Fourth Amendment in action !

This could be scoped very tightly to reasonableness with an emergency warrant, plenty of probable cause.

Can you elucidate what you meant?

Are you suggesting that these drones have warrants for every piece of property they overfly ?

A general response to your general statement.

Which is why I asked

> Can you elucidate what you meant?

I don't have a shotgun, might I might consider getting one if drones have been flying low over my property.

For various locally-defined values of "low".

I expect a police drone to be visually distinguished.

Careful who you wish on your door...

This is America. If they want to come knock on my door without identifying themselves they'll get worse treatment than their drone.

I don't know much about america, but after shooting down a secret drone, you really would assume that people knocking at your door really is the situation you think it is ?

People like this talk a big game but the warrant will be written and they will comply. Always the online warriors that act tough but always fold.

Not just that, there are plenty of documented instances of people being shot dead for being suspected of holding a gun. Do people really think they can just shoot a cop, close their front door, and go back to living their life?

Or they will end up in situation that in most cases will end in their death. Which seems so obvious that they must be suicidal. Law enforcement can bring far more force to bear than a single person can defend against.

HN has so much boot in its mouth. Authority says jump and you guys ask how high.

We are talking about a life and death situation. Preserving my own life in the face of deadly violence is in my self-interest.

All this talk about "2nd amendment is about deposing tyranny" and yet they weren't the ones protesting the wars in the middle east and the Patriot act, two recent and objectively tyrannical acts.

In fact, we know that the gun nuts in the US were broadly on the side of SUPPORTING those two things.

I think you're importing heavy bias into your interpretation. 2A types are interested in deposing tyranny when its directed against them by their own government. Not tyranny anywhere on the face of the Earth. If that's true, and I do believe it is, it is not at all incompatible with foreign wars, whether one believes they're tyrannical or not.

Full transparency: I think the only "Tyranny" that "2A types" care about is a law banning guns. They seem to love the militarization of the police, police having zero accountability ("They do a hard job", so do I but I don't get to shoot someone cause I was spooked and then go on vacation), and literally vote for Trump, who objectively has done more to remove gun rights than any democrat since clinton.

An absurd amount of the most aggressive 2A types are literally just cops, you know, the actual boot that would stand on the neck in any tyranny situation. They'll scream and cry about the ATF and then talk with their cop buddies while smoking some MJ, in a state without recreational cannabis laws.

In short, they are dishonest, whether they are smart enough to realize it or not.

I agree.

To be clear, I have a lot of guns, but it's not because I have any special love of the US BoR or even a belief that they are useful against state actors. Or, even a real enjoyment of shooting.

I have guns because my neighbors all have guns and think queer/trans/atheist/lefty/etc folks are literally demonic. They are explicitly waiting for any suspension of regular government in which they can play their fantasy of a "purge". I'd much rather be collecting pretty dresses, but this is how it is where I live.

I would say that the parent comment is accurate in noting 2A loving folks don't want government authority applied to -them-, but it's -only- to them and many are living in the privileged fantasy that this power will never be applied to them and only to their grievances- hence the boot licking they do.

I don't think that's dishonesty, I think it is delusional. And they generally go from being "normal conservatives" to out right fascists just as soon as that fantasy weakens even a little.

> 2A types are interested in deposing tyranny when its directed against them by their own government

The NRA's complete silence on the murder of Breonna Taylor by government agents, as retaliation for Kenneth Walker exercising his 2A natural right to self defense (at home at night!). I'm unable to find a kind way of explaining that away. "Freedom" culture seems to have become just as post-reality detached from effective values as everything else.

I like the idea that the government will show up without identifying themselves just so people can live out their fantasy of shooting someone without getting into trouble.

They will absolutely identify themselves. The reason you should be worried is the endless, expensive process you’ll be subjected to after they knock on your door.

Apparently they didn’t identify themselves to Breonna Taylor. It’s probably happened more than once.

What will you do?

Are you going to shoot people for knocking on your door?

Ha, with all this publicity someone will likely take up the challenge and possibly succeed. The hunting instinct in some is just too strong.

One wonders how they'd keep tracking it down a secret especially if the perpetrator was smart and gave them a decent run for their money.

This seems like it would be a difficult task to accomplish.

If history is any indication it will be local police responding to shots fired. Many municipalities in NJ do not allow the discharge of a firearm within town limits. Morris Township has such a law in their code as well.

I wonder where the threshold is for claiming self defense against a drone? Does the Castle Doctrine apply to non-human assailants?

More like - does the castle doctrine apply to defending yourself against someone not actually trying to enter your castle.

It would be like shooting someone for taking pictures of your house from the street.

I'm relatively certain law enforcement would have opinions about that.

I don't think you understand. It sounds like you think I'm talking about defending youself against a human. I am not.

If a drone is trying to gain access to your home, do you have the right to defend against it using deadly force? Meaning; Force that would be deadly to a human attacker.

Strictly speaking, my understanding of the federal law and regulation is that there is no exception to the crime of shooting at an operating aircraft.

That said, the FAA's jurisdiction ends with the National Airspace, which physically ends the moment it crosses into a structure.

> Force that would be deadly to a human attacker.

There's plenty of states where you don't even have that.

The answer would be the FAA for sabotage of an aircraft and the local sheriff for unlawful discharge of a firearm within town limits.

The FAA may have someone who knows, but the interesting people wouldn't be the ones to show up when there's no need for them to do so.