Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
This bill amends federal criminal law to change references to “aircraft” in 18 U.S.C. §32 and 49 U.S.C. §46502 to “manned aircraft” (and “manned civil” where applicable), narrowing the scope of the statutes that criminalize destruction of aircraft, aircraft facilities, and certain aircraft piracy to apply only to manned aircraft.
Scope: liberals worry about safety/security gaps; conservatives emphasize limiting federal reach.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive amendment that specifies textual changes to named criminal statutes to limit certain penalties to "manned aircraft," but it provides limited drafting detail (no definition of "manned aircraft," no effective date or transitional provisions) and contains some formatting/wording irregularities.
This bill amends federal criminal law to change references to “aircraft” in 18 U.S.C. §32 and 49 U.S.C. §46502 to “manned aircraft” (and “manned civil” where applicable), narrowing the scope of the statutes that criminalize destruction of aircraft, aircraft facilities, and certain aircraft piracy to apply only to manned aircraft.
Narrow and administratively simple but substantively sensitive (drones, safety, security) with little built-in compromise; faces stakeholder resistance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive amendment that specifies textual changes to named criminal statutes to limit certain penalties to "manned aircraft," but it provides limited drafting detail (no definition of "manned aircraft," no effective date or transitional provisions) and contains some formatting/wording irregularities.
Scope: liberals worry about safety/security gaps; conservatives emphasize limiting federal reach.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope: liberals worry about safety/security gaps; conservatives emphasize limiting federal reach.
Likely skeptical or opposed.
The bill narrows federal criminal coverage and removes explicit federal protections for unmanned aircraft, raising safety, public-safety, and accountability concerns.
Supporters of stronger federal aviation and public-safety rules would ask for safeguards for harm caused by drones.
Mixed view.
Appreciates narrowing ambiguous criminal statutes but worries about unintended gaps in safety or national-security coverage.
Would favor narrowly tailored exceptions or coordination with FAA/DoD/DOJ to cover harmful unmanned uses while avoiding overcriminalization.
Generally favorable.
The bill limits federal criminal scope to manned aircraft, aligning with preferences for restrained federal criminal law and state-level handling of many drone incidents.
Conservatives favor reducing federal overcriminalization provided security risks are preserved.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and administratively simple but substantively sensitive (drones, safety, security) with little built-in compromise; faces stakeholder resistance.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope: liberals worry about safety/security gaps; conservatives emphasize limiting federal reach.
Narrow and administratively simple but substantively sensitive (drones, safety, security) with little built-in compromise; faces stakeholde…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive amendment that specifies textual changes to named criminal statutes to limit certain penalties to "manned aircraft," but it provides limited…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.