Can You Shoot Down a Drone? The Law, Penalties, and Real Cases

The legal foundation is simple. The FAA classifies all unmanned aircraft as "aircraft" under 49 U.S.C. § 40102. That single classification puts a 249g recreational quadcopter in the same legal category as a Boeing 737 for purposes of federal destruction-of-aircraft law.

The specific federal statute: 18 U.S.C. § 32

The federal criminal code at 18 U.S.C. § 32 makes it a felony to "willfully damage, destroy, disable, or wreck any aircraft." The statute also prohibits placing any destructive device in or near an aircraft, and interfering with anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft. Firing a shotgun at a drone satisfies multiple elements of this statute simultaneously.

Penalties

A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 32 carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison and fines up to $250,000. These are not misdemeanor ranges. These are felony sentences that match major financial crimes and violent offenses. The actual sentence depends on criminal history and circumstances, but any conviction results in a permanent felony record.

A federal felony conviction also ends your right to own firearms

Beyond the prison sentence, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 32 is a federal felony, which permanently strips your Second Amendment rights under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). You can no longer legally purchase or possess any firearm. For many gun owners, this consequence is more significant than the prison exposure. Shooting at a drone with a shotgun and missing the legal threshold is not worth losing your firearms rights permanently.

Why "it was over my property" is not a defense

The most common misconception is that property rights override federal airspace law. They don't. The FAA has exclusive authority over navigable airspace under 49 U.S.C. § 40103, and courts have consistently held that this federal preemption applies regardless of what a drone is doing over your land. Your property rights on the ground do not extend to federal airspace above it. The Causby precedent (1946 SCOTUS) recognized a limited property interest in immediate airspace, but it has never been interpreted to authorize shooting aircraft.

The theoretical legal risk became concrete in several high-profile cases that are now widely cited in both legal circles and law enforcement training.

Florida, 2024: the Walmart delivery drone

A 72-year-old Lake County, Florida man shot a Walmart/DroneUp delivery drone, punching a hole through its payload container. Charges filed: shooting at an aircraft, criminal mischief causing damage over $1,000, and discharging a firearm in public. This case is the clearest modern example of how seriously local and federal prosecutors treat drone shootings, even against commercial delivery drones that were operating in public airspace.

Kentucky, 2015: the "Drone Slayer" case

William Merideth, a homeowner in Bullitt County, Kentucky, shot down a neighbor's hexacopter with a shotgun, claiming it was hovering over his property and he could see a camera pointed at his sunbathing daughter. A local judge initially dismissed the charges, calling the act a defense of property. This dismissal is widely misrepresented online as legal proof that you can shoot drones. It was not: a local district court dismissal has no precedential value under federal law. The FAA and federal prosecutors made clear that federal charges remained possible. The case did not establish any right to shoot down drones.

California, 2016: small claims court

A homeowner shot down a recreational drone and was ordered by a small claims court to pay $850 in damages to the owner. No federal charges were filed, but the civil liability was immediate and unambiguous. The drone owner had standing to sue for replacement cost regardless of what the drone was doing.

New Jersey, 2015

A man in Edgewater Park, New Jersey was charged with possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and criminal mischief after shooting down a neighbor's drone. The case resulted in criminal charges even in a state without specific drone legislation.

People who understand they cannot shoot drones sometimes look for other methods. Almost every alternative also carries legal exposure.

Signal jammers

Devices that disrupt a drone's GPS or radio control signal are illegal to operate under FCC regulations (47 U.S.C. § 333). Only federal law enforcement agencies and national security operations have authorization to use jamming equipment. A civilian operating a jammer faces FCC enforcement actions and potential criminal prosecution. The fact that jammers are sold online does not make them legal to use.

Lasers

Pointing a laser at any aircraft, including a drone, is a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 39A. Penalties include up to 5 years in federal prison. Multiple prosecutions have occurred for laser strikes against manned aircraft. The statute does not carve out an exception for drones.

Nets and projectiles

Throwing or launching objects at a drone to bring it down creates the same federal destruction-of-aircraft exposure as a firearm. A thrown rock that damages a drone is legally equivalent to a bullet for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 32. It also creates liability if the falling drone damages something or someone.

Anti-drone countermeasures sold commercially

Several products marketed as consumer anti-drone systems (net launchers, RF emitters, capture drones) are illegal to deploy without federal authorization in the US. Some are marketed in legal gray areas or sold specifically for military and law enforcement markets. None are legal for private residential use against drones you simply don't want over your yard.

The legal path for dealing with an unwanted drone is less satisfying than a shotgun but substantially less likely to result in a felony conviction.

Document everything first

Take video of the drone from ground level, capturing any visible registration number (required on drones over 0.55 lbs and must be visible without tools). Note the time, date, flight path, and any visible camera activity. This documentation forms the basis of any subsequent complaint or legal action.

Use Remote ID to identify the operator

FAA Remote ID rules (mandatory for all registered drones since March 2024) require drones to broadcast their identity and the operator's location in real time. FAA-recognized Remote ID display apps on a standard smartphone can receive these broadcasts. Knowing who is operating the drone is the most effective first step because most situations resolve with a direct conversation.

Contact local law enforcement

For repeated harassment, suspected privacy violations, or clear violations of state drone privacy law, file a police report. Several states (Florida, California, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas) have criminal statutes specifically covering drone-based privacy violations. Police can investigate, contact the operator, and file charges where the law applies.

Report to the FAA

For safety violations (flying near airports without authorization, above 400 feet, at night without proper lighting), file a complaint with the FAA safety hotline at 1-800-FLY-4-YOU. The FAA can investigate, issue civil penalties, and revoke commercial certifications. For commercial operators (real estate photographers, delivery companies, surveying firms), FAA enforcement is a significant deterrent.

Pursue civil remedies

An attorney can pursue injunctions, restraining orders, and damages under nuisance, trespass, or invasion of privacy theories. In states with drone privacy statutes, statutory damages (fixed amounts per violation) are sometimes available, which makes civil action more straightforward. Courts have issued injunctions preventing specific operators from flying over specific properties in documented harassment cases.

The current state of the law is largely unfavorable to homeowners who want aggressive countermeasure authority. Some legislators are trying to change that, though no bill has passed as of early 2026.

The Burchett bill (H.R. introduced 2025)

Representative Tim Burchett introduced a bill in 2025 that would allow homeowners to shoot down drones with a legally-obtained shotgun if the drone is flying at or below 200 feet above their property, with a requirement to report the incident to the FAA within 60 days. The bill has not advanced out of committee. Its constitutionality would face immediate challenges given federal airspace preemption doctrine.

State-level drone privacy expansion

More likely to succeed are state-level privacy bills that strengthen civil and criminal penalties for drone-based surveillance. Virginia, California, Florida, and Texas have all expanded their drone privacy statutes in recent legislative sessions. These laws give homeowners more legal leverage without touching the federal destruction-of-aircraft issue.

FAA reauthorization and altitude clarification

FAA reauthorization bills in recent Congresses have included provisions debating minimum safe altitudes over private property and clearer homeowner notification rights. No altitude-based trespass threshold has been codified at the federal level, but advocacy groups continue to push for one. Until a clear federal rule exists, the law remains a patchwork of state statutes and case-by-case court decisions.

The bottom line for now

Under current law, shooting down a drone is a federal felony. Full stop. The legal tools that work are documentation, Remote ID identification, police reports, FAA complaints, and civil litigation. These are less viscerally satisfying but substantially less likely to result in a federal conviction that ends your career, your firearms rights, and your freedom.