Dealing With Drones

LWD-"
From what I gathered the original British land ownership rules gave you the rights to everything both below and above the land as far as high as one could imagine. The problem with that was it would have made air travel impractical. So in the US they established a "reasonable" altitude after which it became public property (the aforementioned 83 ft or something close to that). Likewise international law recognizes that nations don't own the space above the atmosphere. The problem of course was no one envisioned drones with the capabilities of the ones we have today. RC aircraft have been flying for quite some time and usually aren't considered a problem although technically they are drones. However they tend to be noisier and until recently couldn't carry the sensors of the quality to make much of a difference as far as privacy goes. Modern technology is outrunning both laws and conventions in many cases this is just one"

For the record- here in Canuckland, you could buy land and build a house over the worlds largest nugget. You would not own that nugget/oil/diamonds etc. Not fair, but true from what i've heard.
The silence from law makers regarding how drones should be treated is deafening.
Going to guess they have big plans for drones/law enforcement looking in windows. That's why we can't shoot 'em down.
Here is a more reasonable effort as opposed to a Patriot missile.
12 gauge round that spins out into 5 foot web.
Mar 13/17- Trevithick @ thedrive-
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8291/u-s-air-force-buying-special-drone-snagging-shotgun-shells