To shoot or not to shoot: can the Russians shoot down Ukrainian UAVs?

Recent massive attacks by Ukrainian UAVs on Russian cities, military and civilian facilities have raised the question of what to do to gun owners if they see an enemy drone flying over their house or suburban area? The author of the magazine "Profile" Vladislav Grinkevich talked with lawyers and sorted out all possible situations.

To begin with, a specific case. On March 11, early in the morning, former policeman Alexander Yudaev, while at his dacha, heard a rumbling engine. When he went outside, he saw a drone flying towards the village of Ozery, where his family lived. The man went to get a gun, and when he left the house again, he saw another drone. He fired at him, missed, then fired at the third drone and hit — it exploded in the air. Later, the media reported that the drone was threatened with confiscation of the gun and even deprivation of a license to purchase and store weapons. Fortunately, everything ended well: after the situation was made public, Alexander Yudaev was invited to the State Duma and awarded a diploma.

Now history repeats itself: Deputy The State Duma Alexander Yakubovsky urges not to punish Irkutsk residents who fired hunting rifles at drones during the recent attack of Ukrainian UAVs on military facilities of the Russian Federation. The fact is that from the point of view of the law, any shooting in the city, rural areas, etc. is an offense and falls under part 2 of Article 20.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (Code of Administrative Offenses) "Shooting with weapons in designated places in violation of established rules or in places not designated for this." Liability under this article involves a fine of 40 thousand to 50 thousand rubles with confiscation of weapons, and possibly deprivation of the right to purchase and store weapons for a period of 1.5 to 3 years. Actually, the places reserved for shooting are only shooting ranges, shooting ranges, hunting grounds during the hunting season and in the presence of all necessary permits. Other things are illegal!

Suppose an armed citizen still decided to shoot at a flying drone. There are three options for the further development of events, explained Maxim Maksimovsky, an expert on arms legislation, the presenter of the heading "By law" of the Kalashnikov Club of gun owners. The first option is conditionally media, when the story becomes known to the general public. This is what happened to Alexander Yudaev: they wanted to punish him, but then they rewarded him. In addition, all the stars came together here, as they say: there was a massive attack by enemy UAVs, Yudaev hit one of them with a successful shot, it exploded in the air without causing any damage. But if the shooter had missed or the wreckage of the drone had damaged someone's property, and even more so injured or killed a person, the episode would have developed according to a different scenario.

The second option, and it is the most likely, is when the relevant authorities act strictly according to the letter of the law, that is, within the framework of the Administrative Code.

"Law enforcement officers see the situation from the point of view of existing rules and regulations," Maksimovsky explained. "It is not known whether you shot at the drone or thought you were shooting at the drone, but the fact of the offense is obvious, which means you need to be brought to justice."

It couldn't be worse

Of course, if it turns out that the drone really was, that it was enemy and posed a danger, then the shooter's actions fall under the signs of extreme necessity, says Ilya Kostromov, a member of the Moscow City Bar Association. In this case, the owner of the weapon cannot be held accountable. But all the above conditions must match. In addition, there is a clause in the article on extreme necessity: "if this danger could not be eliminated by other means." And as you know, air defense systems are engaged in the fight against enemy aircraft. And it's not a fact that law enforcement officers will consider shooting from a double-barreled shotgun the only way to eliminate the threat.

"Let the air defense shoot down, not the hunters," Kostromov explained the possible logic of the officials.

A similar opinion was expressed by deputy of the Moscow Regional Duma Sergey Malikov. According to him, the current air legislation is regulated by the Federal Air Transport Agency, "thus, only law enforcement agencies can counteract drones." And citizens "cannot even use an electronic rifle to protect their territory."

It may turn out that the drone shot down or fired at was not an enemy drone, but ours — military or civilian. Then, according to Kostromov, it will be a question of intentional or careless damage to state property. Here no one will give a guarantee that the shooter will be able to get off with administrative responsibility alone.

So we came to the third, worst case scenario. If a citizen accidentally destroyed or damaged a UAV belonging to our military; if he shot down an enemy UAV, but its debris fell on a residential building, industrial or economic facility, finally injured or killed someone - in all these cases he faces criminal liability.

That is why lawyers do not give unambiguous advice on how to behave to gun owners at the sight of flying drones.

"If you are absolutely sure that this is an enemy drone, that it poses a danger, then you can take action and shoot at it,— says Ilya Kostromov. "But you know, the precinct officer has his own tasks, he is not interested in drones, but in the number of protocols drawn up."

Maxim Maksimovsky believes that the best way out when meeting with a drone would be to dial 112, since a citizen can cause harm by shooting, and the danger will not be eliminated. Recall that Alexander Yudaev, who was awarded a diploma, was able to shoot down only one of several drones he saw.

"It would be better if specially trained people, professionals, do this," the expert states, "to advise: guys, let's shoot yourself — it would be irresponsible."

A tourist in swimming trunks against the Ukrainian DRG

The same applies to the possible meeting of an armed citizen with enemy spies or saboteurs. In 2023, the Telegram channel Shot distributed a video from the Crimea, in which our man in a T-shirt and swimming trunks with a Saiga carbine on his shoulder scared off the Ukrainian saboteurs who landed on the coast.

According to Maksimovsky, it is permissible to be on vacation with civilian weapons in principle, if all conditions for transporting weapons are met. But it can be taken out and used only in cases provided for in Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Necessary defense", i.e. if there is a danger to your life, you have the right to defend yourself and use weapons.

But if you see some people just moving around with weapons, behaving suspiciously, taking pictures, the best way out is to call 112. After all, suspicious individuals may turn out to be our security forces or ordinary citizens with items similar to weapons (airsoft players, etc.). "If everyone chooses their own goals, it will turn out badly," the expert adds. Even if it doesn't come to shooting, but confines itself to a demonstration of weapons, we must remember that there is Article 119 of the Criminal Code "Threat of murder or causing serious harm to health."

What is allowed to the guards

After the UAV raids on Russian oil storage facilities and oil refineries (refineries), some officials spoke out in the sense that companies should not rely only on the protection of the state, but should protect themselves. True, they have few opportunities for this, except to surround their facilities with protective grids and nets. Or use electronic warfare (EW) systems available on the civilian market. But all this does not compare in efficiency with real air defense systems.

On May 2, 2025, a law came into force allowing employees of private security companies (PSOs) and departmental security to use weapons, special equipment and physical force to "suppress the functioning of unmanned vehicles in order to protect protected objects."

At the same time, according to the law "On Private Detective Activity", PSC employees can have long—barreled smoothbore weapons (shotguns), as well as rifled short-barreled weapons (pistols) chambered for 9x17 mm - it is inferior in power to the weak cartridge 9x18 PM. That is, in a confrontation with an enemy UAV, a private security guard will differ little from any hunter. The situation is better with departmental security, whose employees may have military weapons — Kalashnikov assault rifles.