Torvy
Super Member
Guys, I don't think my airspace extends indefinitely. The 400 ft that the FAA uses as a ceiling for drones seems about right. Not talking about shooting at manned aircraft. The "law' in this case is just a rule that the FAA made up. Like I said, i would be happy to be the test case to take it up the the court. They are not real keen on Executive departments writing laws that are the purview of the Legislative branch.
400 ft is a shot that could be made. In my case, I probably wouldn't shoot at anything that wasn't at 200' or less. Not going to mess with something in transit, either. I'm talking about the fundamental right to defend my property. If someone is hovering a drone over my property, it is my right to shoot it down if I can. The FAA doesn't supercede the Constitution.
400 ft is a shot that could be made. In my case, I probably wouldn't shoot at anything that wasn't at 200' or less. Not going to mess with something in transit, either. I'm talking about the fundamental right to defend my property. If someone is hovering a drone over my property, it is my right to shoot it down if I can. The FAA doesn't supercede the Constitution.