http://www.virginialawoffice.com/aviationlaw/index.htm

"I also have assisted civilians who are concerned with the activities of pilot maneuvers around their real property. There are many civil remedies to pursue an individual pilot who is flying too low to the ground, performing acrobatic maneuvers within close proximity to persons or property or flying in a dangerous manner. For the most part, general aviation is highly regulated, requires a tremendous amount of discipline for those who participate in the sport, and is usually enjoyed by true flying enthusiasts. With that in mind, I personally am happy to use my skills as an attorney and a pilot to pursue someone who is abusing this privilege."

Personally, I'd use an M1 Garand.

f1reverb wrote:

http://www.virginialawoffice.com/aviationlaw/index.htm "I also have assisted civilians who are concerned with the activities of pilot maneuvers around their real property. There are many civil remedies to pursue an individual pilot who is flying too low to the ground, performing acrobatic maneuvers within close proximity to persons or property or flying in a dangerous manner. For the most part, general aviation is highly regulated, requires a tremendous amount of discipline for those who participate in the sport, and is usually enjoyed by true flying enthusiasts. With that in mind, I personally am happy to use my skills as an attorney and a pilot to pursue someone who is abusing this privilege." Personally, I'd use an M1 Garand.

Thanks for the info. Yeah I'd love to have an M1 -- its on my list of stuff to get.

I'll try the camera -- hopefully its just one of those things and he won't come back.

Otherwise might have to practice .. maybe i'll just shoot an arrow at him. That'd be funny when he lands and finds a broadhead stuck in his wing.

we live in a rural area as well...a few years ago we had the same problem...small planes practicing their death defying feats day in and day out over our house....i got the numbers of the craft, called the FAA, reported him, a month later no more low flying aircraft
_________________

and shoot at the highest quality setting, as you'll need the large view on screen to read the numbers, if possible. If you can use a digital SLR (single lens reflex) with a moderate telephoto lens, so much the better. Shooting a photo of a moving airplane is just like shooting skeet except you don't have to lead it as light is a lot faster than shot, a bullet or an arrow. Don't forget that a point & shoot digital camera has a lot of lag time between when you trip the shutter and when the picture is actually taken, with many cameras taking a second or two, so you'll have to pan with the plane even after you trip the shutter, so you might practice a few shots to see what the lag is. A DSLR will have a much shorter lag, with the better ones well under 100 milliseconds. You might already know all this, but you might only have one more chance as you said. Even if you can't read the numbers off the photo, it will help the FAA to possibly identify the aircraft if you have a good photo.

A few years back some deranged idiot shot down a California Highway Patrol helicopter is Death Valley with a Garand . . .

"March 17, 2000, California, Nevada, Idaho: Three anti-government activists are arrested in Death Valley, California, following a standoff and gunfight. Arrested are Lloyd Burrus and Cheryl Maarteuse of Downey, Idaho, and Jeffrey Burns, of Emeryville, California. The incident began when a Nevada Highway Patrol officer stopped the three in their vehicle. The driver fired at the officer, then they fled. A Nye County, Nevada, sheriff’s deputy tried to stop them, but was also fired upon. They then fired at a pursuing California Highway Patrol officer. Their vehicle got stuck in Death Valley National Park, so they left it for a fortified bunker, from which they shot down a California Highway Patrol helicopter. A standoff ensued, but they surrendered just before midnight. Searching their vehicle, police find a variety of weapons and ammunition, as well as “reams of anti-government and anti-police literature.” They face a variety of federal and state charges that include attempted murder of law enforcement officers."



One of the least expensive ways to get a decent M1 Garand is through the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program). Read this link to see how to qualify for the purchase of an M1 Garand . . .

http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/m1garand.htm

You normally have to be a member of your state CMP affiliated club, and NRA membership has nothing to do with it, and participate in at least one match to qualify to purchase an M1 . . .

http://www.odcmp.com/faqs.htm

Oregon affiliated clubs . . .

http://clubs.odcmp.com/cgi-bin/clubSearchSubmit.cgi?clubMembership=OPEN&state=OR

Back in the '60s and '70s CMP Garands were only 85 bucks, and in the '80s were only 165 bucks. 450 might seem like a lot these days, but apparently Garands through gunstores are 1000 bucks these days, so it's still a good deal. Is case any of you antis recoil in horror, there is an extensive background check on these purchases and it can take a year to get one.

Here's the background on the CMP . . .

"The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. The CMP operates through a network of affiliated shooting clubs and associations that covers every state in the U.S. The clubs and associations offer firearms safety training and marksmanship courses as well as the opportunity for continued practice and competition.

The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve the U.S. military. Over the years the emphasis of the program shifted to focus on youth development through marksmanship. From 1916 until 1996 the CMP was administered by the U.S. Army. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (TITLE XVI) created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS) to take over administration and promotion of the CMP. The CPRPFS is a tax exempt not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization that derives its mission from public law."

"The CMP is authorized to provide support and encouragement to clubs and state associations with emphasis on strong junior programs. These programs will include instruction in the basics of marksmanship, firearms and range safety, competitive marksmanship and subjects related to firearms safety."

I learned to shoot with the Lockheed Employees Rifle Club as a junior member starting at age 10. The CMP supplied free rifles, ammo and equipment for the juniors of its affiliated clubs. Today's problems with kids and guns is that they learn from movies, video games and TV, not from Skunk Works designers, pilots and military veterans like I did. If you don't train your kids properly and instill respect for firearms in them, you end up with kids learning about firearms anyway, but in ways that can almost guarantee trouble.

This guy I knew in the 80s used a Garand as his deer rifle. Iron sights, too! He was an infantryman in WW2 that helped retake the Philippines. If the field near you has a tower, call it when the guy shows up. I learned to shoot at a sponsored range at Campbell Barracks in Germany. My dad reopened the Youth Rifle Club so that he could teach me to shoot. He and the other volunteers taught at least 100 kids to shoot. He did a good job. I shot expert for years in the MC and another kid was on the olympic shooting team in the 80s? I used to shoot 10 for 10 at 500. I don't think I could actually see the target today.

It wont take long and the problem will solve itself......

AndyS wrote:

This guy I knew in the 80s used a Garand as his deer rifle. Iron sights, too! He was an infantryman in WW2 that helped retake the Philippines. If the field near you has a tower, call it when the guy shows up. I learned to shoot at a sponsored range at Campbell Barracks in Germany. My dad reopened the Youth Rifle Club so that he could teach me to shoot. He and the other volunteers taught at least 100 kids to shoot. He did a good job. I shot expert for years in the MC and another kid was on the olympic shooting team in the 80s? I used to shoot 10 for 10 at 500. I don't think I could actually see the target today.

front sight of the rifle. As long as the front sight is sharp you won't miss that blurry target.

Me and my bros got tips all the time from a guy named Vic Auer, who was an Olympic champ in smallbore at the 1972 Munich Olympics. He won the gold and then a North Korean judge demanded a recount as a North Korean shooter was second and then they took away the gold medal from Vic and gave it to the NK shooter. It was the lost scandal of the Olympics as I believe it's the only time a gold medal was awarded and then taken away. Vic practiced at Lockheed, and what was weirder was that his mom was our dramatics coach when we were acting back then.

Vic's story from Time magazine back then . . .

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,906352-1,00.html

"OLYMPIC officials are a bit like American jurists: they are sometimes unqualified; they often get their jobs through political connections; and they usually hang on to them for a long, long time. Thus, as frequently happens in U.S. courtrooms, some distressingly poor judgments were rendered last week in Munich, leaving an indelible stain on the otherwise lustrous XX Olympiad. In event after event, there were officiating blunders that demonstrated incompetence, and sometimes outright bias."

"In the prone small-bore-rifle competition, Victor Auer of the U.S. appeared to have outpointed North Korea's Ho Jun Li, 598-595, despite raucous heckling by Li's countrymen, who steadfastly ignored the officials' reprimands. When the shooting stopped, the Koreans demanded an examination of the target. Two hours later the judges reversed the computer's decision, awarded Li four more points and proclaimed him the gold-medal winner."

I didn't realize that this excerpt from the August 21, 1961 Sports Illustrated was the month we started shooting at Lockheed and Vic had just become National Champion . . .

"SHOOTING—In a tight finish VICTOR AUER of Sherman Oaks , Calif. edged out Joe Steffey of Paris, Ill. by one point (4,784 to 4,783) to win the national small-bore rifle championship at Camp Perry , Ohio . Third, only one point behind Steffey, was Ransford D. Triggs of Madison , N.J. , the 1941 champion."

Call the local airport and or flight school and complain nicely and I'm sure the problem will go away.
Sound's like someone is practicing commercial maneuvers near you.

John
_________________
"Chicken make no good house pet!"

"Less brake, more accelerator"
#1665778

Practicing stalls at 100 feet? If that is true, he will solve the problem himself. He'll be dead! Call the local airport and ask where the "practice area" is. It may be over your property. If you shoot at an aircraft, any aircraft, you'll be in jail. That's a lot more irritating than some jackass buzzing your property.

well he's not been back. So probably is a secret 2002 FAQer :)

Yeah I've known about the civililian marksmanship program .. pretty cool deal. There isn't any kind of club around here but I had started the paper work to get the C & R license, but the sheriff got sent to jail for sexual battery or something and so I held off with my paper work till the new guy got settled in.

Suppose I should find where I put it and submit.

Anyway, I guess once you have the C & R you can order an M1 and just get it in the mail.

As for legal I was just wondering if trespassing in the air was the same as trespassing on land, and how high up it is that you control if you own the land below (if any).

I wouldn't shoot him down anyway -- who wants to start a fire ? Rather just scare him off (which is just what you'd do to someone trespassing on your land right?)

We can't shoot at anybody here in Maryland - unless one has a lot of money to spend on a good criminal defense lawyer. In other words, whereas it might indeed turn out to be "legal," what happens more often than not - and more likely than not - is that charges are filed and civil suits follow. Defending oneself in that connection is a very, very expensive and emotionally trying (and often damaging) experience.

Those that know me, know that I know of what I speak. Long story short, ten years ago last Fall, I took some perfectly legal action - I should know, since after all, I'm a lawyer - against some neighbor's kids who were egging my house. One year later, when the dust settled, after all the legal proceedings, I was $21,000 poorer -- innocent of everything, and expunged, but drained of pocketbook (yes, even lawyers need lawyers), and emotionally drained as well. And I do miss that money - the fees were with the "professional courtesy" discount, no less.

The D.C. area also had a recent episode with an off-duty cop. He claims that two furniture-store delivery men attacked him after an argument, and he shot in self defense. He killed one of the men, and wounded the other. As for his story, the jury didn't buy it. He's now taking it up the butt on a nightly basis in Le Chateau Greybar - and if that weren't enough, lawyers have followed with a civil suit, just to make certain that none of his family members (wife, kids, relatives) have anything left over.

I once made the point in a prior thread about not shooting. Another FAQer responded, "better to be judged by six, than buried in six." IMHO, that was spoken by someone who never had to sit through the trial and tribulation of being judged by six. Also, there are some circumstances where the use of deadly force is allowed in self defense. In your situation, however, how exactly are you "defending" yourself, particularly since you have now stated publicly that you wish to "scare him"? I know I'll get some shit for the following, but it's my personal opinion that if you shoot, it's far more likely that it will be you on the receiving end of some sort of legal proceeding.

So, what to do? After my experience, I made the decision to let the cameras do the talking. I installed video cameras everywhere in the house. So when something happens, I call the cops (which takes a lot for me, since I'm not the biggest fan of our donut-eating brethern) and let the video do the talking. Works like a charm.

In short, whether or not you can shoot, don't shoot. T'aint worth it. Videotape the flyboy, get the plane number, and turn everything over to cops and the FAA. Let them do the work. Then, go back inside and have a beer - toasting your good sense and great fortune, both of which combine such you won't be writing any checks to any lawyers, anytime soon -- but flyboy will.

Otis wrote:

We can't shoot at anybody here in Maryland - unless one has a lot of money to spend on a good criminal defense lawyer. In other words, whereas it might indeed turn out to be "legal," what happens more often than not - and more likely than not - is that charges are filed and civil suits follow. Defending oneself in that connection is a very, very expensive and emotionally trying (and often damaging) experience. Those that know me, know that I know of what I speak. Long story short, ten years ago last Fall, I took some perfectly legal action - I should know, since after all, I'm a lawyer - against some neighbor's kids who were egging my house. One year later, when the dust settled, after all the legal proceedings, I was $21,000 poorer -- innocent of everything, and expunged, but drained of pocketbook (yes, even lawyers need lawyers), and emotionally drained as well. And I do miss that money - the fees were with the "professional courtesy" discount, no less. The D.C. area also had a recent episode with an off-duty cop. He claims that two furniture-store delivery men attacked him after an argument, and he shot in self defense. He killed one of the men, and wounded the other. As for his story, the jury didn't buy it. He's now taking it up the butt on a nightly basis in Le Chateau Greybar - and if that weren't enough, lawyers have followed with a civil suit, just to make certain that none of his family members (wife, kids, relatives) have anything left over. I once made the point in a prior thread about not shooting. Another FAQer responded, "better to be judged by six, than buried in six." IMHO, that was spoken by someone who never had to sit through the trial and tribulation of being judged by six. Also, there are some circumstances where the use of deadly force is allowed in self defense. In your situation, however, how exactly are you "defending" yourself, particularly since you have now stated publicly that you wish to "scare him"? I know I'll get some shit for the following, but it's my personal opinion that if you shoot, it's far more likely that it will be you on the receiving end of some sort of legal proceeding. So, what to do? After my experience, I made the decision to let the cameras do the talking. I installed video cameras everywhere in the house. So when something happens, I call the cops (which takes a lot for me, since I'm not the biggest fan of our donut-eating brethern) and let the video do the talking. Works like a charm. In short, whether or not you can shoot, don't shoot. T'aint worth it. Videotape the flyboy, get the plane number, and turn everything over to cops and the FAA. Let them do the work. Then, go back inside and have a beer - toasting your good sense and great fortune, both of which combine such you won't be writing any checks to any lawyers, anytime soon -- but flyboy will.

WTF = finally a somewhat sensible, if not slightly cynical reply. I'm surprised no has cautioned, your post (TBC - the initial post) could be construed as a threat against a civil aircraft and shows premeditation. Sometimes the law may allow you to shoot another person on your property in self defense, it never allows you to shoot at an airplane. Here is the state of mind we are in, we got to good guys Bill and Ian having a snit fit over an "L" and $0.93 in $20.00 check, so someone is practicing flight around your home and the first thing you want to do is pick up a gun.? When the airplane was invented people would stop and stare with wonder at a plane in the sky, now it is the end of the world; try being a thoughtful lord and master of all you survey. No wonder we got problems. Cautionary Tolstoy short story: How Much Land Does A Man Need?
_________________
RK of OC
68 1600 Manila 5spd
67 1600ti/alpina-s/r
69 '02 Chamonix-s/r


Last edited by rogerspeed on 6-21-08 09:39; edited 4 times in total

Otis wrote:

(yes, even lawyers need lawyers)

dear mr otis....our neighbor kids constantly cross the road, come onto our property and throw rocks at our ducks on the pond....

my question is....can i throw rocks back at the kids from across the road while they are splashing in their air pool...?




thanks and any professional discount will be welcome
_________________

"Fucker! Next time I'll ram that asshole off the road." Gee, that could be considered a threat and premeditated. Do we really think you're going to pull a W.C. Fields from If I Had A Million (IMDB link) , and hire a rental-car fleet and drivers and have them follow you so you can ram every jerk off the road and hop in you next rental-car? I think not.

"The other favorite segment, and the one this 1932 film is most famous for is the one where two eccentric ex-vaudevillians (W.C Fields and Alison Skipworth) decide to run selfish road-hogs off the road. Road rage has never been funnier than in this segment. Fields' angry comments to fellow drivers is a scream."

esty wrote:

can i throw rocks back at the kids from across the road while they are splashing in their air pool...? thanks and any professional discount will be welcome

Don't worry, Esty. The first consultation is always for free.

Most of my posts are long and involved (and as noted above, sarcastic or "slighty cynical"). Here, however, I can answer your inquiry simply:

No.

Sincerely, Otis (last seen on the side of a highway with a cardboard sign, "Will trade professional services for parts for '53 Dodge Pickup")