[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Ahh, back to the topic.

1. The House version does not contain the "reasonable means" language
2. The Senate analysis notes technical deficiencies with that language
3. The two version will need to be reconciled
4. My (rather faulty) crystal ball says it will be easiest to remove the faulty language
5. EVEN IF IT PASSES with the language intact, it will STILL be illegal to shoot at a drone (FAA, Florida) or to jam an RF signal (FCC)

So sure, what you said.

The senate bill was tabled, the house bill was voted on by both houses and passed and is now awaiting the Governor's signature.

As stated above the house bill does not include the ill-conceived section on 934.50 that would have allowed the undefined "reasonable force". The remaining sections of the bill(s) are very good and further define weaponizing a sUAS (FS330.411), provide additional clarifications on "critical infrastructure", and criminalize the intentional disabling Remote ID functions and knowingly operating sUAS with Remote ID disabled (FS330.41).

While Remote ID as currently implemented is buggy, problematic, and ineffective on a good day and dangerous to the operators safety when it actually is working, it is the law that the vast majority of drone pilots (myself included) are following.