Austin Haughwout racked up over 4 million YouTube views for his video posts of a homebuilt drone with a gun attached, and another with a flame thrower. The videos caused him to be expelled from Central Connecticut State University.
In November 2015, the FAA sent Haughwout and his father an administrative subpoena, seeking records of their parts purchases for the drone, as well as documentation of money that they made off a YouTube video titled "Flying Gun,” displaying a pistol attached to a drone.
Haughwout claimed that since the FAA did not accuse him of a crime or violation, he was not obligated to comply with their request. The family posted a second video, featuring a flamethrower attached to a drone, which was roasting a turkey.
In February, the FAA subpoenaed the Haughwouts, and the family again declined to cooperate. The agency then took them to federal court requesting that a judge enforce their demands.
“The respondents’ use of a UAS falls within the scope of the FAA’s authority as set forth in the plain language of the above statutory and regulatory scheme. Specifically, the UAS shown in the respondents’ videos is an "aircraft" because, even though it is unmanned, it is a contrivance/device that is invented, used, or designed to fly in the air,” John W. Larson, an assistant United States attorney, said.
“At the time the FAA organic statute was created, drones were the stuff of science fiction," Haughwout’s lawyer, Mario Cerame, wrote in an opening brief for the lawsuit. "The statute did not contemplate their existence. Rather, the statute was directed at airplanes, helicopters, and blimps, and the resources on the ground to support them."
The FAA, with ball in their court, is contemplating its next move.
