One state representative in Utah, David E. Lifferth, proposed a bill that would let law enforcement neutralize drones.
This bill seeks to only shoot down drones if they are interfering with emergency or first responders in the area specifically. However, the bill could mean more than that across the nation if Utah passes this bill.
Known as the Unmanned Vehicle Amendments, the proposed bill aims to “give public safety officials the authority to disable or destroy drones that get in the way of emergency response.” However, this where many people are taking issue with the proposal.
While an emergency is distinctly defined as “a fire, a flood, extreme weather, a missing person situation, or a natural or man-made disaster that is expected to present an imminent threat to life or property, or to public health, safety, or welfare for more than 24 hours,” what law enforcement could use to neutralize drones is not.
So far, the bill is leaving room for alternative methods of disabling interfering drones, leaving the public’s mind to run the gamut from eagle hunting drones like we saw in Denmark to specialized drone-net capturing devices.
Overall, the bill holds the tone that it actually doesn’t matter how the drones get down, but just that they get down. However, some are concerned that using guns explicitly to use drones is an offense to private property as shooting a drone with a gun would most definitely cause irreparable damage.
Do you think drones in the way of emergency responders should be disabled in any way possible regardless of consequence, or do you believe a less-damaging way should be specified?