The "Defense Against Drones Act" from Tim Burchett

[RAS]

I am just getting around to reading this (bill is attached):

https://burchett.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-burchett-introduces-defense-against-drones-act

The Defense Against Drones Act permits individuals to use a legally obtained shotgun to shoot down a drone if they reasonably believe it is flying at or below 200 feet above their property, in accordance with state law. While this legislation does not mandate that the individual who shoots down the drone return it to its owner, they are required to report the incident to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within 60 days if the drone's registration number is identifiable.

 

[RTM]

If UFO reports have taught us one thing, it's that the ability to judge distances isn't most people's strong suit.

 

[jdog]

If one thing UFO reports have taught us one thing, it's that the ability to judge distances isn't most people's strong suit.

Plus, I don't know how many times we've seen the claim of "lights / drones /ufo in my back yard" accompanied by footage of something definitively on the horizon.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Any insight on why 200 feet is the ceiling?

 

[JMartJr]

Any insight on why 200 feet is the ceiling?

Much beyond that and a shotgun is less likely to be effective? No point in encouraging people to waste ammo...

 

[RAS]

Plus, I don't know how many times we've seen the claim of "lights / drones /ufo in my back yard" accompanied by footage of something definitively on the horizon.

LOL...no chance someone shoots down their neighbors drone while just flying in their own backyard. Everything is just getting so ridiculous.

 

[Calter]

I assume this is one of those things that politicians do to act like they are doing something while knowing that it won't pass into actual law because it is absurd.

 

[Ann K]

If UFO reports have taught us one thing, it's that the ability to judge distances isn't most people's strong suit.

And if they are unable to judge the distance, should they be trusted in assessing when something is "over their property"? I hope the bill does not pass, but if it does I foresee lawsuits to come.

 

[JMartJr]

In general, I'd not like the idea of people being authorized to shoot at something because they "reasonably believe" something about it. I'd want a law that required you to KNOW what it was and where it was and that, in shooting at it, you were complying with the law.

It's like a highway patrol officer told a truck driver that clipped my bumper when he changed lanes into me, and who side he was sure he'd looked before changing lanes, "The law doesn't say you have to LOOK, it says you have to SEE that the way is clear." That seems a better standard, in situation where you being right is important.

 

[Mick West]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#:~:text=The term “shotgun” means

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(5):

"The term 'shotgun' means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger."

I suspect the intent was to limit it to pellets, which won't go more than 300-400 feet up (and would only be effective in damaging something below 200 feet, probably less)

A slug (single projectile) is more of the problem, as it could do damage at 1,000 feet, and really should not be shot up in the air, as an ounce of lead could do a lot of damage returning to the ground at >100 mph.

However, the act is "Subject to applicable State law relating to the discharge of a firearm"

Perhaps a bigger issue is that the act conflicts with the FAA's control of airspace, with 19 USC 32 making it a federal crime to:

"Willfully damage, destroy, disable, or wreck any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States."

Since the Burchette bill does not repeal that, people could still be prosecuted under it.

So, really, this is performative. A populist move that's legally meaningless, as well as being stupid.

 

[JMartJr]

So, really, this is performative.

Quite possibly. It is also possible that the sponsor has not thought it through as much as you did, but I don't know that -- I have just reached the point where I think it may be possible, as I see what looks like unserious people making serious decisions for us.

A populist move that's legally meaningless,

Maybe -- but when laws conflict, the opportunity arises for judges to rule and resolve the conflict. Some judges seem good at this, others seem to have picked a side. A lot would be riding on which judge gets the case.

as well as being stupid.

Agreed 110%.

 

[purpleivan]

If UFO reports have taught us one thing, it's that the ability to judge distances isn't most people's strong suit.

In addition, the bill doesn't say that shooting at drones "that look like they are flying at or below 200 feet above their property", it says it's ok to if they "are" flyng at or under that altitude. How on earth with a random person with a shotgun prove the altitude, and given that the purpose wouldn't be to "scare it off", but to either disable or destroy it, unless the shooter could prove the altitude (good luck with that), wouldn't they be open to a claim of crimnal damage from the owner of the drone.

Additionally, aren't there laws (at least in some locations) against discharging of weapons into to the air within city limits.

 

[Mendel]

In addition, the bill doesn't say that shooting at drones "that look like they are flying at or below 200 feet above their property", it says it's ok to if they "are" flying at or under that altitude.

That's not correct, and @RAS quoted it correctly in the OP:

Note it says "reasonably believes", with no guidance as to how that belief is to be established. So, "look like" seems a possibility.

Per curent regulations, small drones mustn't fly above 400 feet.

 

[NoParty]

The drones I've flown display the altitude in the onboard memory card, at all times.
So the drone pilot would probably be the only party with credible data about
how high the drone truly was, before someone shot it down.
p.s.: Some people also remotely record all footage & data, which would be handy if
the remains of the drone were stolen by the shooter, or just never found.

The term "reasonable" occurs often in American laws...and there's often dispute about
what is reasonable. Given how badly many people estimate distance, I fear that someone
who shot down a drone at 350 feet, would, in this scenario, not be found at fault.

Also, the 400 feet thing is flexible. To oversimplify, if you're flying near a structure,
you can sometimes be up to 400 feet above the highest point on it.
This short video does a decent job of explaining this.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+can+a+small+drone+legally+fly?&sca_esv=6090cfeb380320de&ei=hYPtZ8jhIa7F0PEPmMDhqQg&ved=0ahUKEwiIuPLg_rmMAxWuIjQIHRhgOIUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=how+high+can+a+small+drone+legally+fly?&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJ2hvdyBoaWdoIGNhbiBhIHNtYWxsIGRyb25lIGxlZ2FsbHkgZmx5PzIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYqwIyBRAhGKsCMgUQIRirAjIFECEYnwVIj6sBUL0KWMGpAXADeAGQAQCYAasBoAHPHqoBBTI4LjEyuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIroALlH8ICChAAGLADGNYEGEfCAg0QABiABBiwAxhDGIoFwgIREC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYgwEYxwHCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAg4QLhiABBixAxjRAxjHAcICBRAAGIAEwgIgEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYgwEYxwEYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAg4QABiABBixAxiDARiKBcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGNQCwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgsQABiABBiRAhiKBcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIGEAAYFhgewgILEAAYgAQYhgMYigXCAggQABiABBiiBMICBRAAGO8FwgIIECEYoAEYwwTCAgoQIRigARjDBBgKmAMAiAYBkAYKugYGCAEQARgUkgcFMzAuMTOgB6WeArIHBTI3LjEzuAfXHw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:39a14876,vid:H1Zc-KmwIUw,st:177
[Gorgeous 4K, btw]

 

[Mendel]

Also, the 400 feet thing is flexible. To oversimplify, if you're flying near a structure,
you can sometimes be up to 400 feet above the highest point on it.

I would expect the 200 feet to follow the same rule, which means the margin of safety remains that difference of 200 ft, minus a "reasonable" margin of error.

 

[JMartJr]

I would expect the 200 feet to follow the same rule, which means the margin of safety remains that difference of 200 ft, minus a "reasonable" margin of error.

In a world where people chase the planet Venus across several counties, somehow managing to keep up with it, I would suggest they adopt a somewhat wider margin. People really are not good at judging distances.

 

[Mendel]

In a world where people chase the planet Venus across several counties, somehow managing to keep up with it, I would suggest they adopt a somewhat wider margin. People really are not good at judging distances.

That's why I put "reasonable" in quotes.
And the margin upwards is limited because other aircraft may fly as low as 500 ft.

 

[Mendel]

If a drone operator legally flies at 200 ft., and my neighbor legally shoots it down, and inertia carries it onto my property and it smashes my greenhouse, who is liable?

 

[NoParty]

If a drone operator legally flies at 200 ft., and my neighbor legally shoots it down, and inertia carries it onto my property and it smashes my greenhouse, who is liable?

George Soros.

(at least that's what Fox News tells me...)

 

[purpleivan]

That's not correct, and @RAS quoted it correctly in the OP:
View attachment 78767
Note it says "reasonably believes", with no guidance as to how that belief is to be established. So, "look like" seems a possibility.

Per curent regulations, small drones mustn't fly above 400 feet.

Oops... missed the "reasonably believes part. I think the ridiculousness of the proposed bill caught me of guard a bit.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[purpleivan]

Could this bill create a situation that owner of a drone may have recorded data for the height above the ground and accurate coordinates of its location, such that they can prove that their drone was not over the shooters property, but that won't matter if the a shooter states that it was their belief at the time, that the drone was over their property and below 200 feet.

I'm not thinking about drones buzzing over a property line, just above the top of a fence, but instead for example, a drone at around 200 feet and a few metres outside of a shooter's property. A drone 200 feet up would be very difficult for a person on the ground to judge accurately where it is relative to ground featured (e.g. a fence), as that's about 8 times the height of a typical 2 storey house.

 

[psikiwi]

I'm not thinking about drones buzzing over a property line, just above the top of a fence, but instead for example, a drone at around 200 feet and a few metres outside of a shooter's property. A drone 200 feet up would be very difficult for a person on the ground to judge accurately where it is relative to ground featured (e.g. a fence), as that's about 8 times the height of a typical 2 storey house.

Average Joe has no chance of estimating any of that with any reliable accuracy! I have stood beside drone pilots, while they are inspecting flare structures on a refinery. I particularly recall being very surprised last year: I could have sworn there was no way the drone was above the top of the structure and flare tip, at 300 feet. Their altimeter/telemetry and range finder stated they were 30 feet above it, and 50 feet horizontally away. The showed me the video screen to prove the point.

Bear in mind, I knew how big the drone was, from seeing it on the ground beside me, prior to launch, and I knew how tall the structure was, and I still couldn't accurately triangulate the relationship visually. The drone was not your average off the shelf little number: about 3 foot long, 2 feet wide, with some serious, gimballed hi-res camera and separate IR gear slung below it. You're not going to be getting any change from £10k for the hardware, let alone the proprietary costs.

The company does global work, including inspection of HV transmission lines and pylons throughout the US. Gonna get tasty when some rural land-owner decides to express his apparently legal right ...

 

[Mendel]

Average Joe has no chance of estimating any of that with any reliable accuracy!

If the drones are transmitting drone ID data, and the property owner can receive that data, they'd have fairly good accuracy—the same as the drone operator.

Remember also that bills change as they navigate the legislative process, to adress concerns such as these.

 

[psikiwi]

If the drones are transmitting drone ID data, and the property owner can receive that data, they'd have fairly good accuracy—the same as the drone operator.

Fair enough, but to receive that data requires already having the appropriate equipment. If an owner has that in place, they're already being far more objective about the potential 'threat' posed, and less a case 'Annie, get ma gun! I heard something'. Hazarding a wild guess, many property owners are going to be more invested in their firearms...

Remember also that bills change as they navigate the legislative process, to adress concerns such as these.

As a good bill should do. Tabling a half-baked and poorly considered 'popularity' bill is going to muddy the turbulent waters only further... and no-one on any side will be happy with the changes required, or attempted, to make it passable.

 

[JMartJr]

Remember also that bills change as they navigate the legislative process, to adress concerns such as these.

And that makes this an excellent moment to write to your Senator or Representative about the obvious concerns this bill raises in its current form. Or even to Burchett if one can do so without rancor -- Heck, he might even welcome a "friendly amendment" to clean up potential problems, if he is serious about the bill. Stranger stuff has happened...

 

[elvenwear]

In a world where people chase the planet Venus across several counties, somehow managing to keep up with it, I would suggest they adopt a somewhat wider margin. People really are not good at judging distances.

The alleged events around New Jersey certainly support your contention.