A federal judge in Connecticut has ruled against a young drone operator and his father. They will now have to turn over a slew of documents and materials as part of a Federal Aviation Administration investigation.

The two men and their legal team argued that the FAA lacks authority to regulate drones, but the FAA clearly disagrees with this assessment.

As Ars reported previously, the case dates back to July 2015. The pilot, Austin Haughwout, posted a video of his drone rigged up with a handgun. By early November 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration sent the two Haughwouts an administrative subpoena seeking a substantial amount of records, including purchase records and an accounting of what monies, if any, were gained from the "Flying Gun" YouTube video.

His father, Bret Haughwout, declined the government’s efforts. He told the FAA in an e-mail that because the agency had not alleged a particular violation he was under no obligation to comply. The FAA has not accused either man of a crime, but the organization merely seeks to acquire further information about their drone-related activities.

Within weeks, Austin Haughwout published a second video, dubbed "Roasting the Holiday Turkey." It shows a drone with a flamethrower attached, firing at a turkey roasting on a spit. Again, the FAA asked the Haughwouts to respond, and again, they refused.

Finally on February 11, 2016, the FAA took them to court, asking a federal judge to enforce the subpoena. Within weeks, US District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer asked for further briefing in Huerta v. Haughwout—so the government and the Haughwouts formally faced off.

Mario Cerame, of the Randazza Legal Group, came up with a novel legal theory saying that the FAA can’t possibly rule over all things in the sky, be they baseballs, paper airplanes, or drones.

"The statute did not contemplate their existence," he wrote in his opening brief. "Rather, the statute was directed at airplanes, helicopters, and blimps, and the resources on the ground to support them."

Therefore, Cerame argued, the FAA has no authority over the Haughwouts'—or anyone's—drones.

However, Judge Meyer saw it differently. As he wrote Monday:

I do not agree. Although I appreciate the creativity of the Haughwouts’ arguments, I know of no principle of administrative law that requires an agency to resolve beyond ambiguity the hypothetical limits of its regulatory authority before undertaking any investigative or enforcement action. Even if a good faith argument might be made that the devices at issue here could fall outside the definitional scope of the term “aircraft,” the FAA has a legitimate purpose at the least to acquire more information by means of investigation in order to assess in the first instance whether the devices are within the scope of its authority to regulate.

The Haughwouts have 30 days to appeal if they wish.