I have no moral objection to a law that says it's illegal to fly a drone over private property. I don't think it's anyone's natural right to be able to fly a drone over private property, and it's not anyone's natural right to prevent a drone flying over private property. Therefore the moral obligation is to follow the law whatever it says. But until it says you cannot, you can, due to the federal aviation law being the only one that applies in most jurisdictions, and the FAA explicitly ruling it a legal activity. I find it hard to believe common law would upend that, considering that the FAA already overrules common law regarding the use of airspace above your property. I welcome clear, unambiguous laws and don't really care whether property owners or drone operators ultimately benefit. But I don't subscribe to your view that common law or any current law gives you the right to assume criminal activity without evidence and a right to destroy property at will and knock aircraft out of the sky, no more than you can set up booby traps injure trespassers, or even smash someone's camera for taking pictures on your property. Once the trespassing bill is signed in CA, then you can call the cops, try to identify the drone operator, press charges, etc., but you still don't have a right of violence unless you are actually being threatened with bodily harm.