Nobody said a word about flying a model in your back yard so for you to twist what was said into that clearly indicates the total lack of integrity you have. I hope your physicians have the exact same set of ethics, morals, and integrity that you have shown us in this thread. Please put me on the ignore list because, as far as I can tell, you prefer to tell lies than deal in facts. I really hate dirty rotten scumbags that tell lies and for you to say that I said a single word about flying in your own back yard puts you squarely in that category. You are clearly interested in creating and causing trouble as you have implied the use of firearms in relation to what most of us consider modeling activities. If they are not modeling activities then you are suggesting folks break federal laws by shooting at other folks drones.

@LCS, I think you missed something. Your hero has jumped around so much that it takes a lot of careful attention to see where he is this time. When I speak of public activity some low life slime ball accuses me of talking against his rights in his back yard. When the subject is safety the scuz ball talks about navigable airspace and shooting down drones (post 1265). In short he always changes the subject to that which he thinks he can control rather than addressing the issue of SAFETY. If this entire thread is not about some idiot flying FPV over people (by definition if you are over 1K feet, you are over some folks unless you are in the middle of nowhere), and interfering with rider scale aviation what in the heck ARE we wasting band width on? See post #1 for clarification and see how that fits in with your understanding.

As for your question about rights rider scale has over land owners, yes and no depending on location and circumstances. Land owner rights are trumped in approach/departure (landing and takeoff) corridors and that is generally enforced by the FCC and local zoning boards with input from the FAA. Stupid_Pilot seems to think it is just the FCC which actually only addresses various transmission towers, not buildings. Other than that, there is no superior right granted rider scale outside the airport traffic area. Now if Stupid_Pilot or you wish to challenge some rider scale over your property with a FPV bird, I strongly suspect you might find the federal prison system not to your liking for various violations. Failure to see and avoid is prime - if you saw the other traffic and did not avoid you are wrong. It does not matter than you don't move fast enough to clear, you still failed to see and avoid. At the same time you probably failed to provide adequate visibility of your craft or the rider scale might have had a chance to avoid you. And the list of infractions that can be cited goes on and on. You might note that I NEVER addressed the navigable airspace canard Stupid_Pilot constantly trots out to defend rights. Look at the medevac that was chased off by some idiot flying FPV to get a feel for what can happen when you start to play "navigable" versus "non-navigable" airspace word smith games.

Look at this "non-navigable" airspace canard another way. If you go out into the country and find some aerial applicator doing his job and choose that spot to fly your FPV whatever and cause the aerial applicator to crash there is a very strong probability that YOU will experience some jail time. In that case the aerial applicator has the rights to the airspace he is operating in as a function of his business and each pass is considered an approach/departure set. No land owner can shoot at him, as Stupid_Pilot suggest for drones, nor can any land owner take immediate action to legally stop the activity forthwith. And yet Stupid_Pilot insists the aerial applicator is operating in "non-navigable" airspace so he is free to do what he wishes with his quad copter. Really? I will cheer when they lock him up but not as much as when he inspects someone else's operating FPV quad copter at about 5 inches.