Should Armed Drones be Banned in U.S. Airspace (With Possible Exceptions for National Defense and Hunting)? (H.R. 129)

What is H.R. 129?

(Updated April 19, 2018)

This bill — known as the No Armed Drones Act (NADA) — would prohibit the Dept. of Transportation (DOT) from authorizing any person to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS or drone) in U.S. airspace as a weapon or to deliver a weapon against a person or property. DOT would allowed to create exceptions for private drones used for recreational hunting and animal control, and public drones used in operations by Customs and Border Protection, the Dept. of Defense, and certain governmental entities for national defense or counterterrorism purposes.

Argument in favor

American citizens shouldn’t be faced with law enforcement entities using military tactics such as flying armed drones in U.S. skies on a day-to-day basis.

Argument opposed

This bill’s exceptions which allow armed drones for hunting, animal control, border security and counterterrorism are too broad.

Impact

The American public; drone operators; and federal agencies such as the DOD, DOT, and Customs and Border Protection.

Cost of H.R. 129

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: When he introduced this bill during a previous session of Congress, sponsoring Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) introduced this bill to prohibit the use of weaponized drones in U.S. skies under most circumstances:

“American citizens — past, present, and future — should never have to face the use of military tactics by agents of our justice system. Our founders envisioned a society where citizens would be innocent until proven guilty, and wouldn’t be treated like suspected criminals while going about their everyday lives. Arming a surveillance drone for day-to-day law enforcement purposes clearly violates those ideals of liberty and must be banned.”

In an op-ed, Burgess explained his concerns about law enforcement agencies abusing drones:

“Most [local law enforcement agencies] could have reasonable intentions, but some departments are seeking to arm drones with tear gas, rubber bullets, and other riot control-like projectiles… What’s worse is that federal law enforcement seems to be complicit. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is entertaining the idea of deploying drones with drug sensing capabilities. Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) directly contradicts their own mission statement by carrying out drone strikes abroad.”

Media:

• Sponsoring Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) Op-Ed
  
• The Hill