Right to shoot at drones

[Circuits]

If you want to peek on people from the sky, you need to keep your platform out of range and use telephoto lenses, just like the paparazzi and the government.

[Martinjmpr]

Better yet if you want to look at nekkid girls use the internet like a normal person.

[ruthabagah]

What we need are hurter-killer drones....

[sniper7]

I'm very happy the guy got off. I also like this case in the event I need to blow some drones out of the sky.
on the other hand I think I need to develop anti-drone drones that attack drones within the airspace above your property to a certain altitude. Shouldnt be too hard to figure out! And you would t be responsible for stray bullets, just pieces of drones falling from the sky

[Irving]

If there was a non-firearm method of downing the drone, the guy might have used that instead. A hose only has so much reach though.

[davsel]

The yet to be released Can-Canon Net should do the trick.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ok-prototypes/

Some sort of pressure washer attachment may also work well.

Paint Ball Gun?

Boomerang?

[68Charger]

If there was a non-firearm method of downing the drone, the guy might have used that instead. A hose only has so much reach though.

hmm, directional EMP or microwave pulse? fry the electronics, and they can't even say it was you that brought it down...

or a less destructive option- an RF jammer- they most commonly use unregulated 2.4Ghz or 5.8Ghz
The simplest jammer is simply an amp for the frequency in question- run in open-loop (antenna on input and output)
This creates a feedback loop that creates so much noise the signal is lost...

Use of directional antennas would limit the impact to what you pointed it at... likely it would go into a "return home" mode when it loses signal.

I'd say someone could make a business creating these devices, but they're not really legal... so the business would be black market.

[Skip]

Interesting case... The civil suit argued the drone was on the operator's property and he won $850. I don't know if that's true or not, but it stands to reason the drone was close to the shooter's property or how else would he have known? That should have been the end of it. I'm very happy the criminal charges were dismissed. That's overkill for rural shotgun use against a drone.

I'm in the camp that says your privacy comes with property and is sacred. Like "get a warrant" sacred. There are plenty of common open spaces to use a drone if you're into that. No need to violate someone else.

[Gman]

OTOH, Calling them "remote control airplanes" (which is exactly what they are) makes them sound more like a toy (which, again, is what they are.)

Hey, let's make peeping Toms with video recorders a protected class.

When they have cameras on them and are looking in your windows or flying over your private property, they cease to be a "toy".

7 1/2 or 8 shot is enough to take out a drone and isn't going to hurt anybody as it falls back to the ground.

[Irving]

What if you spray a drone with a hose and the water hits the witch next door?