Aircraft destruction under 18 U.S.C. 32
An unmanned aircraft is an aircraft in United States law, so damaging or destroying one can engage a federal criminal provision rather than a local firearms or property matter.
- Status
- in force
- Authority
- Title 18, United States Code, Section 32
- Applies to
- Any person who damages, destroys or disables an aircraft, including an unmanned aircraft, within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.
Key points
- Section 32 of Title 18 addresses damaging, destroying or disabling an aircraft, and an unmanned aircraft falls within the definition of an aircraft in United States law.
- This means shooting at a drone may be treated as a federal offence rather than as a local firearms question or a property dispute.
- Owning the land beneath an aircraft confers no authority over the airspace, so the location of the shooter does not change the analysis.
- The provision is one reason mitigation authority in the United States is granted explicitly and narrowly, rather than being assumed by property owners.
- Other exposures arise separately, including responsibility for a projectile that returns to the ground and for the aircraft that falls.
Why aviation law applies
The point that surprises most people is the legal classification. An unmanned aircraft is an aircraft in United States law, not a piece of property that happens to fly. Provisions written for interference with aviation therefore apply to it.
Section 32 of Title 18 addresses damaging, destroying or disabling an aircraft. Shooting at a drone can fall within it, which places the act in federal criminal law rather than in a local firearms or property context.
Property ownership does not help
The most common assumption in this area is that a landowner has some authority over the airspace above the land, and that a drone in that space is therefore fair game.
Airspace is not an attribute of the property below it. This is why “it was over my garden” has not worked as a defence, and why the location of the person shooting does not change the analysis.
The consequences beyond the provision itself
Two further exposures are worth stating, because they are separate from the offence.
A projectile fired upward returns to the ground somewhere, and the person who fired it is responsible for where it lands. The aircraft also comes down once hit, and that is equally attributable. In a populated area these are substantial risks in their own right.
How this shapes the wider framework
Section 32 is part of the reason mitigation authority in the United States is granted narrowly and explicitly. Where an agency is permitted to act against an aircraft, that permission is set out in a specific framework with conditions attached, rather than assumed from ownership or from the seriousness of the concern.
Since 1 July 2026, eligible state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement and correctional agencies may conduct mitigation where certified under the SAFER SKIES framework. Private organisations remain outside that authority, whatever their security requirement.
The practical route for a facility or a property owner is detection, documentation and referral to an agency that holds the authority. Law enforcement can approach an operator on the ground, which is usually where a persistent problem is resolved.
FAQ
▸Can I shoot down a drone over my own property?
Doing so can engage Section 32, because an unmanned aircraft is an aircraft and the provision addresses damaging or destroying one. Property ownership does not extend to the airspace above the land. Prosecutions have followed incidents of this kind. This page is general information rather than legal advice, and anyone facing the question should take advice on their own circumstances.
▸What if the drone is filming my family or my site?
That is a genuine concern and it has a different route. Privacy, harassment, nuisance and trespass are matters of state law and vary considerably. The remedy generally lies in those laws and in a report to local law enforcement, who can approach the operator, rather than in acting against the aircraft.
▸Do police have this authority now?
Since 1 July 2026, eligible state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement and correctional agencies may conduct mitigation where they hold the relevant certification under the SAFER SKIES framework. That authority is granted specifically and under defined conditions. It does not extend to private individuals or organisations.
▸Does this apply to jamming as well as shooting?
Jamming raises a different set of rules, principally the Communications Act and the authorisation framework for mitigation, rather than Section 32. The outcome for a private organisation is similar in that neither is available, but the legal route to that conclusion is not the same.