Should drones be allowed to carry weapons?

But then, a college student in Clinton attached a handgun to his drone and remotely fired a few shots for a video that went viral. At Thanksgiving, he attached a flamethrower to the drone and cooked his turkey with it in another viral video.

Those videos sparked a renewed interest in making sure it’s illegal in the state for civilians and police to attach weapons to drones, in a law that could set out a path for other states around the country.

Last week, the state legislature’s Program Review and Investigations Committee approved a measure making it illegal to carry guns, incendiary devices, tear gas or other weapons on drones. The legislature’s Public Safety Committee approved the full bill, which sets out rules for how drones can be used by the public and by police.

“Legislators and nonprofits really put a lot of time and thought into this,” said David McGuire, legislative and policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.

“This bill does strike the right balance. It touches on most of the important aspects that are in play right now.”

For law enforcement officers, the question of whether drones could be weaponized hadn’t been addressed before the videos went viral. But, for one Connecticut cop, the videos put the issue into perspective.

Sgt. Jeremiah Dunn of the Clinton Police Department said he supports the Second Amendment, but it shouldn’t be used to put guns on drones.

“I see no possible reason whatsoever that a remotely operated firearm attached to a flying machine serves any lawful purpose in everyday civilian life/use,” he said in testimony to the legislature. “The possibilities of malfunction and the ‘what could go wrongs’ and the obvious dangers are too lengthy to list here.”

Rep. Mary Mushinsky, a Democrat, said the committee commissioned a study in 2014 that predicted a civilian might try to modify a drone to carry a firearm.

Austin Haughwout ended up proving the committee right. According to local media reports, Haughwout is the mechanical engineering student who outfitted his drone with a handgun and flamethrower.

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating whether he broke any laws, but the town police and prosecutor didn’t find he committed a crime.

That would change under Mushinsky’s bill, which would make Haughwout guilty of a felony punishable by one to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 if he tried his experiments again.

Haughwout’s father, Bret, said the legislation isn’t needed.

“This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist,” he told the Hartford Courant.

McGuire disagreed and said state lawmakers have to make some decisions on the way drones will be used.

He compared drone technology to personal computers in the 1980s and early 1990s, and he believes regulations need to be in place to make sure they’re used responsibly.

“We feel that [drones] have a chance to not only change our society, but really infringe on people’s property rights in an unprecedented way,” he said.

In addition to those concerns, the videos bothered enough state lawmakers in a state that still has fresh memories of the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012.

Rep. Gayle Mulligan, a Republican, said her support was sparked by the videos. While she likes the new technology that is being developed, she said some regulation was needed after viewing the video.

“As a mother and a state representative, I cannot emphasize enough the concern I felt for the safety of Connecticut’s citizens when I saw this footage,” she said.

The committee also decided to make it illegal for police to weaponize drones. Mushinsky said police will be allowed to use computer software to control drones and bomb squads will be able to use them to detect, detonate and dispose of explosives.

That decision would follow other states that have banned police from putting weapons on drones.

The bill also provides protections for civilian privacy from police using drones by requiring law enforcement to get a warrant to do surveillance from a drone.