Not the Drones again
Because this topic keeps coming up I wanted to see if there were actual court rulings on drones and airspace. It appears home owners do own some of there air space. In the case of United States v...
Forum Discussion
bid_time wrote:I will argue the drone was harassing our livestock and guardian dog and too the same steps if a dog was harassing the livestock.Walaby wrote:If you have a 100-foot tree then you are clearly occupying the space and that would pretty much preclude the use of a drone in that space. If you are shooting skeet than you are also using that space which would preclude the use of a drone in that space. Forty feet behind you - not so much.BCSnob wrote:bid_time wrote:What about skeet shooting (if allowed by law), a driving range for golf, shooting off fireworks (if allowed by law), flying a kite, etc? Wouldn't those be occupying or using the space above ones property?
I think I'm pretty sure you're not going to be "occupying or using" space a hundred feet above your house.
or putting up a Ham radio antenna? or how about trees in your yard? Those clearly can grow a hundred feet, and they are "yours" and use the airspace above your property.
Mike
But my point was not to be to quick to start shooting at the drone, you may not actually have the rights to that airspace. But if you want to be the test case I say go for it. I think a lot of us would be interested to see how it turns out and who knows you could be the next "Case Law" cited - United States vs. BC Snob! It's got a certain "ring" to it. I like it.
