DuckSouth.com

Here are just a few references, including a legal summary for property title insurance underwriters, a MS Supreme Court case, and two U S Supreme Court cases, that essentially support the premise that a private land owner owns the airspace above his property generally from at least approximately 80 feet up to 500 feet, absent govt easements near an airport, etc. The airspace above 500 feet has been declared part of the public airways for air travel.

I am not even going to cite any law supporting the premise that mineral rights ( including minerals, oil, gas, gravel, etc) are subject to private ownership and can most definitely be owned by a private landowner if such rights are conveyed by deed and have not been previously reserved by previous owners. This is basic property law in MS and elsewhere.

99beers, I may have said some stupid caca before on this site while having a bit of fun, and my previous post in this thread about shooting down drones was half in jest ( likely obvious to most here), but you sir have crossed the line into being offensive, as opposed to informative. If you think my legal references and analysis are inaccurate or " ignorant", then please educate us with some specifics supporting your positions that airspace above one's property, as well as mineral rights, are not subject to private ownership by landowners in MS or elsewhere.




http://www.vuwriter.com/en/underwriting-manuals/2005-8/UM00000109.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/1966/44190-0.html

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/256/case.html

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/84/case.html

^^^^^In chess I believe this is referred to as "check"

Let's not confuse ownership with airspace rights.

This won't cut and paste (document appears protected) but this ref seems to point us in the right direction:

Quote:

'Airspace': "to the heavens" or the right to airspace has been curtailed so that an ordinary owner's rights now extend only to a height as is necessary for the ordinary use of the land and the structures thereon - Bernstein v. Skyviews (1978). In the case, Baron Bernstein could not prevent aerial photographs being taken of his house by helicopter from a reasonable height above the ground.

Further para follows re the right (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) to sue for trespass or nuisance by overflying aircraft.

Devil's advocate here.

Ok, so Bernstein v. Skyviews (1978) allows that "The rights of landowners in the airspace above their land is restricted to such a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it – above that height he has not greater rights then the general public."

In my case, duck hunting is part of "ordinary use and enjoyment" of my land. So, any airspace in shotgun range is a "height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment".
Therefore, any drone in shotgun range is trespassing in my airspace.

Dammitboy, let's not confuse putting one's foot in his mouth with tortured nuance. I believe that you emphatically said that neither airspace or minerals were subject to private ownership. And called me "ignorant".

I realize that you ( and perhaps others) who fly drones for whatever purpose would like the law to be crystal clear in your favor re your right to fly your drone anywhere you please. But, the reality of the law at this time is that there is US Supreme Court precedence that at least 83 feet is protected landowner territory. And within the area of 83 feet up to 500 feet, whether a landowner can protect that space depends upon the circumstances of each case and what is " reasonable" for that property (eg heights of other objects on property such as trees, buildings, towers, etc. ). I have the right to shoot game on my property, including birds and waterfowl flying overhead --- that gets me out to at least shotgun range.

Here is one given . If a drone is over my property near my home at a height to where it could be peeking through a window, it is most definitely trespassing ( via the drone owner), absent land owner permission to do so. From my perspective, that would be a definite shooter. Absent the drone belonging to law enforcement with a warrant in hand, I believe that the drone owner would lose that legal dispute, aside from having a hard time publicly explaining in court such creepiness.

Again, if I can reach it within my shotgun range, then the drone is probably too close. I plan to shoot first, and sort it out later. I can afford the legal fees.

13. Q: What are the FAA guidelines with regard to flight safety altitudes? 600 ft above my school/house just doesn't seem to me to meet the guidelines concerning the safety of those on the ground.
FAA Response: The Federal Aviation Regulations do not prescribe minimum altitudes for aircraft when necessary for takeoff and landing. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 91 prescribes the rules governing the operation of aircraft.
Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph(b)or(c)of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrat

wingman, that post goes beyond simply advocating responsibility. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

So I'm clear, are you "antis"opposed to a hand flying one of these just above treetop level to take some cool videos of their hunting ground? Or does that level of interest warrant certificates and various and sundry govt probes? I want to know what side of this whole thing I stand on. I'm not sure that we all might not agree with wide open use for the types of things msduckers are interested in. I mean, I agree with po monk wholeheartedly but have been researching purchasing one for the above described use for awhile.

No one really knows at this point. Waiting on the new regs

I hope the alabama hands buy one because they are "cool" and find out just how unnatural a skid blind in the middle of a bean field with 3 dozen decoys spread around it looks. Or the wagon wheel of 4 wheeler tracks that look like a roadmap to your man made "X"

I never gave them much thought till last week. A guy I know said that a neighbor routinely flew one over his pool where his wife would sun bathe. The neighbor (or guy down the street. I'm a bit fuzzy on this part) was a little off. So it's all fun and games until a weirdo begins to stalk your wife or children.

Drone will get shot over my pool.

[quote="JaMak84] terrestrial obstacles weren't germane to the discussion. [/quote]

What do the Germans have to do with the situation.