Gun control, but for robots: Lawmakers want to make Mass. first state to ban outfitting drones with weapons
—
House Democrats are pushing the legislation as robots quickly become a common feature in everyday life: Drones buzz the skies for panoramic pictures. Mechanical dogs assist medical examiners in their work. Some restaurants have replaced call-takers with AI-powered automatons.
But the prospect of widespread robot use — and videos cropping up online showing some modified with attached guns — has generated concern in the robotics industry and among state lawmakers about its proliferation turning deadly.
Brendan Schulman, vice president of policy and government relations at Boston Dynamics, said the House bill creates a “common sense framework” for the responsible use of general-purpose robots.
Boston Dynamics and a handful of other robotics companies pledged four years ago not to add weapons to their automated or remotely controlled devices. But this would be the first time legislation specifically prohibited weaponizing robots, “and I think that’s super important,” Schulman said.
“Massachusetts leads the country and the world in robotics technology. We feel that Massachusetts should also lead in the governance structure for the responsible use of robotics,” he said.
Lawmakers are trying to put restrictions on robotic weaponization into state law just as Massachusetts is set to host multiple large-scale events this summer, from World Cup matches in Foxborough to the tall ships celebration in Boston Harbor.
State representative Michael Day, a Stoneham Democrat and the House chair of the judiciary committee, pointed to an incident in Phoenix where a teenager pleaded guilty to planning an attack on a pride parade using an explosive drone.
“Like all tech, it’s got the potential to have great advances for us, but it’s also got the potential to be abused,” Day said. “When you’re talking about weaponizing drones or other robotic devices, [there is] the potential for real tragedy.”
Massachusetts has one of the largest clusters of robotics companies in the world, including Amazon Robotics and Locus Robotics, according to the nonprofit, MassRobotics. The state also generates a fourth of all US robotics patents, the group said.
Tom Ryden, MassRobotic’s executive director, said there are “no real” rules against putting weapons on robots.
“That’s not what people should be doing with robots,” he said.
The legislation would ban people from manufacturing, modifying, selling, possessing, or operating a robot that is equipped or mounted with a weapon. That could include anything from a gun or an explosive device to “weaponized lasers” or chemical irritants.
Those convicted of breaking the law would face a state prison sentence up to five years. Those who “knowingly use” a robotic device to threaten to commit a crime or physically restrain someone could face up to 10 years in state prison under the proposal.
The measure includes a carve-out for the Massachusetts National Guard, the US Department of Defense, and defense-industry contractors with a federal government contract.
The bill would put new restrictions on police, too. While they could use a weapon-mounted robot to, say, destroy or dispose of explosives, the bill would require law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before deploying a robot with a weapon onto private property or conducting surveillance or location tracking.
Representative Lindsay Sabadosa, a Northampton Democrat, said the bill effectively makes clear that law enforcement would need a warrant to use a weapon-mounted robot in any instance where a human police officer would also need one.
She said she’s seen law enforcement use robotic dogs to defuse tense moments like hostage situations or enter locations “that would be really dangerous for a human to enter.”
“But at the same time, we are making sure that if you’re going to do that, it’s the same guidelines as if you were sending in a police officer,” she said. “You still need to have a warrant … following due process.”
Banning weapons on robots has gotten support in the state Senate, where lawmakers passed a similar version in an economic development bill in 2024 before lawmakers dropped the measure during closed-door negotiations with the House.
State Senator Michael Moore, a Millbury Democrat, said nothing in state law is currently stopping someone from equipping a robot with a weapon such as flamethrower. He said he could envision some uses, such as a fire department deploying one in a wildfire because “there’s ways of extinguishing fires by using fire.”
But, generally speaking, he said “who would actually need any sort of robotic device that had some sort of weaponry?”
Chris Van Buskirk can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X @byChrisVan
