HR 1907 Introduced - Private cUAS
Last month Rep Burchett (R,TN) introduced HR 1907, the Defense Against Drones Act of 2025. The bill would allow an individual to use a shot gun to shoot down an unmanned aircraft flying no more than 200 feet over their property. No new funding is authorized by this legislation.
The bill would amend 49 USC by adding a new §44815, Protection of private property from unmanned aircraft.
Definition
Subsection 44815(e) provides the definition of the term ‘shotgun’ by reference to 18 USC 921(5). That definition does not limit the size of the bore, only that it be ‘fired from the shoulder’. If the intent of this bill were to limit the possibility of collateral damage by using a shotgun, it probably should have prohibited the use of solid shot.
Provisions
Subsection 44815(a) establishes that subject “to applicable State law relating to the discharge of a firearm, an individual may shoot an unmanned aircraft using a legally obtained shotgun if the individual reasonably believes that such aircraft is flying not more than 200 feet above property owned by the individual.”
Subsection 44815(c) requires anyone shooting down an unmanned aircraft to notify the Federal Aviation Administration of the event. There is a loophole in that the individual must be able to identify the registration number of the downed aircraft to be required to report the incident.
The FAA would be required to publish regulations to implement the statute.
Moving Forward
Burchett is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which the bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there could be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. I do not expect that the leadership will be interested in expanding the current, very limited, counter UAS statutes in this manner.
Commentary
While the bill specifically requires continued adherence to State law (but not local regulations?) about discharge of fire arms, it does not address the current prohibition of aircraft piracy (49 USC 46502) or destruction of aircraft (18 USC 32). For this proposed statute to be effective it would require the additions of ‘not withstanding’ language for each of those sections. See 6 UCS 124n(a) for example, the additional sections listed in that particular section are not applicable here because they deal with computer fraud and wire intercepts which are not used here.
Even with those changes this legislation will be of little use to critical infrastructure facilities because it specifically requires that the owner of the property be the person who wields the shotgun. To be applicable to industrial property owners the language of §44815(a) could be changed to read:
“Subject to applicable State law relating to the discharge of a firearm, an individual, or specifically designated representative, may shoot an unmanned aircraft using a legally obtained shotgun if the individual reasonably believes that such aircraft is flying not more than 200 feet above property owned by the individual.”