

[Vonov]

If someone shoots down your aircraft you wouldn't have any recourse or protection if this law were to pass. The FAA is not going after the shooter and local LE is not going do anything and might actually issue you a citation. So the bottom line........if it becomes law it will be totally out of pocket expense for you to challenge that law.

Benign "neglect"on the part of the FAA, as far as not going after the shooter, would last about as long as it would take for some criminal to shoot down a UAV owned by some law enforcement agency conducting surveillance or simply conducting some sort of infrastructure survey/inspection, particularly if the shootdown results in collateral consequences, such as the UAV catching fire and igniting, say, a house full of sleeping people. I'm sure there will be Fourth Amendment cases coming down the road, concerning privacy issues, etc...add in the fact that it's VERY difficult to tell what a UAV cam is actually looking at, from the ground, and you have an institutional-size can of worms...