Tennessee Congressman’s Defense Against Drones Act Aims to Empower Property Owners

On March 6, 2025, Tennessee Congressman Tim Burchett introduced the Defense Against Drones Act (DADA), or HR1907, a federal bill designed to give property owners the right to shoot down drones flying at or below 200 feet over their land using a legally obtained shotgun. Announced just days ago, this legislation arrives amid growing concerns over unmanned aircraft intrusions, spotlighted by recent mysterious drone sightings reported by the Tennessee National Guard. We will delve into the bill’s provisions, its technical and regulatory implications, and its potential impact on the Drone Industry and property rights.

The Defense Against Drones Act: Key Provisions

The three-page bill outlines a straightforward yet controversial framework. Property owners can take action against drones they perceive as trespassing if the unmanned aircraft is flying at or below 200 feet—a height often associated with low-altitude drone operations. The legislation doesn’t mandate returning the downed drone to its operator, though it leaves that option open. However, it does require the shooter to report the incident to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within 60 days, provided the drone’s registration number is identifiable.

This proposal stands out as a federal initiative, distinct from state-level efforts like a similar Texas bill introduced earlier. Unlike state laws, which can be preempted by federal aviation regulations, HR1907 aims to carve out a nationwide exception, directly challenging the FAA’s authority over airspace—a move that’s sure to spark debate.

Technical Feasibility and Practical Implications

Shooting down a drone with a shotgun isn’t as simple as it sounds. Most consumer drones, like those from DJI or Skydio, operate at altitudes up to 400 feet under FAA rules, though many can hover lower for tasks like photography or surveillance. At 200 feet (roughly 61 meters), a drone is within range of a typical 12-gauge shotgun loaded with birdshot, which can effectively reach targets up to 300 feet with proper aim. However, accuracy diminishes with distance, and fast-moving drones—some capable of speeds exceeding 40 mph (64 kph)—could prove elusive targets for an untrained shooter.

The bill’s height threshold of 200 feet aligns with a practical boundary: it’s low enough to be perceived as intrusive by landowners yet high enough to exclude most commercial or recreational flights adhering to FAA guidelines. Still, the lack of a verification mechanism—relying solely on the property owner’s belief—raises questions about enforcement consistency and potential misuse.

Industry Context: Rising Drone Concerns

The timing of HR1907 isn’t coincidental. The Tennessee National Guard’s reports of unexplained drone activity echo similar incidents in Ohio and New Jersey, where clusters of sightings have fueled public unease. The Guard’s request for $5.5 million in “forced protection improvements”—think ballistic doors and gates—underscores a broader anxiety about drones as potential security threats. While no evidence ties these sightings to malicious intent, the uncertainty has amplified calls for action.

Drones have proliferated across the U.S., with over 860,000 registered units as of late 2024, according to FAA data. This growth, driven by hobbyists, commercial operators, and emerging applications like delivery services, has inevitably led to airspace conflicts. Property owners often cite privacy violations—drones with high-resolution cameras can easily peer into yards or windows—as a primary grievance. Burchett’s bill taps into this sentiment, positioning itself as a defense of individual rights against an increasingly crowded sky.

Regulatory Considerations: A Clash with FAA Authority

The FAA exerts comprehensive control over U.S. airspace, classifying all space from the ground up as navigable and under its jurisdiction. Under current federal law, drones are considered aircraft, and shooting them down is a federal crime—violators can face steep fines or even prison time under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 32, which prohibits damaging aircraft. The FAA reinforces this with regulations that treat unauthorized interference as a serious offense, reflecting its mission to ensure aviation safety. HR1907 seeks to overturn this status quo by explicitly legalizing such actions under specific conditions, granting property owners a federal exception to take shotguns to the sky.

This proposal sets up a direct confrontation with FAA authority. The agency has consistently opposed state and local attempts to regulate drones, as demonstrated in Singer v. City of Newton (2017), where a Massachusetts ordinance was invalidated for encroaching on federal airspace rules. Unlike state-level efforts—such as the Texas bill we’ve covered previously, which risks preemption—HR1907’s federal scope aims to bypass that hurdle by amending the national framework. Still, it’s likely to face fierce resistance from the FAA, which may argue that decentralized drone takedowns threaten broader airspace safety.

Legal ambiguity compounds the issue. The bill’s reliance on a property owner’s “reasonable belief” that a drone is at or below 200 feet lacks a clear verification process, raising significant risks of misidentification. As seen in the New Jersey mystery drone incidents, many struggle to distinguish drones from balloons, plastic bags, birds, airplanes, stars, or helicopters—objects often mistaken for unmanned aircraft in the sky. This confusion could lead to reckless shootings, with owners potentially downing legitimate aircraft or harmless objects at 400 feet or higher, believing they’re within the law’s protection. The 60-day FAA reporting requirement—tied to identifying a drone’s registration number—could also falter if a shotgun blast destroys the evidence, leaving compliance uncertain.

Market Impact: Drone Operators on Edge

For the drone industry, HR1907 is a double-edged sword. Manufacturers like DJI, Autel, and Skydio, which dominate the U.S. market, might see heightened demand for anti-detection features—think stealthier designs or altitude-locking software to stay above 200 feet. Conversely, the risk of losing drones to shotgun-wielding landowners could deter casual users and small businesses, particularly in rural areas where property lines are fiercely guarded.

Commercial operators, such as those in agriculture or real estate, may face the biggest headache. Precision farming drones often operate below 200 feet for optimal data collection—HR1907 could disrupt these workflows if landowners misjudge intent. Delivery giants like Amazon, already testing Prime Air drones at low altitudes, might also need to rethink flight paths or invest in protective tech.

Broader Implications: Property Rights vs. Innovation

This bill crystallizes a tension at the heart of drone proliferation: individual property rights versus technological progress. Landowners argue that drones infringe on their privacy and safety, a view Burchett amplifies. Yet, the drone industry counters that such measures stifle innovation and unfairly penalize legitimate operators. The 200-foot threshold might protect backyards, but it could also chill advancements in aerial mapping, emergency response, and beyond.

Public reaction, as seen in posts on X, leans supportive—many cheer the empowerment of property owners—but skepticism lingers. Could this escalate into a free-for-all, with shotguns blasting at every buzzing speck? The bill’s reliance on “reasonable belief” leaves room for interpretation, potentially inviting legal chaos.

A Shot Heard Round the Industry

The Defense Against Drones Act signals a bold shift in the drone debate, prioritizing property rights over unrestricted airspace access. If passed, it could reshape how drones are flown, designed, and regulated in the U.S., forcing operators to adapt to a newly hostile landscape. Its federal scope sets it apart from state efforts, promising a uniform—if contentious—standard.

Looking ahead, HR1907’s fate hinges on congressional support and FAA pushback. Success could embolden similar laws globally, while failure might reinforce federal dominance over the skies. Either way, it’s a wake-up call for an industry that’s soared largely unchecked.

DroneXL’s Take

At DroneXL, we see HR1907 as a reflection of real frustrations—drones are no longer just toys, and their presence is felt. But the shotgun solution feels more symbolic than sustainable. Smarter regulation, like geofencing or mandatory no-fly zones over private land, might better balance privacy and progress without turning rural America into a skeet-shooting range. What do you think—does this bill hit the mark, or is it firing blind?

Photo courtesy of DJI.