Top Fed Makes Case for More UAS Regulation
That’s by no means an isolated incident. The DHS is making similar overtures to get authority to shoot them down pretty much at will, etc. (see other thread). Is there a great push to lock down drones solely because of potential terrorist use? No; but the possibility is thrown into every argument, as what’s going to happen if you don’t support tighter regulation. That’s the way Washington works. Throw out the worst case scenario, no matter how remote a possibility, and there’s a fear that a vote against the regulation in question can be used as a vote FOR the terrorists. Suggest to a congressman that a paper airplane can be made with anthrax-laced paper, and he’ll support banning those too. Banning a million paper airplanes in the hands of six year olds is less politically damaging than having your opponents connect you to the vote that overtly allowed the one plane with the anthrax to be legal.
That's changing the subject of this thread, which was about revoking the Special Rule. There are clearly other initiatives to address the potential use of drones by terrorists, such as restrictions around critical infrastructure, military bases etc., but those don't have much impact on the use of drones by the general public and are unrelated to the regulatory issues around the Special Rule and Part 107. I understand the concern regarding unreasonable or over-reaching regulation but I think that you are massively conflating quite separate issues.