Connecticut may be the first state to ban so-called “weaponized” drones; but the plan also calls for an exemption for law enforcement. While it’s the exemption that civil rights advocates are most concerned with, the ban is also cause for concern in the drone industry.
Lawmakers in the state first became concerned about weaponized drones after a CT teen posted a YouTube video of a drone outfitted with a flamethrower and a drone rigged with a gun. The teen and his father have been the subject of a lengthy court case after being investigated by the FAA to determine if any laws were broken. The case prompted CT to consider new drone regulations.
According to the National Conference of State Legislators, which keeps a database of current state drone laws, 5 states have weaponized drone bans: Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont and Wisconsin. Maine and Virginia prohibit the use of “armed” drones by law enforcement. North Dakota allows law enforcement to use armed drones, but only equipped with non-lethal weapons like rubber bullets and tear gas.
While the NAACP and the ACLU have both spoken out against allowing law enforcement in CT to utilize weaponized drones – saying that it would create a dangerous precedent – there is less discussion about the prohibition of weaponized drones for the public.
Attaching a gun to a recreational drone seems like a bad idea – and it probably is. But a blanket ban that uses a word like “weaponized” and takes into account any equipment that could be construed as a weapon is simply too broad: and risks unintended consequences limiting commercial and recreational applications. Lawmakers considering the bill have probably not attended a maker-fair or STEM event that features drone battles, which are somewhat like the popular PBS show “Battle Bots”: enthusiasts build drones equipped with weapons to battle each other in a netted, safe arena. This kind of entertainment is a useful tool to get kids interested in robotics, and supports the hobby industry.
While most people might not be able to imagine a scenario for a flamethrower drone, there is one: in China, power companies use drones equipped with flamethrowers to burn trash off of the lines. The point is that broad and poorly defined prohibitions, no matter how reasonable they may seem now, risk causing problems for a rapidly evolving technology later. State legislators should think about what they are really trying to accomplish – preventing violence – and consider carefully whether or not a new law specifically aimed at drones is necessary.
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
This website uses cookies and third party services. By clicking OK, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. ACCEPT
Manage consent
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
The Problem With Banning “Weaponized” Drones
Connecticut may be the first state to ban so-called “weaponized” drones; but the plan also calls for an exemption for law enforcement. While it’s the exemption that civil rights advocates are most concerned with, the ban is also cause for concern in the drone industry.
Lawmakers in the state first became concerned about weaponized drones after a CT teen posted a YouTube video of a drone outfitted with a flamethrower and a drone rigged with a gun. The teen and his father have been the subject of a lengthy court case after being investigated by the FAA to determine if any laws were broken. The case prompted CT to consider new drone regulations.
According to the National Conference of State Legislators, which keeps a database of current state drone laws, 5 states have weaponized drone bans: Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont and Wisconsin. Maine and Virginia prohibit the use of “armed” drones by law enforcement. North Dakota allows law enforcement to use armed drones, but only equipped with non-lethal weapons like rubber bullets and tear gas.
While the NAACP and the ACLU have both spoken out against allowing law enforcement in CT to utilize weaponized drones – saying that it would create a dangerous precedent – there is less discussion about the prohibition of weaponized drones for the public.
Attaching a gun to a recreational drone seems like a bad idea – and it probably is. But a blanket ban that uses a word like “weaponized” and takes into account any equipment that could be construed as a weapon is simply too broad: and risks unintended consequences limiting commercial and recreational applications. Lawmakers considering the bill have probably not attended a maker-fair or STEM event that features drone battles, which are somewhat like the popular PBS show “Battle Bots”: enthusiasts build drones equipped with weapons to battle each other in a netted, safe arena. This kind of entertainment is a useful tool to get kids interested in robotics, and supports the hobby industry.
While most people might not be able to imagine a scenario for a flamethrower drone, there is one: in China, power companies use drones equipped with flamethrowers to burn trash off of the lines. The point is that broad and poorly defined prohibitions, no matter how reasonable they may seem now, risk causing problems for a rapidly evolving technology later. State legislators should think about what they are really trying to accomplish – preventing violence – and consider carefully whether or not a new law specifically aimed at drones is necessary.
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
TWITTER:@spaldingbarker
Subscribe to DroneLife here.
See Also