TexasCHLforum.com

I think when you guys start looking at some FAA regulations as well as some case law, you're going to find that manned helicopters are not restricted over your property as low as 500 feet. Not even helicopters with high resolution cameras are restricted. And IIRC some case law says you don't have any expectation of privacy from those aircraft.

There is also the burden that is on you to prove that anyone flying over your property is actually doing something illegal with forethought and malice. It is up to you to obtain actual proof of wrongdoing, not just assumptions. In truth, we do not own the airspace over our property, never have and never will. Right or wrong, that's the law.

People have been looking at what goes on in your backyard for decades. Some doing it with cameras that can read your license plate from low earth orbit.

Pawpaw wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:Yeah. #8 runs 200 to around 900 pellets depending on load, IIRC. It just wouldn't take a lot of pellets to knock it out.

The problem is that #8 shot pellets are very small and light, but still have lots of wind resistance. They will lose their inertia quickly.

Think about it, which can you throw farther, a baseball, or a handfull of BB's? You can launch them both at nearly identical speeds, but the BB's just won't go as far.

All that is true, but one thing I have learned in 60 years of shooting is that real world always beats me trying to figure out what should happen. Probably the only way to know for sure is a trip to the range. Not really worth it though.

As I said though. I think somebody is lying - or the media is its usual stupid self.

Yeah. #8 runs 200 to around 900 pellets depending on load, IIRC. It just wouldn't take a lot of pellets to knock it out.

Shoot down a drone at 190' - say 100 yards total with an 18" barrel shotgun?

Sure it's possible. A drone is not a duck or an Apache helicopter. A Flight Control load might put one #1 buck pellet in the drone at that range, which might be all it takes. A 3" Magnum 00 or 000 - one pellet would easily do the trick. A slug? No problem.

Besides. Who's telling the truth and who might be lying? Which media outlet is reporting the story accurately and which might have a drunken rooster for a reporter? (If such a thing as a media outlet reporting accurately in any gun-related matter is even possible)

My concern here is that if the message is sent that it is okay to shoot at drones, how long until some idiot cuts loose at one with an AK47 clone and kills someone because they didn't look at what was beyond the target? You know, the thrill of the hunt?

I think a very practical solution might just be to enact ordinances that drones could be flown freely in areas where RC aircraft are flown. You cannot fly a 40-50 pound large scale RC aircraft around houses because they can be lethal weapons if they crash.

I'm not comfortable with restrictions like that, and we certainly don't need more laws, but neither do I think the answer is allowing open season with guns in backyards.

Nor do I think green lasers are the answer. Regardless of how benign you think they are, the reality is that since they are not type-accepted like other equipment that emits radiation (like transceivers) it is well known that most of the lasers sold today which are supposed to be limited to 5mw actually put out as much as 65mw - enough to cause permanent blindness from even scattered radiation, not to speak of direct exposure of an eye. Lasers mishandled can be extremely dangerous. Maybe more so than guns because everyone thinks they're toys.

Anyway, there may actually not be much more discussion about it. As with everything where people cannot use common sense, regulation is probably right around the corner.

Laser? Extraordinarily bad idea. You can't see a red laser well enough to aim it precisely. A green laser can be seen, but with all the idiots shooting them at aircraft lately, you might draw a SWAT team for your efforts.

We have virtually stopped using green lasers in our Star Parties (astronomy) because of the danger that you might illuminate an aircraft at altitude. They can be seen for miles - little hand held ones.

It is probably easier to buy a 40mm antiaircraft gun than a laser with enough power to actually bring anything down. Those lasers are still highly classified.

Abraham wrote:SDT,

Funny you should mention that as I'm currently burning down some briquets to smoke a large quantity of evolved dinosaur critters commonly known as chicken.

Sounds delicious. I did that to some pork spare ribs two nights ago. They were gooooooood!

If a drone tried to steal my ribs, I would have speared it with a BBQ fork.

Abraham wrote:What possible reason would some "droner" have for hovering over someone's back yard?

Casing the joint for a future burglary?

Peeping?

Nothing good, that's for sure.

Looking for illegal smoke from your BBQ pit.

According to the FAA, none. How ridiculous is that?

I have a better idea than shooting it down. A large butterfly net made with Kevlar impregnated twine, weighted on the edges like a fishing net. Shoot it from a tennis ball launcher type affair. Catch the rascal and make it yours. You could mount it on the wall like a trophy or just wait for the idio....er....person who owns it to show up at your door.