https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-down-drones/

Any person owning or controlling real estate or other premises who voluntarily damages or destroys a drone located on the real estate or premises or within the airspace of the real estate or premises not otherwise regulated by the Federal Aviation shall, together with any successors in interest, if any, not be civilly liable for causing the damage or destruction to the property of such person.
American law does not currently recognize the concept of aerial trespass. But as the consumer drone age has taken flight, legal scholars have increasingly wondered about this situation. The best case-law on the issue dates back to 1946, long before inexpensive consumer drones were technically feasible. That year, the Supreme Court ruled in a case known as United States v. Causby that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air.

However, there?s another large potential snag: the Federal Aviation Administration claims jurisdiction over all airspace, period, so the bill may not get off the ground. Plus, it is a federal crime to shoot at an aircraft, and drones are currently defined by the FAA as aircraft.

"The FAA is responsible for the safety and management of US airspace from the ground up," Les Dorr, an FAA spokesman told Ars in a 2015 statement.