The bill adds a new section to 49 U.S.C. chapter 448 authorizing an individual to shoot an unmanned aircraft with a legally obtained shotgun when the person reasonably believes the aircraft is flying no more than 200 feet above property the person owns, subject to applicable State law governing discharge of firearms. The text makes returning a shot-down drone optional, requires a report to the FAA within 60 days when the drone's registration number is identifiable, directs the FAA to issue implementing regulations, and cites 18 U.S.C. §921 for the shotgun definition.
This matters because it directly addresses low-altitude drone overflight by private actors, carving out a limited federal permission while leaving criminal and tort liability to State law. The combination of a specific altitude cap, a defined weapon type, a modest reporting regime, and required FAA rulemaking raises practical questions about airspace authority, public-safety risk, enforcement, and insurance exposure for drone operators and property owners alike.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill permits an individual to discharge a legally obtained shotgun at an unmanned aircraft they reasonably believe is flying no more than 200 feet above property they own, but conditions that permission on applicable State laws about firearm discharge. It requires an individual who can identify the drone's registration number to report the incident to the FAA within 60 days and directs the FAA to issue regulations implementing the new authority.
Who It Affects
Residential and rural property owners, drone operators and owners (including commercial operators who rely on low-altitude flights), the Federal Aviation Administration (for regulation and reporting), and State and local law enforcement and civil courts when disputes or injuries arise.
Why It Matters
The measure is a rare federal statutory permission for using a firearm against an aircraft-sized object and sets a bright-line altitude (200 feet) and weapon constraint (shotgun). It shifts some responsibility for addressing unwanted drone overflight from regulators and courts to individual property owners while requiring the FAA to define how the permission will operate in practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core change in the bill is an explicit federal authorization for a person to shoot down a drone with a shotgun when the person reasonably believes the drone is flying no more than 200 feet above property the person owns. The authorization is not unconditional: it is expressly subject to whatever State laws limit or prohibit discharging firearms, so compliance with state firearms rules is still required.
If someone shoots a drone and can identify the drone’s registration number, the bill requires them to report the location and that registration number to the FAA within 60 days. The text allows, but does not require, the shooter to return a downed drone to its owner on request.
The statute points the FAA at the task of writing regulations necessary to implement these new rules, which means the agency will need to define practical steps for reporting, recordkeeping, and possibly interfaces with existing drone-registration systems.Mechanically, the bill limits the permitted weapon to a “shotgun” as defined in 18 U.S.C. §921, and it inserts the new authority as a statutory addition to chapter 448, which houses various aviation safety and unmanned aircraft provisions. The final clause makes clear that Congress does not intend this section to displace State tort or criminal laws, so any civil claims or criminal prosecutions under state law can still proceed.
That creates a dual layer: a narrow federal allowance plus a patchwork of state-level liability and enforcement that will be decisive in most cases.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill allows shooting an unmanned aircraft only when the shooter reasonably believes the aircraft is flying not more than 200 feet above property owned by the shooter.
The permission is limited to the use of a legally obtained shotgun; the bill incorporates the definition of “shotgun” from 18 U.S.C. §921.
If the shooter can identify the drone’s registration number, they must report the address where the incident occurred and the registration number to the FAA within 60 days.
The FAA is directed to issue any regulations necessary to implement the new section in chapter 448 of title 49.
The statute expressly does not preempt state tort or criminal law, preserving state-level liability and prosecution for conduct covered by the new federal authorization.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Defense Against Drones Act of 2025
A single-line provision that provides the Act’s popular name. This is clerical but matters for how the statute will be cited in regulatory materials and litigation briefs.
Federal authorization to shoot a low-flying unmanned aircraft
Subsection (a) creates the central substantive rule: an individual may shoot an unmanned aircraft with a legally obtained shotgun when they reasonably believe the aircraft is within 200 feet above property the individual owns. The phrase “subject to applicable State law relating to the discharge of a firearm” conditions that permission on whatever state-level prohibitions or permitting regimes apply, so the federal text does not override state firearm restrictions.
Optional return of downed aircraft to owner
Subsection (b) states explicitly that returning a shot-down drone to its owner is permitted but not mandatory. Practically, that means an owner who wants their drone back cannot compel return under this federal provision; any remedy requiring return would have to come from state law or agreement between parties.
60-day reporting to FAA when registration is identifiable
Subsection (c) imposes a discrete, triggered reporting obligation: when the shooter is able to identify the drone’s registration number, they must report the incident location and registration number to the FAA within 60 days. The provision does not specify form, penalties for failure to report, or how the FAA should use the information, leaving those details to forthcoming agency regulations.
Delegation to FAA for implementing regulations and weapon definition
Subsection (d) requires the FAA to issue necessary regulations to implement the section, which centralizes certain implementation details at the federal level despite the state-law caveat. Subsection (e) defines “shotgun” by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. §921, tethering the permitted weapon to the federal statutory definition and excluding other firearm types unless that definition changes.
Nonpreemption of state tort and criminal liability; statutory placement
Subsection (f) provides that nothing in the new section should be read to preempt state tort or criminal laws, preserving state civil and criminal remedies. The bill also amends the chapter analysis to add the new section entry, a clerical change that finalizes insertion of the provision into the U.S. Code.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Private property owners (residential and rural) — the statute gives them an explicit federal authorization to use a shotgun against a drone flying within the 200-foot limit, creating a statutory backstop for self-help where state law allows.
- Landowners concerned about privacy or property interference — those who feel current enforcement options are slow or inadequate gain a direct defensive option.
- Entities that lobby for stronger anti-surveillance rights — the bill codifies a remedy that aligns with privacy-centered advocacy and may reduce unauthorized observation in some circumstances.
- Insurance underwriters offering homeowner or liability policies — clarity about a federal permission could allow insurers to design products addressing drone-related losses or defenses (though underwriting will hinge on state law interaction).
Who Bears the Cost
- Drone owners and commercial operators — they face higher risks of property damage or loss and may need to change flight patterns, invest in registration visibility, or buy different insurance coverage.
- FAA and its regulatory staff — the agency must draft regulations and potentially design systems to receive reports and analyze incidents, imposing administrative and resource burdens.
- State and local law enforcement and courts — state-level prosecution and civil litigation will likely increase as the bill preserves state tort and criminal remedies, shifting investigation and adjudication costs to local systems.
- Public safety and emergency responders — shooting at low-flying aircraft risks collateral harm; responders may see increased accidents or disputes to manage, and liabilities for emergency response may rise.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to reconcile two legitimate aims—protecting private property and privacy from intrusive low-altitude drone activity, and maintaining consistent, safe control of the national airspace—but it does so by granting a limited private-use exception that shifts risk back to individuals and local systems; the result is a trade-off between immediate, decentralized remedies for property owners and potential increases in public-safety hazards, legal uncertainty, and regulatory complexity.
The bill creates a sharp legal pointer (a federal permission to shoot down certain low-flying drones) while leaving large implementation questions unanswered. The statutory trigger is a combination of subjective belief (“reasonably believes”) and an objective ceiling (200 feet), but the text supplies no evidentiary standard for courts or police to assess that belief.
That gap will force case-by-case fact-finding in state courts and can produce widely divergent outcomes depending on jurisdictional standards of reasonableness.
Operationally, the reporting duty hinges on whether the shooter can identify the drone’s registration number; many small drones lack visible markings or show only obscured identifiers, meaning incidents could go unreported. The FAA’s delegated rulemaking role is crucial but undefined: the agency must decide how to structure reports, whether to require proof of registration, how to reconcile reports with existing drone-registration databases, and whether to articulate deconfliction guidance to reduce public-safety risk.
Finally, while the statute avoids federal preemption of state law, it does not address how the authorization intersects with federal criminal statutes that prohibit damaging aircraft or interfering with national airspace operations. That silence could invite litigation about whether shooting a small unmanned aircraft falls within other federal offenses or whether this new provision implicitly narrows federal enforcement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.