They gonna shoot them down

[Mike Griffin]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/new-law-would-give-federal-government-right-shoot-down-private-n912381

[john e. holliday]

Leave it to the politicians and media to blow every thing out of proportion.

[Gary Dowler]

Interesting. I wonder if they would consider my CL plane a "credible threat" if I flew at a school?     How will they accomplish this? ACM with autonomous killer drones of their own? Marksmen with rifles? Wing shooting with shotguns? 
If they plan to be able to down them, they likely already have a method in the works. The likely scenario that I see is a combination of a "hunter/killer" drone of their own at every secure site, to be deployed when a threat is detected, and this then supported by marksmen.  Yet another expansion of both government power and size.

Gary

[Fredvon4]

I can think of all sort of scenarios where a drone or other craft should be shot down..was not aware there would be any legal need for cover ...especially for FBI or Homeland

White House..Capitol
CIA Headquarters
FBI headquarters
Quantico
Camp Perry
Any Military base
Crap I could probably list several dozen sensitive locations...Like every Nuke Power plant
National Disaster (fire ect) requiring fixed and rotary wing to fly withing the area.....Drone always force AC grounding

BUT if you read this whole story.... there are many ways this Rule? Law? could set some very bad precedents

[Mike Griffin]

I really don't know what the answer is to these things but it appears the issue is not going to go away. 

Mike

[Avaiojet]

It's always the jerks that ruin it for the rest.

[Steve Helmick]

Youse seem to have overlooked this part of the sentence: 

"the right to track and down drones that they deem a "credible threat" to a "covered facility or asset."

I just don't see how a CL model, clearly flying in a hemisphere, could be deemed a "credible threat". Could they be that stupid and over-reactive? If they do, sue for damages. The Yatsenko Brothers have set the price tag at a reasonable level. Then, too, there is the PTSD their actions would cause.  Steve

[Tony Drago]

Doing that to a C/L plane. There most defiantly well be one heck of a tug a war taking place

[Gary Dowler]

Youse seem to have overlooked this part of the sentence: 

"the right to track and down drones that they deem a "credible threat" to a "covered facility or asset."

I just don't see how a CL model, clearly flying in a hemisphere, could be deemed a "credible threat". Could they be that stupid and over-reactive? If they do, sue for damages. The Yatsenko Brothers have set the price tag at a reasonable level. Then, too, there is the PTSD their actions would cause.  Steve

After rereading my post I see that I worded it poorly.  Everything after the bit about flying at a scho was intended to refer to what actions might be taken towards drones. Sorry for the confusion.

Gary

[Target]

They are referring to multi rotors.

[Steve Helmick]

They are referring to multi rotors.

Well, hell, that makes a lot of sense! Are you sure this this idea came from our FAA?  Steve

[Target]

LET THEM shoot down multi-rotors that are flown in inappropriate places. Why would that bother any of us? Doesn't bother me. I fly thermal sailplanes (hardly a reliable payload delivery package), racing slope sailplanes (again, pretty limited), and control line models (super limited).
I'll load the magazines for them.