House passes broad drone-regulation bill after debate on private property and enforcement

The South Carolina House of Representatives approved second reading of H.4679, the Drone Regulation Act, after a floor explanation and a period of questions from members. Representative Travis Moore, the bill sponsor, said the measure creates statewide definitions and prohibited acts for drone operation and harmonizes state language with federal aviation rules.

“This is South Carolina's drone regulation act,” Representative Travis Moore said in his floor explanation, adding that the bill establishes no-fly zones, clarifies key definitions and creates misdemeanor and felony penalties for specific unlawful uses. He said the bill “requires compliance with applicable FAA rules” and expressly does not supersede federal authority over airspace.

The bill sets several location-based prohibitions, including restricted operation within measured distances of airports and critical infrastructure, and makes it a felony to use a drone to deliver contraband into a correctional facility or to map or surveil critical infrastructure for unlawful purposes. Moore said the committee report and subsequent amendments refined definitions and added protections for large live events and certain government employees acting in the scope of their duties.

Members pressed Moore on how the bill affects private-property drone use, weight thresholds, enforcement and outreach. Representative Magnuson asked whether the bill regulates what an owner may do with a drone on private property; Moore answered that, generally, it does not, except where private property falls within a no-fly buffer (for example adjacent to an airport or correctional facility). “If your private property is within one of the measured distances, no-fly zone,” Moore said, “then absolutely would impact what you can do with it on your private property.”

Representative Magnuson also queried an amendment that removed a specific 0.55‑pound weight threshold; Moore said the threshold had been removed to keep state law aligned automatically with federal registration requirements if the FAA adjusts weight thresholds. Representative Hicks asked which agency would enforce violations that harm livestock; Moore said any law-enforcement agency with jurisdiction may investigate and prosecute and noted criminal intent must be shown for prosecution.

Two floor amendments were adopted. Amendment No. 1 — a committee report clarification — was adopted by voice. Amendment No. 2 refined operative provisions, aligned terminology with federal guidance and added 1,000‑foot no-fly protections over emergency response sites and the Capitol and Governor's Mansion complexes, among other technical clarifications; it also was adopted by voice.

After debate and the amendment votes, H.4679 received a roll-call second-reading vote of 108 to 0. Moore told members staff had indicated an effective date of January 1, 2027, to allow time for affected parties and agencies to come into compliance. The bill now proceeds through the remaining committee and legislative steps required for final passage.

Why this matters: supporters framed the bill as a public-safety measure that gives law enforcement tools to address weaponized or criminal drone use and clarifies permissible operations; critics and some members sought safeguards to avoid unintentionally criminalizing ordinary recreational or agricultural drone activity. The measure’s alignment with FAA rules and the adoption of targeted amendments were emphasized as ways to reduce conflict between state and federal authorities.

What’s next: H.4679 received second reading on April 14, 2026; further steps toward final passage will follow the chamber’s calendar and committee process.