Article content continued

The “Flying Gun” video, posted last summer by Central Connecticut State University student Austin Haughwout, drew the attention of the FAA as well. No charges have been filed but the FAA said last week it was still investigating.

Dunn said his department was instructed by the local state’s attorney’s office that no Connecticut laws appear to have been violated in the first video and that the incident occurred on wooded private property, where a firearm could be legally discharged. Dunn said no local ordinances were violated, either.

The teen’s father contends a new state law is unnecessary, arguing that his son did nothing wrong.

“This is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist,” said Bret Haughwout.

Since that first video, Austin Haughwout posted a second one on YouTube in November of a drone he outfitted with a flamethrower to “cook” a turkey on a spit in the woods. Bret Haughwout said his son, a sophomore studying mechanical engineering, hasn’t hurt anyone with his drones and is just a hobbyist interested in how machines work.

He said the drone that fired a handgun was “not at all an effective weapon” and “couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.”

Last year, Connecticut lawmakers considered a proposal on weaponized drones and other restrictions, but it died in the state House of Representatives due to inaction, weeks before Haughwout’s first video went online.

“Clearly what happened in Connecticut renewed our interest,” said Rep. Christie Carpino, R-Cromwell, co-chair of the General Assembly’s Program Review and Investigations Committee. Her panel conducted a comprehensive study of the drone issue in 2014 and proposed wide-ranging legislation last year and “many members of the committee were disappointed it didn’t make to the House floor last year,” Carpino said.