Congress lets homeowners shoot drones—but leaves them liable in state court

What it does

This bill allows homeowners to shoot down unmanned aircraft (drones) flying over their property using a shotgun if the aircraft is below 200 feet, provided state firearm laws permit it. The shooter must report the incident to the FAA if they can identify the drone's registration number, but is not required to return the damaged aircraft to its owner. State tort and criminal liability laws remain unaffected.

Why we flagged it

The bill creates a new private right to destroy federally regulated aircraft over one's property, framing it as property defense but creating tension with federal airspace authority and drone registration regimes. It is neither pure deregulation nor pure property protection—it is a collision between two legal domains.

What the text implies

• The bill permits destruction of federally registered aircraft without federal penalty, potentially undermining FAA enforcement of airspace rules and drone registration compliance.
• Subsection (f) preserves state tort and criminal liability, meaning a homeowner could face state prosecution or civil suit despite federal permission—creating a legal trap for citizens relying on this statute.
• The 200-foot threshold is arbitrary and may not align with state trespass law, creating uncertainty about when the federal permission actually applies.
• Reporting requirement (subsection c) is toothless—no penalty for failure to report, and FAA has no enforcement mechanism to deter false reports or investigate incidents.
• The bill does not address liability for collateral damage (injury to persons, property damage from falling debris, or shots fired in populated areas), leaving homeowners exposed to state law claims.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Homeowners gain a direct remedy against intrusive low-flying drones, addressing privacy and trespass concerns; however, the bill creates legal ambiguity by permitting destruction of federally registered aircraft and may expose shooters to state criminal or civil liability despite the federal permission, leaving ordinary citizens in legal jeopardy depending on their state's interpretation of the 'rule of construction' in subsection (f).

Who stands to gain

• shotgun manufacturers and ammunition suppliers (increased demand from homeowners purchasing firearms

Named in the bill

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 448 (Federal Aviation Regulations), 18 U.S.C. § 921 (definition of shotgun), unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) industry, drone manufacturers and operators

Where it stands

• Mar 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Mar 6, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,301,100 in lobbying spend. A filing names 17 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Tim Burchett, the sponsor, reported $162,500 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (d/b/a Airlines for America) — $2,301,100 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.