But there is no criminal behavior in just the mere presence of a drone, even over your property. I'm going to say this again. The FAA regulates aircraft and airspace. A drone is an aircraft. The simple act of flying a drone in the airspace above your property is not a violation of any law. Local communities cannot legislate flying an aircraft as an illegal act because the FAA regulates the airspace. Got it?

So if you define additional actions, be it photographing, dropping things, firing weapons, etc. as illegal, then fine. But guess what? If you want to charge someone with those things, you actually have to prove they did it! Just flying a drone (try not to lose focus here...we've established just flying a drone is legal) does not support a criminal charge, and is not evidence of any of the additional activity that is illegal.

Presumption of innocence is the heart of it because you want to make it illegal for someone to fly a drone on your property and the only way you can possibly do that is to impose presumption of guilt for something that you admit you have no way of proving.

And trespassing law doesn't apply to aircraft in regulated airspace, which includes above your property. There is no crime with an aircraft flying or even hovering your house, yet if someone walked onto your property, it would be a crime. Do.you.now.see.the.distinction? You're an actual frickin' lawyer and you can't even see that your analogy is utterly flawed and useless?! This is why people operating jetliners, FedEx cargo flights, Cessnas, crop dusters, news choppers, etc. cannot be charged with trespassing for flying over your property. Nor can they be charged with invading your privacy unless you can present, you know, actual evidence that they did so. Just whining "but they're in my airspace, they must be spying on me!" actually doesn't constitute proof of anything except perhaps that the person is a big stranger-danger crybaby.

Given that the FAA says that it is legal to operate a drone for recreational purposes in airspace up to 400' even over private property, yes I think everyone has that right. You keep using words like "entitled" to make it seem like I'm taking some stand about rights. All I am doing is pointing out that the law gives everyone that right and people who think they can destroy a drone are violating federal law regarding aircraft and local laws about destruction of property, endangerment, etc., and incurring civil liability for the property that they destroy. I have not taken any moral stand on the rightness or wrongness of this, other than to say that we should be subject to the actual laws the way they are written, not how we imagine them to be.

Keep trying. Why as a lawyer would you be astounded that someone simply points out what is clearly legal? The letter of the law says so, the law has been practiced so (given a number of drone-attackers being arrested and paying restitution while drone operators are not arrested, charged, or convicted, or subject to civil suits regarding privacy invasion). Only your assurances that it *must* be illegal anyway and this actually, somehow, some way, gives you the right to destroy aircraft in the air in violation of federal law, say different.