Ask Lemmy

This becomes very sticky and is intentionally labeled the way it is in the US explicitly because it would be too complicated to coordinate with aviation. That is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Property rights used to classify your land as anything from your ground all the way to the planets. This was re-defined when airplanes were created because it became obvious that reasonably you can't have that style of legal claim, because it wouldn't be possible for aviation without an extreme amount of micromanagement and that's just not reasonable.

Instead, they redefined it to be generally, starting 500 feet above ground becomes public domain controlled by the FAA. This doesn't mean that you can build a house 500 feet in the air because you're still restricted by your local territory ordinances. For example, Bloomington Minnesota doesn't allow more than 2 story(excluding basement) buildings without permit.

This was actually ruled based on a chicken farm back in the 1940's(United States v. Causby), believe it or not. because the military flew a plane of 87 feet off the ground and it was causing the chickens to kill themselves. The courts at that point did away with the heavens to the sky concept(well, technically, they did in 1926, it just took until this case to have actual solid rules for it), which was that you owned anywhere from the land all the way up to the heavens. and instead added an invisible barrier that separated the land that you own to the sky. In that case, the government was found to be at fault because it was flying low enough that it was causing harm to the farmer in removing control of the farmer's land.

Note, this doesn't mean that drones are not allowed in that 500 foot zone, that is still in a territory by territory decision. The general understanding is that non-commercial drones need to be following privacy laws that are in place. So, while they may be allowed in your 500 foot zone, that doesn't mean they're allowed to be at your second story window filming you. They need to be not impacting your use of the land.

This is somewhat unrelated, and already mentioned later on, but I also wanted to add in that drones are considered aircraft by FAA standard, so I would not advocate taking matters into your own hand, period, and trying to take them down, via traps, firing at them any type of damage that could potentially cause the issue on your land. Not only would it be highly likely that you would be needing to pay restitution for destroying the drone, but it's also fairly possible that you would face felony charges for it. You need to rely on the existing legal system in order to take care of it or else you put yourself up to the potential of being in the wrong. Report the drone to the FAA, report it to your local police for privacy invasion, but do not, under any circumstance, cause actual damage to the craft.

Do you own everything above that airspace too, like planets and stars?

Good point!