(Bloomberg) -- The father and son who posted videos ofdrones firing a handgun and incinerating a Thanksgiving turkey with aflame-thrower can be questioned by aviation regulators, a U.S.judge ruled in a closely watched case that may determine thegovernment’s ability to oversee unmanned aircraft.

The Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) is investigating whether the flights— which became an internet phenomenon on YouTube — mayhave violated aviation safety regulations.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Meyer dismissed the argumentsof Austin and Bret Haughwout, who maintained that the FAA had nolegal authority over the small drones because they aren’t aircraftand the agency has no right to question them.

“I do not agree,” Meyer wrote in a decision issued on Monday.The judge said “it is plausible to believe that the Haughwouts’devices fall within the definition of an ‘aircraft’ for thepurposes of federal law.”

Whether the FAA will be able to successfully bring anenforcement case against the pair from Clinton, Connecticut, is aseparate matter, the judge said. He laid out the eventual argumentsin what may become a test case over the limits of the FAA’sauthority over drones. The FAA argues that it controls the airspacedown to the ground for purposes of overseeing drones, but Meyerquestioned whether that is legitimate.

Authority questioned

“No clause in the Constitution vests the federal government with ageneral police power over all of the air or all objects that leavethe ground,” he wrote. He stopped short of issuing an opinion onthat, saying: “This case does not yet require an answer to thatquestion.”

The debate over where FAA’s authority begins and ends holdsenormous potential impact over the burgeoning drone industry, saidRebecca Byers MacPherson, a lawyer at Jones Day in Washington whoformerly worked as an FAA attorney.

The FAA has traditionally avoided regulating aircraft below 200feet because airplanes and helicopters rarely fly that low exceptat airports, MacPherson said. Drones, which fly in thosenear-ground zones, have led the FAA to claim authority closer tothe ground.

Industry impact

How the courts eventually decide that question will impact numerousindustries, such as railroads and utilities that may not wantunmanned aircraft hovering over their property, as well asindividuals like the Haughwouts or neighbors who may fear for theirprivacy, she said.

Austin Haughwout, who had been a student at a local statecollege, created a sensation with his drone videos, first postingone last year of a quad-copter holding a black handgun apparentlyfiring shots into a wooded area. It has been viewed more than 3.7million times. Later last year, he posted a separate video entitled“Roasting the Holiday Turkey” showing a slightly larger droneholding a flame-thrower blasting a turkey on a spit.

Related: 5 things insurers need to know before usingdrones

The Haughwouts’ attorney, Mario Cerame, did not immediatelyreturn a phone call seeking comment. Cerame has argued that the FAAis overreaching in its investigation.

“You’ve got to stop for a second and think about what’s thejurisdiction of the FAA,” he told reporters after a July 6 hearingon the case in New Haven according to video posted by the HartfordCourant. “What do they have power over? Do they have power overwhat people do in their backyards on their own property? No one issaying anyone was hurt here.”

The case is Huerta v. Haughwout, 16-cv-00358, U.S.District Court, District of Connecticut (New Haven).

Copyright 2018 Bloomberg. All rightsreserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,or redistributed.