Existing law makes it a crime to possess a destructive device. Existing law makes it a felony to possess material with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive without obtaining a permit to do so.

This bill would prohibit a person from manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device, as defined, that is equipped or mounted with a weapon, as specified. The bill would make a violation punishable by a fine of at least $100 but not more than $2,000. The bill would exclude certain entities from these provisions, including, among other entities, a defense industrial company, as defined, with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of a contract the company has or is seeking with the United States Department of Defense, or a person building a robot for participation in a bonafide robot competition, as described. By creating a new infraction, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it a crime to possess a destructive device. Existing law makes it a felony to possess material with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive without obtaining a permit to do so.

This bill would prohibit a person from manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device, as defined, that is equipped or mounted with a weapon, as specified. The bill would make a violation punishable by a fine of at least $100 but not more than $2,000. The bill would exclude certain entities from these provisions, including, among other entities, a defense industrial company, as defined, with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of a contract the company has or is seeking with a governmental entity, the United States Department of Defense, or a person building a robot for participation in a bonafide robot competition, as described. By creating a new infraction, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it a crime to possess a destructive device. Existing law makes it a felony to possess material with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive without obtaining a permit to do so.

This bill would prohibit a person from knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device, as defined, that is equipped or mounted with a weapon, as specified. The bill would make a violation punishable by a fine of at least $100 but not more than $2,000. The bill would exclude certain entities from these provisions, including, among other entities, a defense industrial company, as defined, with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of a contract the company has or is seeking with the United States Department of Defense, a governmental entity, or a person building a robot for participation in a bonafide robot competition, as described. By creating a new infraction, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it a crime to possess a destructive device. Existing law makes it a felony to possess material with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive without obtaining a permit to do so.

This bill would prohibit a person from knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device, as defined, that is equipped or mounted with a weapon, as specified. The bill would make a violation punishable by a fine of at least $100 but not more than $2,000. The bill would exclude certain entities from these provisions, including, among other entities, a defense industrial company, as defined, with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of a contract the company has or is seeking with the United States Department of Defense, or a person building a robot for participation in a bonafide robot competition, as described. By creating a new infraction, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it a crime to possess a destructive device. Existing law makes it a felony to possess material with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive without obtaining a permit to do so.

This bill would prohibit a person from knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device, as defined, that is equipped or mounted with a weapon, as specified. The bill would make a violation punishable by a fine of at least $1,000 $100 but not more than $5,000. $2,000. The bill would exclude certain entities from these provisions, including, among other entities, a defense industrial company, as defined, with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of its a contract the company has or is seeking with the United States Department of Defense. Defense, or a person building a robot for participation in a bonafide robot competition, as described. By creating a new infraction, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it a crime to possess a destructive device. Existing law makes it a felony to possess material with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive without obtaining a permit to do so.

This bill would prohibit a person from knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device or unmanned aircraft device, as defined, that is equipped or mounted with a weapon, as specified. The bill would make a violation punishable by a fine of at least $5,000 $1,000 but not more than $25,000. $5,000. The bill would exclude certain entities from these provisions provisions, including, among other entities, a defense industrial company that obtains a waiver from the Department of Justice, as specified. company, as defined, with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of its contract with the United States Department of Defense. By creating a new infraction, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it a crime to possess a destructive device. Existing law makes it a felony to possess material with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive without obtaining a permit to do so.

This bill would prohibit a person from knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device or unmanned aircraft that is equipped or mounted with a weapon, as specified. The bill would make a violation punishable by a fine of at least $5,000 but not more than $25,000. The bill would exclude certain entities from these provisions including, among other entities, a defense industrial company that obtains a waiver from the Department of Justice, as specified. By creating a new infraction, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 2681

Author:(Weber)

As Enrolled Ver:August 31, 2024

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon, except as specified.

Senate Amendments

1. Reduce the infraction for manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a weaponized robotic device from $1,000 to $5,000, to $100 to $2,000.
2. Provide that the prohibition also does not apply to the manufacture, transportation, possession, sale, or rental of flank-firing weapons and the weapon's respective attachments, to persons authorized or permitted to acquire and possess these weapons or attachments for use solely as props for a motion picture, television, or digital video production or entertainment event; or to academic research at an institution of higher learning located in California.
3. Provide that the weaponized robotic device prohibition also does not apply to a nonautonomous robotic device designed and built specifically for the purpose of participating in a robot competition and equipped with weapons, other than firearms, typically used for that purpose.
4. Define "robot competition" as an event or instruction organized and supervised by an education institution, summer camp, sport league, television or film entertainment company, or similar organization, and as to which reasonable safety precautions have been taken to protect participants, event staff, and spectators.
5. Clarify that, for the purpose of the definition of "weapon," the device must be specifically designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or great bodily injury, as opposed to just physical injury.
6. Add "flamethrowers" to the definition of "weapon" for the purpose of the prohibition on weaponized robotic devices.
7. Expand the definition of "defense industrial company" to include an entity that demonstrably intends to seek a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device.
8. Make technical and conforming amendments.

Governor's Veto Message

This bill would make it an infraction to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon.

I support the author's intent to prohibit the weaponization of an emerging technology and place common sense restrictions on potentially dangerous devices. However, this bill would also prohibit beneficial law enforcement agencies of such devices. For example, when confronted with armed and barricaded suspects, law enforcement agencies sometimes use remotely operated robots to deploy less-lethal force to drive these suspects into the open or protect officers from dangerous suspects.

COMMENTS

As Passed by The Assembly, this bill:

1. Provided that a person who knowingly manufactures, modifies, sells, transfers, or operates a robotic device must pay a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.
2. Exempted from the prohibition on weaponized robotic devices:
   1. A defense industrial company with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of its contract with the United States Department of Defense;
   2. A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device; and,
   3. The United States Department of Defense, and any of its departments, agencies, or units.
3. Provided that government officials are not prohibited from, when acting in the public performance of their duties, operating a weaponized robotic device or one equipped with an disrupter technology when used to dispose of explosives or suspected explosives or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.
4. Defined "robotic device" as a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles and unmanned aircraft.
5. Defined "weapon" as a device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or physical injury to a person, including, but not limited to, stun guns, firearms, machine guns, chemical agents or irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, weaponized lasers, and explosive devices.
6. Defined "defense industrial company" as a company that has a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture, develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device, and includes any employees or agents authorized by that defense industrial company to engage in activities relating to such a contract on its behalf.

According to the Author

"California leads the nation in ground breaking policy when it comes to the environment, labor, public safety, consumer protections, and technology. The proliferation of cheap drones and advanced robotics has made it easier than ever to weaponize these devices. Within the last several years there have been viral videos with weaponized robots and drones utilizing firearms to shoot at targets and dropping training grenades on willing participants. These types of videos may give individuals the idea that it is okay to arm their drones or robot. We must alert the public that it is not allowed in California to arm these devices. The imagery of armed robots walking the streets of California is damaging to the goals of many robotics companies. These devices are being designed and built to assist us. They are not being designed to harm us. It is again time for California to lead the nation and establish a prohibition of weaponized robots and drones."

Arguments in Support

According to the Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, "Assembly Bill 2681 is a strong measure, promoting public acceptance and protecting public safety, while encouraging the safe use of advanced robotics by preserving the proper carveouts for very specific communities in the DoD and law enforcement, allowing for precise missions for national defense and public safety.

"We have built our advocacy work around industry consensus based educational campaigns and common-sense legislation and we have had great engagement with Stakeholders on this language. We are working closely with manufacturers and users of both ground robots and drones around the country.

"When we envision large scale commercial and civil adoption of drones and robots, weapons are not a part of that picture outside of a limited scope of companies, users, and use cases. We and our members regularly work with the Department of Defense and our service members to provide them with specialized technologies to keep them and others safe. Given this experience, we uniquely understand the varying needs these technologies serve, as well as the need to appropriately establish guard rails and guidelines for their responsible use. By working together as a group, California can pave the way towards safe adoption of these lifesaving technologies to protect citizens and structures in the State."

Arguments in Opposition

The California Police Chiefs Association states:

AB 2681 prohibits the use of a "mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement" from delivering a device designed to cause "incapacitation." As such, it applies to all drones, remote controlled devices, and other emerging robotic technology. It would then prohibit the use of such technology to deploy less-lethal force such as flash bangs or other disruptors meant to protect officers from dangerous and armed suspects.

In the unfortunate situation where a shooter, who has already committed violence, is barricaded but still armed with a firearm, AB 2681 contemplates requiring officers to expose themselves to gunfire and life-threatening situations to deploy a less-lethal disruption, rather than utilize remote controlled technology to safely bring a dangerous situation to an end. In this scenario, needlessly restricting the use of life saving technology is unacceptable.

Amendments taken on August 19, 2024 removed law enforcement from the bill after months of discussions with the sponsor, only to have those amendments reversed days later. As such, the coalition formed must adamantly oppose AB 2681.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "No significant state costs."

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 11-0-0

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Joe Patterson, Bryan, Dixon, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, Ortega, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Friedman, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Alvarez, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Vince Fong, Gipson, Irwin, Mathis

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Archuleta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-0-18

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Bains, Cervantes, Chen, Davies, Dixon, Gallagher, Grayson, Hoover, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Ramos, Rodriguez, Schiavo, Ta, Waldron, Wallis

UPDATED

VERSION: August 31, 2024

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0005088

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2681

Author:(Weber)

As Amended Ver:August 23, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon, except as specified.

Senate Amendments

1. Reduce the infraction for manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a weaponized robotic device from $1,000 to $5,000, to $100 to $2,000.
2. Provide that the prohibition also does not apply to the manufacture, transportation, possession, sale, or rental of flank-firing weapons and the weapon's respective attachments, to persons authorized or permitted to acquire and possess these weapons or attachments for use solely as props for a motion picture, television, or digital video production or entertainment event; or to academic research at an institution of higher learning located in California.
3. Provide that the weaponized robotic device prohibition also does not apply to a nonautonomous robotic device designed and built specifically for the purpose of participating in a robot competition and equipped with weapons, other than firearms, typically used for that purpose.
4. Define "robot competition" as an event or instruction organized and supervised by an education institution, summer camp, sport league, television or film entertainment company, or similar organization, and as to which reasonable safety precautions have been taken to protect participants, event staff, and spectators.
5. Clarify that, for the purpose of the definition of "weapon," the device must be specifically designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or great bodily injury, as opposed to just physical injury.
6. Add "flamethrowers" to the definition of "weapon" for the purpose of the prohibition on weaponized robotic devices.
7. Expand the definition of "defense industrial company" to include an entity that demonstrably intends to seek a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device.
8. Make technical and conforming amendments.

COMMENTS

As Passed by The Assembly, this bill:

1. Provided that a person who knowingly manufactures, modifies, sells, transfers, or operates a robotic device must pay a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.
2. Exempted from the prohibition on weaponized robotic devices:
   1. A defense industrial company with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of its contract with the United States Department of Defense;
   2. A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device; and,
   3. The United States Department of Defense, and any of its departments, agencies, or units.
3. Provided that government officials are not prohibited from, when acting in the public performance of their duties, operating a weaponized robotic device or one equipped with an disrupter technology when used to dispose of explosives or suspected explosives or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.
4. Defined "robotic device" as a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles and unmanned aircraft.
5. Defined "weapon" as a device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or physical injury to a person, including, but not limited to, stun guns, firearms, machine guns, chemical agents or irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, weaponized lasers, and explosive devices.
6. Defined "defense industrial company" as a company that has a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture, develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device, and includes any employees or agents authorized by that defense industrial company to engage in activities relating to such a contract on its behalf.

According to the Author

"California leads the nation in ground breaking policy when it comes to the environment, labor, public safety, consumer protections, and technology. The proliferation of cheap drones and advanced robotics has made it easier than ever to weaponize these devices. Within the last several years there have been viral videos with weaponized robots and drones utilizing firearms to shoot at targets and dropping training grenades on willing participants. These types of videos may give individuals the idea that it is okay to arm their drones or robot. We must alert the public that it is not allowed in California to arm these devices. The imagery of armed robots walking the streets of California is damaging to the goals of many robotics companies. These devices are being designed and built to assist us. They are not being designed to harm us. It is again time for California to lead the nation and establish a prohibition of weaponized robots and drones."

Arguments in Support

According to the Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, "Assembly Bill 2681 is a strong measure, promoting public acceptance and protecting public safety, while encouraging the safe use of advanced robotics by preserving the proper carveouts for very specific communities in the DoD and law enforcement, allowing for precise missions for national defense and public safety.

"We have built our advocacy work around industry consensus based educational campaigns and common-sense legislation and we have had great engagement with Stakeholders on this language. We are working closely with manufacturers and users of both ground robots and drones around the country.

"When we envision large scale commercial and civil adoption of drones and robots, weapons are not a part of that picture outside of a limited scope of companies, users, and use cases. We and our members regularly work with the Department of Defense and our service members to provide them with specialized technologies to keep them and others safe. Given this experience, we uniquely understand the varying needs these technologies serve, as well as the need to appropriately establish guard rails and guidelines for their responsible use. By working together as a group, California can pave the way towards safe adoption of these lifesaving technologies to protect citizens and structures in the State."

Arguments in Opposition

The California Police Chiefs Association states:

AB 2681 prohibits the use of a “mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement” from delivering a device designed to cause “incapacitation.” As such, it applies to all drones, remote controlled devices, and other emerging robotic technology. It would then prohibit the use of such technology to deploy less-lethal force such as flash bangs or other disruptors meant to protect officers from dangerous and armed suspects.

In the unfortunate situation where a shooter, who has already committed violence, is barricaded but still armed with a firearm, AB 2681 contemplates requiring officers to expose themselves to gunfire and life-threatening situations to deploy a less-lethal disruption, rather than utilize remote controlled technology to safely bring a dangerous situation to an end. In this scenario, needlessly restricting the use of life saving technology is unacceptable.

Amendments taken on August 19, 2024 removed law enforcement from the bill after months of discussions with the sponsor, only to have those amendments reversed days later. As such, the coalition formed must adamantly oppose AB 2681.

FISCAL COMMENTS

…

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 11-0-0

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Joe Patterson, Bryan, Dixon, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, Ortega, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Friedman, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Alvarez, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Vince Fong, Gipson, Irwin, Mathis

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Archuleta

UPDATED

VERSION: August 23, 2024

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004876

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2681

Author: Weber (D)

Amended: 8/23/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/11/24

AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/16/24 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Weapons: robotic devices

SOURCE: Boston Dynamics

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits a person from manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device, as defined, equipped or mounted with a weapon, as defined, punishable as an infraction and subject to exceptions.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/23/24 remove the exemption for governmental entities and for defense industrial companies, as defined, with respect to robotic devices developed in order to fulfill or obtain a contract with any governmental entity, and instead exempt the Department of Defense, and robotic devices developed by defense industrial companies in order to fulfill or obtain a contract with that entity.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines “weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind” as “military equipment” requiring the approval a local governing body before law enforcement may seek, use, or acquire such equipment. (Government (Gov.) Code § 7070, subd. (c)(6), § 7071, subd. (a)(1))
2. Provides that a person who knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft system on or above the grounds of a state prison, a jail, or a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of $500. (Gov. Code § 4577, subd. (a))
3. Makes it a misdemeanor to use an unmanned aircraft system to look through a hole or opening into the interior of specified areas in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy with the intent to invade the privacy of a person inside. (Penal (Pen.) Code § 647, subd. (j)(1))
4. Provides that it is unlawful for any person to operate an unmanned aircraft system in pest control unless the pilot operating the unmanned aircraft system holds a valid manned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate or a valid unmanned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate issued by the director and is certified or otherwise authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate an unmanned aircraft system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct pest control. (Food and Agriculture Code § 11901, subd. (b))
5. Provides that the possession or knowing transport of a machine gun, except as specified, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years, by a fine of up to $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 32625, subd. (a))
6. Provides that intentionally converting a firearm into a machine gun, or selling or knowingly manufacturing a machine gun, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for four, six, or eight years. (Pen. Code § 32625, subd. (b))
7. Provides that possession of a destructive device is punishable by up to one year in county jail, by up to three years in state prison, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 18710, subd. (b))
8. Provides that a person who recklessly or maliciously possesses a destructive device or explosive in a public place or designated private places is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for two, four, or six years. (Pen. Code § 18715)
9. Provides that selling or knowingly transporting a destructive device is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for two, three, or four years. (Pen. Code § 18730)
10. Provides that a person who possesses, explodes, ignites, or attempts to explode or ignite any destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure, intimidate, or terrify any person, or with intent to wrongfully injure or destroy any property, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for a period of three, five, or seven years. (Pen. Code § 18740)

This bill:

1. Sets forth the following definitions for terms used therein:
   1. Defines “Defense industrial company” meaning an entity that has, is demonstrably seeking, or demonstrably intends to seek a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture, develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device, and includes any employees or agents authorized by that defense industrial company to engage in activities relating to such a contract on its behalf.
   2. Defines “Robotic device,” meaning a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.
   3. Defines “Weapon” meaning a device specifically designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or great bodily injury to a person, including, but not limited to, stun guns, firearms, machine guns, chemical agents or irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, weaponized lasers, flamethrowers, and explosive devices.
2. Makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon.
3. Provides that a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of at least $100 but not more than $2,000, which shall be imposed in addition to any other penalty imposed pursuant to any other law.
4. Provides that the prohibition above does not apply to any of the following:
   1. A defense industrial company with respect to either of the following:
      1. Robotic devices that are within the scope of an existing contract with the United States Department of Defense
      2. Robotic devices developed for the sole purpose of obtaining a contract with the United States Department of Defense, if the company has received a federal registration number with the federal System for Award Management, or similar registration under any successor federal system.
   2. A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device.
   3. The Department of Defense and any of its departments, agencies or units.
   4. A nonautonomous robotic device designed and built specifically for the purpose of participating in a robot competition and equipped with weapons typically used for that purpose.
      1. For the purpose of the above exemption, “robot competition” means an event or instruction organized and supervised by an educational institution, summer camp, sports league, television or film entertainment company, or similar organization, and as to which reasonable safety precautions have been taken to protect participants, event staff, and spectators.
      2. The above exemption does not allow the equipping or mounting of any firearm to a robotic device.
   5. The manufacture, transportation, possession, sale, or rental of blank-firing weapons and the weapon’s respective attachments, to persons authorized or permitted to acquire and possess these weapons or attachments for use solely as props for a motion picture, television, or digital video production or entertainment event.
   6. Academic research at an institution of higher learning located in California.
5. Provides that it shall not be a violation of this act for government officials, acting in the public performance of their duties, to operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon or disrupter technology, when used for the purpose of the disposal of explosives or suspected explosives, for development, evaluation, testing, education or training relating to the use of such technologies for the purpose of disposing of explosives or suspected explosives, or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.

Comments

According to the author, “California leads the nation in ground breaking policy when it comes to the environment, labor, public safety, consumer protections, and technology. The proliferation of cheap drones and advanced robotics has made it easier than ever to weaponize these devices. Within the last several years there have been viral videos with weaponized robots and drones utilizing firearms to shoot at targets and dropping training grenades on willing participants. These types of videos may give individuals the idea that it is okay to arm their drones or robot. We must alert the public that it is not allowed in California to arm these devices. The imagery of armed robots walking the streets of California is damaging to the goals of many robotics companies. These devices are being designed and built to assist us. They are not being designed to harm us. It is again time for California to lead the nation and establish a prohibition of weaponized robots and drones.”

In an attempt to address the issue identified above, the Author proposes this measure to criminalize the manufacture, modification, sale, transfer or operation of a robotic device, as defined, equipped or mounted with a weapon, which includes any device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation or physical injury to a person. This bill defines “robotic device” as a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.

This bill also includes several exemptions to its central prohibition, including for a defense industrial company, as defined, with regard to robots within the scope of an existing contract with the Department of Defense or developed for the purpose of obtaining such a contract; for a robotic device developer/manufacturer who is weaponizing robots only to develop technology intended to detect or mitigate unlawfully weaponized robots; for the Department of Defense; for weapons developed for the purpose of entertainment productions (tv, movies), as specified; for academic research at institutions of higher learning; and for robot competitions, as defined. In addition, this bill exempts “government officials,” such as police, operating a weaponized robot in the performance of their duties when used for the purpose of explosives disposal or property destruction where this is imminent, deadly threat to human life. Thus, under this bill, law enforcement would be subject to this infraction if they develop or use a weaponized robotic device in all other circumstances.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/23/24)

Boston Dynamics (source)

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

Dronedeploy

Oakland Privacy

Silicon Valley Robotics

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/23/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/16/24

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Alvarez, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Vince Fong, Gipson, Irwin, Mathis

Prepared by: Alex Barnett / PUB. S. /

8/25/24 13:35:42

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2681

Author: Weber (D)

Amended: 8/20/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/11/24

AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/16/24 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Weapons: robotic devices

SOURCE: Boston Dynamics

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits a person from manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device, as defined, equipped or mounted with a weapon, as defined, punishable as an infraction and subject to exceptions.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/24 expand the scope of existing exemptions and add new exemptions to the bill’s prohibition against manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring or operative a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines “weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind” as “military equipment” requiring the approval a local governing body before law enforcement may seek, use, or acquire such equipment. (Government (Gov.) Code § 7070, subd. (c)(6), § 7071, subd. (a)(1))
2. Provides that a person who knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft system on or above the grounds of a state prison, a jail, or a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of $500. (Gov. Code § 4577, subd. (a))
3. Makes it a misdemeanor to use an unmanned aircraft system to look through a hole or opening into the interior of specified areas in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy with the intent to invade the privacy of a person inside. (Penal (Pen.) Code § 647, subd. (j)(1))
4. Provides that it is unlawful for any person to operate an unmanned aircraft system in pest control unless the pilot operating the unmanned aircraft system holds a valid manned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate or a valid unmanned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate issued by the director and is certified or otherwise authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate an unmanned aircraft system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct pest control. (Food and Agriculture Code § 11901, subd. (b))
5. Provides that the possession or knowing transport of a machine gun, except as specified, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years, by a fine of up to $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 32625, subd. (a))
6. Provides that intentionally converting a firearm into a machine gun, or selling or knowingly manufacturing a machine gun, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for four, six, or eight years. (Pen. Code § 32625, subd. (b))
7. Provides that possession of a destructive device is punishable by up to one year in county jail, by up to three years in state prison, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 18710, subd. (b))
8. Provides that a person who recklessly or maliciously possesses a destructive device or explosive in a public place or designated private places is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for two, four, or six years. (Pen. Code § 18715)
9. Provides that selling or knowingly transporting a destructive device is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for two, three, or four years. (Pen. Code § 18730)
10. Provides that a person who possesses, explodes, ignites, or attempts to explode or ignite any destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure, intimidate, or terrify any person, or with intent to wrongfully injure or destroy any property, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for a period of three, five, or seven years. (Pen. Code § 18740)

This bill:

1. Sets forth the following definitions for terms used therein:
   1. Defines “Defense industrial company” meaning an entity that has, is demonstrably seeking, or demonstrably intends to seek a contract with a governmental entity to design, manufacture, develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device, and includes any employees or agents authorized by that defense industrial company to engage in activities relating to such a contract on its behalf.
   2. Defines “Robotic device,” meaning a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.
   3. Defines “Weapon” meaning a device specifically designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or great bodily injury to a person, including, but not limited to, stun guns, firearms, machine guns, chemical agents or irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, weaponized lasers, flamethrowers, and explosive devices.
2. Makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon.
3. Provides that a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of at least $100 but not more than $2,000, which shall be imposed in addition to any other penalty imposed pursuant to any other law.
4. Provides that the prohibition above does not apply to any of the following:
   1. A defense industrial company with respect to either of the following:
      1. Robotic devices that are within the scope of an existing contract with a governmental entity.
      2. Robotic devices developed for the sole purpose of obtaining a contract with a governmental entity.
   2. A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device.
   3. A governmental entity
   4. A nonautonomous robotic device designed and built specifically for the purpose of participating in a robot competition and equipped with weapons typically used for that purpose.
      1. For the purpose of the above exemption, “robot competition” means an event or instruction organized and supervised by an educational institution, summer camp, sports league, television or film entertainment company, or similar organization, and as to which reasonable safety precautions have been taken to protect participants, event staff, and spectators.
      2. The above exemption does not allow the equipping or mounting of any firearm to a robotic device.
   5. The manufacture, transportation, possession, sale, or rental of blank-firing weapons and the weapon’s respective attachments, to persons authorized or permitted to acquire and possess these weapons or attachments for use solely as props for a motion picture, television, or digital video production or entertainment event.
   6. Academic research at an institution of higher learning located in California.
5. Provides that it shall not be a violation of this act for government officials, acting in the public performance of their duties, to operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon or disrupter technology, when used for the purpose of the disposal of explosives or suspected explosives, for development, evaluation, testing, education or training relating to the use of such technologies for the purpose of disposing of explosives or suspected explosives, or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.

Comments

According to the author, “California leads the nation in ground breaking policy when it comes to the environment, labor, public safety, consumer protections, and technology. The proliferation of cheap drones and advanced robotics has made it easier than ever to weaponize these devices. Within the last several years there have been viral videos with weaponized robots and drones utilizing firearms to shoot at targets and dropping training grenades on willing participants. These types of videos may give individuals the idea that it is okay to arm their drones or robot. We must alert the public that it is not allowed in California to arm these devices. The imagery of armed robots walking the streets of California is damaging to the goals of many robotics companies. These devices are being designed and built to assist us. They are not being designed to harm us. It is again time for California to lead the nation and establish a prohibition of weaponized robots and drones.”

In an attempt to address the issue identified above, the Author proposes this measure to criminalize the manufacture, modification, sale, transfer or operation of a robotic device, as defined, equipped or mounted with a weapon, which includes any device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation or physical injury to a person. This bill defines “robotic device” as a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.

This bill also includes several exemptions to its central prohibition, including for a defense industrial company, as defined, with regard to robots within the scope of an existing contract with a governmental entity or developed for the purpose of obtaining such a contract; for a robotic device developer/manufacturer who is weaponizing robots only to develop technology intended to detect or mitigate unlawfully weaponized robots; for any governmental entity; for weapons developed for the purpose of entertainment productions (tv, movies), as specified; for academic research at institutions of higher learnsing; and for robot competitions, as defined. In addition, this bill exempts “government officials,” such as police, operating a weaponized robot in the performance of their duties when used for the purpose of explosives disposal or property destruction where this is imminent, deadly threat to human life. Thus, under this bill, law enforcement would be prohibited from deploying a weaponized robotic device in all other circumstances.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/24)

Boston Dynamics (source)

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

Dronedeploy

Oakland Privacy

Silicon Valley Robotics

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/16/24

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Alvarez, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Vince Fong, Gipson, Irwin, Mathis

Prepared by: Alex Barnett / PUB. S. /

8/21/24 16:12:31

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2681

Author: Weber (D)

Amended: 7/1/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/11/24

AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/16/24 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Weapons: robotic devices

SOURCE: Boston Dynamics

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits a person from knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device, as defined, equipped or mounted with a weapon, as defined, punishable as an infraction and subject to exceptions.

Senate Floor Amendments of 7/1/24 clarify that robots exempt from the operative prohibition in this bill for the purposes of robot competitions may not be equipped with firearms, consistent with the original intent of this bill.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines “weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind” as “military equipment” requiring the approval a local governing body before law enforcement may seek, use, or acquire such equipment. (Government (Gov.) Code § 7070, subd. (c)(6), § 7071, subd. (a)(1))
2. Provides that a person who knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft system on or above the grounds of a state prison, a jail, or a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of $500. (Gov. Code § 4577, subd. (a))
3. Makes it a misdemeanor to use an unmanned aircraft system to look through a hole or opening into the interior of specified areas in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy with the intent to invade the privacy of a person inside. (Penal (Pen.) Code § 647, subd. (j)(1))
4. Provides that it is unlawful for any person to operate an unmanned aircraft system in pest control unless the pilot operating the unmanned aircraft system holds a valid manned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate or a valid unmanned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate issued by the director and is certified or otherwise authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate an unmanned aircraft system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct pest control. (Food and Agriculture Code § 11901, subd. (b))
5. Provides that the possession or knowing transport of a machine gun, except as specified, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years, by a fine of up to $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 32625, subd. (a))
6. Provides that intentionally converting a firearm into a machine gun, or selling or knowingly manufacturing a machine gun, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for four, six, or eight years. (Pen. Code § 32625, subd. (b))
7. Provides that possession of a destructive device is punishable by up to one year in county jail, by up to three years in state prison, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 18710, subd. (b))
8. Provides that a person who recklessly or maliciously possesses a destructive device or explosive in a public place or designated private places is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for two, four, or six years. (Pen. Code § 18715)
9. Provides that selling or knowingly transporting a destructive device is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for two, three, or four years. (Pen. Code § 18730)
10. Provides that a person who possesses, explodes, ignites, or attempts to explode or ignite any destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure, intimidate, or terrify any person, or with intent to wrongfully injure or destroy any property, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for a period of three, five, or seven years. (Pen. Code § 18740)

This bill:

1. Sets forth the following definitions for terms used therein:
   1. Defines “Defense industrial company” meaning a company that has or is demonstrably seeking a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture, develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device, and includes any employees or agents authorized by that defense industrial company to engage in activities relating to such a contract on its behalf.
   2. Defines “Robotic device,” meaning a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.
   3. Defines “Weapon” meaning a device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or physical injury to a person, including, but not limited to, stun guns, firearms, machine guns, chemical agents or irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, weaponized lasers, flamethrowers, and explosive devices.
2. Makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon.
3. Provides that a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of at least $100 but not more than $2,000, which shall be imposed in addition to any other penalty imposed pursuant to any other law.
4. Provides that the prohibition above does not apply to any of the following:
   1. A defense industrial company with respect to either of the following:
      1. Robotic devices that are within the scope of an existing contract with the United States Department of Defense.
      2. Robotic devices developed for the sole purpose of obtaining a contract with the United States Department of Defense, if the company has received a federal registration number with the federal System for Award Management, or similar registration under any successor federal system.
   2. A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device.
   3. The United States Department of Defense, and any of its departments, agencies, or units.
   4. A nonautonomous robotic device designed and built specifically for the purpose of participating in a robot competition and equipped with weapons typically used for that purpose.
      1. For the purpose of the above exemption, “robot competition” means an event organized and supervised by an educational institution, sports league, television or film entertainment company, or similar organization, and as to which reasonable safety precautions have been taken to protect participants, event staff, and spectators.
      2. The above exemption does not allow the equipping or mounting of any firearm to a robotic device.
5. Provides that it shall not be a violation of this act for government officials, acting in the public performance of their duties, to operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon or disrupter technology, when used for the purpose of the disposal of explosives or suspected explosives, for development, evaluation, testing, education or training relating to the use of such technologies for the purpose of disposing of explosives or suspected explosives, or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.

Comments

According to the Author, “California leads the nation in ground breaking policy when it comes to the environment, labor, public safety, consumer protections, and technology. The proliferation of cheap drones and advanced robotics has made it easier than ever to weaponize these devices. Within the last several years there have been viral videos with weaponized robots and drones utilizing firearms to shoot at targets and dropping training grenades on willing participants. These types of videos may give individuals the idea that it is okay to arm their drones or robot. We must alert the public that it is not allowed in California to arm these devices. The imagery of armed robots walking the streets of California is damaging to the goals of many robotics companies. These devices are being designed and built to assist us. They are not being designed to harm us. It is again time for California to lead the nation and establish a prohibition of weaponized robots and drones.”

In an attempt to address the issue identified above, the Author proposes this measure to criminalize the manufacture, modification, sale, transfer or operation of a robotic device, as defined, equipped or mounted with a weapon, which includes any device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation or physical injury to a person. This bill defines “robotic device” as a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.

This bill also includes several exemptions to its central prohibition, including for a defense industrial company, as defined, with regard to robots within the scope of an existing contract with the federal Department of Defense or developed for the purpose of obtaining such a contract; for a robotic device developer/manufacturer who is weaponizing robots only to develop technology intended to detect or mitigate unlawfully weaponized robots; for the United States Department of Defense and its subordinate agencies; and for robot competitions, as defined. In addition, this bill exempts “government officials,” such as police, operating a weaponized robot in the performance of their duties when used for the purpose of explosives disposal or property destruction where this is imminent, deadly threat to human life. Thus, under this bill, law enforcement would be prohibited from deploying a weaponized robotic device in all other circumstances.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/1/24)

Boston Dynamics (source)

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

Dronedeploy

Oakland Privacy

Silicon Valley Robotics

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/1/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/16/24

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Alvarez, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Vince Fong, Gipson, Irwin, Mathis

Prepared by: Alex Barnett / PUB. S. /

7/2/24 15:16:45

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2681

Author: Weber (D)

Amended: 6/13/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/11/24

AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/16/24 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Weapons: robotic devices

SOURCE: Boston Dynamics

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits a person from knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device, as defined, equipped or mounted with a weapon, as defined, punishable as an infraction and subject to exceptions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines “weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind” as “military equipment” requiring the approval a local governing body before law enforcement may seek, use, or acquire such equipment. (Government (Gov.) Code §§ 7070, subd. (c)(6), & 7071, subd. (a)(1))
2. Provides that a person who knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft system on or above the grounds of a state prison, a jail, or a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of $500. (Gov. Code § 4577, subd. (a))
3. Makes it a misdemeanor to use an unmanned aircraft system to look through a hole or opening into the interior of specified areas in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy with the intent to invade the privacy of a person inside. (Penal (Pen.) Code § 647, subd. (j)(1))
4. Provides that it is unlawful for any person to operate an unmanned aircraft system in pest control unless the pilot operating the unmanned aircraft system holds a valid manned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate or a valid unmanned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate issued by the director and is certified or otherwise authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate an unmanned aircraft system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct pest control. (Food and Agriculture Code § 11901, subd. (b))
5. Provides that the possession or knowing transport of a machine gun, except as specified, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years, by a fine of up to $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 32625, subd. (a))
6. Provides that intentionally converting a firearm into a machine gun, or selling or knowingly manufacturing a machine gun, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for four, six, or eight years. (Pen. Code § 32625, subd. (b))
7. Provides that possession of a destructive device is punishable by up to one year in county jail, by up to three years in state prison, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 18710, subd. (b))
8. Provides that a person who recklessly or maliciously possesses a destructive device or explosive in a public place or designated private places is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for two, four, or six years. (Pen. Code § 18715)
9. Provides that selling or knowingly transporting a destructive device is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for two, three, or four years. (Pen. Code § 18730)
10. Provides that a person who possesses, explodes, ignites, or attempts to explode or ignite any destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure, intimidate, or terrify any person, or with intent to wrongfully injure or destroy any property, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for a period of three, five, or seven years. (Pen. Code § 18740)

This bill:

1. Sets forth the following definitions for terms used therein:
   1. Defines “Defense industrial company” meaning a company that has or is demonstrably seeking a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture, develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device, and includes any employees or agents authorized by that defense industrial company to engage in activities relating to such a contract on its behalf.
   2. Defines “Robotic device,” meaning a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.
   3. Defines “Weapon” meaning a device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or physical injury to a person, including, but not limited to, stun guns, firearms, machine guns, chemical agents or irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, weaponized lasers, flamethrowers, and explosive devices.
2. Makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon.
3. Provides that a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of at least $100 but not more than $2,000, which shall be imposed in addition to any other penalty imposed pursuant to any other law.
4. Provides that the prohibition above does not apply to any of the following:
   1. A defense industrial company with respect to either of the following:
      1. Robotic devices that are within the scope of an existing contract with the United States Department of Defense.
      2. Robotic devices developed for the sole purpose of obtaining a contract with the United States Department of Defense, if the company has received a federal registration number with the federal System for Award Management, or similar registration under any successor federal system.
   2. A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device.
   3. The United States Department of Defense, and any of its departments, agencies, or units.
   4. A nonautonomous robotic device designed and built specifically for the purpose of participating in a robot competition and equipped with weapons typically used for that purpose.
      1. For the purpose of the above exemption, “robot competition” means an event organized and supervised by an educational institution, sports league, television or film entertainment company, or similar organization, and as to which reasonable safety precautions have been taken to protect participants, event staff, and spectators.
      2. The above exemption does not allow the equipping or mounting of any firearm to a robotic device.
5. Provides that it shall not be a violation of this act for government officials, acting in the public performance of their duties, to operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon or disrupter technology, when used for the purpose of the disposal of explosives or suspected explosives, for development, evaluation, testing, education or training relating to the use of such technologies for the purpose of disposing of explosives or suspected explosives, or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.

Comments

According to the Author, “California leads the nation in ground breaking policy when it comes to the environment, labor, public safety, consumer protections, and technology. The proliferation of cheap drones and advanced robotics has made it easier than ever to weaponize these devices. Within the last several years there have been viral videos with weaponized robots and drones utilizing firearms to shoot at targets and dropping training grenades on willing participants. These types of videos may give individuals the idea that it is okay to arm their drones or robot. We must alert the public that it is not allowed in California to arm these devices. The imagery of armed robots walking the streets of California is damaging to the goals of many robotics companies. These devices are being designed and built to assist us. They are not being designed to harm us. It is again time for California to lead the nation and establish a prohibition of weaponized robots and drones.”

In an attempt to address the issue identified above, the Author proposes this measure to criminalize the manufacture, modification, sale, transfer or operation of a robotic device, as defined, equipped or mounted with a weapon, which includes any device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation or physical injury to a person. This bill defines “robotic device” as a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.

This bill also includes several exemptions to its central prohibition, including for a defense industrial company, as defined, with regard to robots within the scope of an existing contract with the federal Department of Defense or developed for the purpose of obtaining such a contract; for a robotic device developer/manufacturer who is weaponizing robots only to develop technology intended to detect or mitigate unlawfully weaponized robots; for the United States Department of Defense and its subordinate agencies; and for robot competitions, as defined. In addition, this bill exempts “government officials,” such as police, operating a weaponized robot in the performance of their duties when used for the purpose of explosives disposal or property destruction where this is imminent, deadly threat to human life. Thus, under this bill, law enforcement would be prohibited from deploying a weaponized robotic device in all other circumstances.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/21/24)

Boston Dynamics (source)

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International

Dronedeploy

Oakland Privacy

Silicon Valley Robotics

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/21/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/16/24

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Alvarez, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Vince Fong, Gipson, Irwin, Mathis

Prepared by: Alex Barnett / PUB. S. /

6/25/24 13:11:36

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2681 Hearing Date: June 11, 2024

Subject: Weapons: robotic devices

HISTORY

Source: Boston Dynamics

Prior Legislation: AB 79 (Weber, 2023), not heard in Assembly Public Safety

AB 48 (Gonzalez, Ch. 404, Stats. of 2021)

AB 392 (S. Weber, Ch. 170, Stats. of 2019)

SB 807 (Gaines, Ch. 834, Stats. of 2016)

Support: Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International; Dronedeploy;

Oakland Privacy; Silicon Valley Robotics

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 71 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit a person from knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring or operating a robotic device that is equipped or mounted with a weapon, with limited exceptions.

Existing law defines “weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind” as “military equipment” requiring the approval a local governing body before law enforcement may seek, use, or acquire such equipment. (Gov. Code, §§ 7070, subd. (c)(6), & 7071, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law provides that a person who knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft system on or above the grounds of a state prison, a jail, or a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of $500. (Gov. Code, § 4577, subd. (a).)

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to use an unmanned aircraft system to look through a hole or opening into the interior of specified areas in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy with the intent to invade the privacy of a person inside. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (j)(1).)

Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person to operate an unmanned aircraft system in pest control unless the pilot operating the unmanned aircraft system holds a valid manned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate or a valid unmanned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate issued by the director and is certified or otherwise authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate an unmanned aircraft system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct pest control. (Food & Agr., § 11901, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides that the possession or knowing transport of a machine gun, except as specified, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years, by a fine of up to $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 32625, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that intentionally converting a firearm into a machine gun, or selling or knowingly manufacturing a machine gun, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 4, 6, or 8 years. (Pen. Code, § 32625, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides that possession of a destructive device is punishable by up to one year in county jail, by up to three years in state prison, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 18710, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides that a person who recklessly or maliciously possesses a destructive device or explosive in a public place or designated private places is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 2, 4, or 6 years. (Pen. Code, § 18715.)

Existing law provides that selling or knowingly transporting a destructive device is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 2, 3, or 4 years. (Pen. Code, § 18730.)

Existing law provides that a person who possesses, explodes, ignites, or attempts to explode or ignite any destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure, intimidate, or terrify any person, or with intent to wrongfully injure or destroy any property, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for a period of 3, 5, or 7 years. (Pen. Code, § 18740.)

Existing law defines “destructive device” to include, among other things, a bomb, grenade or explosive missile; a weapon of a caliber greater than 0.60 caliber which fires fixed ammunition, other than a shotgun, as specified; a rocket or rocket-propelled projectile, as specified; and a breakable container that a flammable liquid with a flashpoint of 150 degrees Fahrenheit or less with a wick capable of being ignited. (Pen. Code, § 16460, subd. (a).)

Existing law defines “machinegun” as a weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can readily be restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of a trigger; the frame or receiver of any weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of a person; or any weapon deemed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as readily convertible to a machinegun, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 16880.)

This bill sets forth the following definitions for terms used therein:

• “Defense industrial company” means a company that has a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture, develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device, and includes any employees or agents authorized by that defense industrial company to engage in activities relating to such a contract on its behalf.
• “Robotic device,” means a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.
• “Weapon” means a device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or physical injury to a person, including, but not limited to, stun guns, firearms, machine guns, chemical agents or irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, weaponized lasers, and explosive devices.

This bill makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon.

This bill provides that a person who knowingly violates this section shall be required to pay a fine of at least $1,000 but not more than $5,000, which shall be imposed in addition to any other penalty imposed pursuant to any other law.

This bill provides that the prohibition above does not apply to any of the following:

• A defense industrial company with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of its contract with the United States Department of Defense.
• A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device.
• The United States Department of Defense, and any of its departments, agencies, or units.

This bill provides that it shall not be a violation of its provisions for government officials, acting in the public performance of their duties, to operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon or disrupter technology, when used for the purpose of the disposal of explosives or suspected explosives, for development, evaluation, testing, education or training relating to the use of such technologies for the purpose of disposing of explosives or suspected explosives, or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the Author:

California leads the nation in ground breaking policy when it comes to the environment, labor, public safety, consumer protections, and technology. The proliferation of cheap drones and advanced robotics has made it easier than ever to weaponize these devices. Within the last several years there have been viral videos with weaponized robots and drones utilizing firearms to shoot at targets and dropping training grenades on willing participants. These types of videos may give individuals the idea that it is okay to arm their drones or robot. We must alert the public that it is not allowed in California to arm these devices. The imagery of armed robots walking the streets of California is damaging to the goals of many robotics companies. These devices are being designed and built to assist us. They are not being designed to harm us. It is again time for California to lead the nation and establish a prohibition of weaponized robots and drones.

1. The Use of Armed Robots

The advancement of robotics technology over the past several decades has seen a contemporaneous growth in the use of armed robots, primarily in official law enforcement and military contexts that pose high risk to human actors. For instance, the 21^st Century has seen the rise of “unmanned aerial vehicles,” or UAVs, which, in a military setting, can operate with various levels of autonomy at long ranges and are used for intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, target acquisition, and striking targets with a range of different ordinance types. The expansion of United States military involvement in the Middle East beginning in the early 2000s saw an increase in drone strikes on enemy targets across the region, and public debates back in this country about the collateral damage they caused, which continue today.^[1] More recently, military conflicts (such as those in Ukraine and the Middle East) have involved the use of smaller, more nimble short-range drones equipped with explosives and intended for one-time use.^[2]

Additionally, law enforcement use of unmanned drones and robots – both armed and unarmed – has received increasing attention in recent years. Currently, law enforcement in California are not prohibited from using weaponized robots or drones, although existing law requires police agencies to seek approval before acquiring such devices. Specifically, existing law requires a law enforcement agency to get approval from the local governing body (the city council or board of supervisors, for instance) with jurisdiction over the agency prior to using military equipment, which includes “unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial and ground vehicles” and “weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.” The law also mandates that the public must have an opportunity to comment on the propriety of law enforcement’s acquisition or use of weaponized robotic devices.^[3]

The decision to adopt weaponized robotic devices has been hotly debated on multiple occasions in California. In late 2022, the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors approved a measure that would have allowed the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to deploy weaponized robots capable of using deadly force, but reversed its decision just days later after significant public backlash.^[4] Public outcry in Oakland halted a similar effort after the police department initially requested the authority to use robots armed with shotguns under certain circumstances.^[5] And in Los Angeles, the City Council postponed a vote on whether to authorize the Los Angeles Police Department to accept the donation of robot for 60 days over concerns about privacy and surveillance, and despite assurances from both the LAPD and the robot manufacture that there were no plans to furnish the robot with weapons.^[6]

Despite objections to their use, law enforcement officials argue that armed robotic devices can help ensure the safety of both the public and officers in highly dangerous situations. For instance, in Dallas, after an ambush attack on police left five officers dead, police outfitted a bomb squad robot with an explosive device to kill the suspect who had barricaded himself in a parking garage. According to the Dallas Police Chief, “We saw no other option [after negotiations failed] but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was… Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger.”^[7] The San Francisco Police Chief noted that police had not yet had to use a robot to kill a civilian, and that police hoped to avoid such use. “But,” he added, “we need the option to be able to save lives” if there is an imminent threat to the lives of police officers or civilians.^[8]

Many experts caution that opening the door for the use of armed robots or drones by law enforcement, even in limited circumstances, carries significant risks. One stated, “[H]orror stories, or worst examples, can and have opened the door for much more use of that power beyond the most horrific situation… Historically, when we grant police power or discretion or advanced technologies, they tend to be used in many more situations.” Another cited uncertainty about potential errors in robotics and automotive technology, citing problems self-driving vehicles.^[9]

In 2022, after a video of a rifle bolted to the back of a ‘robodog’ went viral, the sponsor of this bill, Boston Dynamics, joined several other robotics companies in issuing an open letter in which the companies pledged not to weaponized their general purpose robots, with notable exceptions for military uses.^[10] According to the Author, “as robots have become increasingly accessible to the public, there are recent examples of people mounting dangerous weapons to them, often with the goal of creating a sensational, viral social media video. The misuse of weaponized remote controlled or autonomous robots is unethical, poses a serious public safety threat, and damages the public’s acceptance of these beneficial technologies in society.”

1. This Bill Creates an Infraction for Conduct Related to Robotic Devices Equipped with A Weapon

In an attempt to address the issue identified above, the Author proposes this measure to criminalize the manufacture, modification, sale, transfer or operation of a robotic device, as defined, equipped or mounted with a weapon, which includes any device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation or physical injury to a person. The bill defines “robotic device” as a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aircraft.

The bill also includes several exemptions to its central prohibition, including for a defense industrial company, as defined, with regard to robots within the scope of a contract with the federal Department of Defense; for a robotic device developer/manufacturer who is weaponizing robots only to develop technology intended to detect or mitigate unlawfully weaponized robots; and for the United States Department of Defense and its subordinate agencies. In addition, the bill exempts “government officials,” such as police, operating a weaponized robot in the performance of their duties when used for the purpose of explosives disposal or property destruction where this is imminent, deadly threat to human life. Thus, under this bill, law enforcement would be prohibited from deploying a weaponized robotic device in all other circumstances, including situations like the one in Dallas described above.

While the bill’s exemptions are intended to permit the ‘beneficial’ use of weaponized robots, they may be too narrow in scope, and inadvertently proscribe other beneficial, or at least harmless, conduct. For instance, the exemption for defense industrial companies only applies to those that have a current contract with the DoD, not to companies seeking to become DoD robotics contractors, acting as a potential barrier to entry into the robotics field. The Author and Committee may wish to consider amending this exemption to somehow capture aspiring robotics developers without such an exemption swallowing the rule.

The bill might also capture educational or recreational robotics: since its first event in Long Beach in 1999, BattleBots – in which competitors design and operate remote-controlled armed robots to fight in an arena setting – has been a popular robot-based recreational activity. Many robots that compete in these events are armed with weapons that may fall into the category of weapons prohibited by this bill, such as flamethrowers and cannons and perhaps even certain bladed weapons.^[11] Should competitive robotics that involves arming robots be exempted from the bill?

The second exemption to the bill applies to:

A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device.

Given the wording of that exempting, it is unclear whether it is intended to apply to robots being developed for the purpose of thwarting other armed robots or to the development and testing of a specific robot model so as to prevent the unauthorized weaponization of that particular model by the model’s users. The Author and Committee may wish to address this ambiguity.

Penalty Assessments

This bill provides that any person who knowingly violates its prohibition against weaponized robots shall be required to pay a fine of at least $1,000 but no more than $5,000. However, the amount spelled out in statute as a fine for violating a criminal offense are base figures, as these amounts are subject to statutorily-imposed penalty assessments, such as fees and surcharges. The fines in this section have not been increased since 2006, however the penalty assessments have increased approximately 40% since 2006 thus increasing the fine that a person actually pays. Current penalty assessments total roughly 310% of the initial fine, so a fine of $1000 for a first offense, for instance, will actually cost an individual $4,100.^[12] Taken together with additional fines and assessments, and assuming the defendant received the maximum fine under the proposed bill, the total owed by a person convicted of this crime would be roughly $20,500. Although it is unlikely that this would be a fine for a first offense, given the range of potential fines, the Author and Committee may wish to consider whether these fines are appropriate, especially in light of the fact that individuals charged with an infraction do not have the right to an attorney or a jury trial.

The penalty provision of this bill also specifies that “this fine shall be imposed in addition to any other penalty imposed pursuant to any other laws.” It is unclear why this provision was added in the bill, as it is well established that multiple crimes can be alleged by the prosecution provided they do not run afoul the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and existing California law prohibiting multiple punishment for the same ‘act.’^[13] For instance, if an individual is in possession of a machine gun in violation of Pen. Code §32625, and then affixes that machine gun to a robotic device, that person would be liable for both unlawful possession of a machine gun and the prohibition contained in this bill. No provision of existing law implicitly or explicitly prohibits the imposition of multiple punishments for separate and independent unlawful acts.

1. Prior Legislation

AB 79 (Weber, 2023), which was substantially similar to this bill, would have prohibited a person from knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a weaponized drone or robot, punishable by a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 dollars. The bill was referred to Assembly Public Safety Committee, amended several times, and set for hearing several times, but each hearing was cancelled at the request of the Author.

1. Argument in Support

According to Boston Dynamics, the bill’s sponsor:

Our company, founded by an MIT professor and his students over 30 years ago, is at the forefront of an industry in which advanced mobile robots will become more common in both industrial and public spaces. We are the leading provider of walking robots to innovative companies and organizations in California, such as the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. A year ago, we and other leading robot industry organizations published an open letter pledging not to weaponize our advanced-mobility general-purpose robots, and to not support others doing so.

Mounting weapons to robots that are remotely or autonomously operated, widely available to the public, and capable of navigating within locations where people live and work, raises new risks of harm and serious ethical issues. The development and use of such weaponized robots will also harm public trust in the technology in ways that damage the tremendous benefits they will bring to society. Recognizing that our commitment alone is not enough to fully address these risks, we also called upon policymakers to work with us to promote safe use of these robots and to prohibit their misuse. AB 2681 fulfills this crucial vision for ethical and safe robots in society, and we fully support it, as do many others in the robotics community.

-- END –

1. “Hidden Pentagon Records Reveal Patterns of Failure in Deadly Airstrikes.” New York Times. 18 December 2021. Hidden Pentagon Records Reveal Patterns of Failure in Deadly Airstrikes - The New York Times (nytimes.com) ↑

2. “Drone that killed U.S. troops in Jordan likely went undetected.” The Washington Post. 6 February, 2024. Drone in Jordan attack that killed U.S. troops likely went undetected - The Washington Post; “How the Drone War in Ukraine is Transforming Conflict.” Council on Foreign Relations. 16 January 2024. How the Drone War in Ukraine Is Transforming Conflict | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org) ↑

3. Gov. Code, § 7071, subd. (a),(c); Gov. Code, § 7070, subd. (c)(1) & (6) . ↑

4. “San Francisco supervisors bar police robots from using deadly force for now.” The Associated Press 6 Dec 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/06/1141129944/san-francisco-deadly-robots-police ↑

5. “Oakland Police Department says it’s no longer considering armed robots.” KRON (Oct. 19, 2022) <https://www.kron4.com/news/oakland-police-department-says-its-no-longer-considering-armed-robots/ ↑

6. “City Council delays vote on LAPD robot dog for 2 months.” The Los Angeles Times. 7 March 2023. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-07/la-city-council-tables-police-robot-dog-vote-2-months ↑

7. “Dallas sniper attack: 5 officers killed, suspect identified.” CNN.com. 9 July 2016. https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests ↑

8. “San Francisco supervisors vote to allow police to use robots to kill people.” CNN.com. 30 Nov 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/us/san-francisco-police-remote-control-robots/index.html ↑

9. “See Spot spy? A new generation of police robots faces backlash.” The Los Angeles Times. 21 Dec 2022. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-21/lapd-testing-robot-dog-amid-debate-over-arming-police-robots; “Will Lethal-Force Police Robots Come to More Cities?” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 20 December 2022 https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/will-lethal-force-police-robots-come-to-more-cities ↑

10. “General Purpose Robots Should Not Be Weaponized.” General Purpose Robots Should Not Be Weaponized | Boston Dynamics ↑

11. Category:Weapons | BattleBots Wiki | Fandom ↑

12. Until the budget year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty assessments applied to every fine; the current penalty assessments are approximately 310% plus a flat fee of $79. (See Penal Code § 1464; Penal Code § 1465.7; Penal Code § 1465.8 Government Code § 70373; Government Code § 7600.5;  Government Code § 76000 et seq;  Government Code §76000.10 Government Code § 76104.6;  Government Code §76104,7)  ↑

13. For more information, see Imposition of Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu); Penal Code § 654. ↑

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2681

Author:(Weber) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill makes it an infraction for an unauthorized person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device or unmanned aircraft equipped or mounted with a weapon.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No significant state costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

In the past several years, cheap robotics and drones have proliferated, as has the dangerous misuse and weaponization of these technologies. This is damaging and antithetical to the goals of many robotics companies focused on assistance and support of many industries. As robotics technology advances and the industry expands, the prohibitions in AB 2681 will protect the public and bring stability and predictability to this innovative emerging market in our state.

1. Background. An infraction is a low-level offense that is punishable by a fine but not incarceration. This bill creates a new infraction for making, using, or selling a robotic device or unmanned aircraft equipped with a weapon. The bill contains exceptions for a defense company, a robotic device developer or manufacturer, the U.S. Department of Defense, and a government official disposing of explosives or destroying property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life. A violation of the infraction created by this bill is punishable by a fine ranging from $1,000 to $5,000.

This bill is sponsored by Boston Dynamics, an engineering and robotics design company. In 2022, the company, along with five other leading robotics companies, signed an open letter pledging not to weaponize its products. In support of this bill, Boston Dynamics writes:

Mounting weapons to robots that are remotely or autonomously operated, widely available to the public, and capable of navigating within locations where people live and work, raises new risks of harm and serious ethical issues. The development and use of such weaponized robots will also harm public trust in the technology in ways that damage the tremendous benefits they will bring to society.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2681 (

Author:Weber) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2024

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: Weapons: robotic devices

SYNOPSIS

Along with all of the other advances in technology in recent years, there has been a rapid proliferation of robotic devices and drones. As with all technology, as it advances it often becomes more affordable leading to more widespread use. There are a number of policy considerations related to the proliferation of these devices; this bill is addressing one of the most dangerous uses – the potential for the weaponization of robots and drones both by law enforcement and by individuals.

Specifically, this bill makes it illegal for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device or drone that has been equipped with a weapon in the state except in very limited circumstances when used by one of the following:

1. A defense industrial company working under contract with the U.S. Department of Defense.
2. A developer whose sole purpose is developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or disarm a weaponized device.
3. The U.S. Department of Defense.
4. A government official who, in carrying out their duties, uses a weaponized device to dispose of explosives or in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.

This bill is sponsored by robotics developer, Boston Dynamics, who, together with five other robotics companies issued an open letter warning of the dangers related to the weaponization of uncrewed drones and other robotic devices and calling on policy makers and others in the industry to halt the weaponization of “advanced-mobility general-purpose robots.”

This bill passed the Public Safety Committee on their consent calendar.

SUMMARY: Makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device or uncrewed aircraft equipped or mounted with a weapon. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a person who knowingly manufactures, modifies, sells, transfers, or operates a robotic device must pay a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.
2. Exempts from the prohibition on weaponized robotic devices:
   1. A defense industrial company with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of its contract with the United States Department of Defense.
   2. A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device.
   3. The United States Department of Defense, and any of its departments, agencies, or units.
3. Provides that government officials, when acting in the public performance of their duties, are not prohibited from operating a weaponized robotic device or one equipped with disrupter technology when used to dispose of explosives or suspected explosives or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.
4. Defines “robotic device” as a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, uncrewed ground vehicles and uncrewed aircraft.
5. Defines “weapon” as a device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or physical injury to a person, including, but not limited to, stun guns, firearms, machine guns, chemical agents or irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, weaponized lasers, and explosive devices.
6. Defines “defense industrial company” as a company that has a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture, develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device, and includes any employees or agents authorized by that defense industrial company to engage in activities relating to such a contract on its behalf.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Unmanned aircraft” means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. (Gov. Code § 853.5(a).)
   2. “Unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including but not limited to, communication links and the components that control the uncrewed aircraft, which are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system. (Gov. Code § 853.5(b).)
2. Defines “weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind” as “military equipment” requiring the approval of a local governing body before law enforcement may seek, use, or acquire such equipment. (Gov. Code, §§ 7070 (c)(6) & 7071 (a)(1).)
3. Provides that a person who knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft system on or above the grounds of a state prison, a jail, or a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of $500. (Gov. Code, § 4577 (a).)
4. Makes it a misdemeanor to use an unmanned aircraft system to look through a hole or opening into the interior of specified areas in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy with the intent to invade the privacy of a person inside. (Pen. Code, § 647 (j)(1).)
5. Provides that it is unlawful for any person to operate an unmanned aircraft system in pest control unless the pilot operating the unmanned aircraft system holds a valid manned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate or a valid unmanned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate issued by the director and is certified or otherwise authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate an unmanned aircraft system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct pest control. (Food & Agr., § 11901 (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print, this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose of this bill. Along with all of the other advances in technology in recent years, there has been a rapid proliferation of robotic devices and uncrewed drones. As with all technology, as it advances it often becomes more affordable leading to more widespread use. There are a number of policy considerations related to the proliferation of these devices; this bill is addressing one of the most dangerous uses – the potential for the weaponization of robots and drones both by law enforcement and by individuals.

2) Author’s statement. According to the author:

AB 2681 is a common-sense public safety measure placing guardrails around the use of weaponized robots. This measure will prohibit the manufacture, sale, and operation of robotic devices or drones that are equipped with a weapon. In the past several years, cheap robotics and drones have proliferated, as has the dangerous misuse and weaponization of these technologies. This is damaging and antithetical to the goals of many robotics companies focused on assistance and support of many industries. As robotics technology advances and the industry expands, the prohibitions in AB 2681 will protect the public and bring stability and predictability to this innovative emerging market in our state. It is time for California to lead the nation in protecting the safety of our communities.

3) An Open Letter to the Robotics Industry. The sponsors of this legislation, Boston Dynamics, along with five other robotics companies, published an open letter in October 2022 warning of the dangers related to the weaponization of uncrewed drones and other robotic devices. The letter was prompted by a number of YouTube videos showing men attaching firearms, flame throwers, grenades, and other deadly weapons to robots they had purchased.^[1] The core of the letter states:

As with any new technology offering new capabilities, the emergence of advanced mobile robots offers the possibility of misuse. Untrustworthy people could use them to invade civil rights or to threaten, harm, or intimidate others. One area of particular concern is weaponization. We believe that adding weapons to robots that are remotely or autonomously operated, widely available to the public, and capable of navigating to previously inaccessible locations where people live and work, raises new risks of harm and serious ethical issues. Weaponized applications of these newly-capable robots will also harm public trust in the technology in ways that damage the tremendous benefits they will bring to society. For these reasons, we do not support the weaponization of our advanced-mobility general-purpose robots. For those of us who have spoken on this issue in the past, and those engaging for the first time, we now feel renewed urgency in light of the increasing public concern in recent months caused by a small number of people who have visibly publicized their makeshift efforts to weaponize commercially available robots.

The letter closes with the companies pledging to “not weaponize our advanced-mobility general-purpose robots or the software we develop that enables advanced robotics and we will not support others to do so. When possible, we will carefully review our customers’ intended applications to avoid potential weaponization. We also pledge to explore the development of technological features that could mitigate or reduce these risks.”^[2]

4) Law enforcement use of robots and drones in California. Law enforcement’s use of robotic technology is not new. In 2016, the Dallas police department used a robot armed with explosives to kill a sniper who was targeting police officers.^[3] More recently, the New York Police Departments deployed a “fully autonomous” security robot to patrol the Times Square subway station. Essentially, the technology was armed with four cameras and used for surveillance purposes, which alarmed privacy advocates who questioned whether or not the cameras were equipped with facial recognition technology. After six-months, the robot was removed from use and had proven largely ineffective.^[4] Other more traditional uses of robotic devices include using them to examine and detonate explosive devices, allowing police officers to remain at a safe distance.

Among the devices that have received the most attention in the last several years are robotic police dogs, like the one developed and sold by the sponsors of this bill. At one time, the Los Angeles Police Department decided to purchase one and raised $280,000 through their foundation to fund the purchase. The Boston Dynamics robot, Spot, was hailed as an upgrade to the slower and less agile robots currently used by law enforcement. Spot can climb stairs, open doors, and transmit 360-degree live video. Critics raised the alarm over police departments acquiring ever more sophisticated technology including robotic devices, drones, and other automated devices because they pose a threat to people’s privacy and safety.^[5]

As noted in the Public Safety Committee analysis of this bill, the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors approved a measure that would have allowed the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to deploy weaponized robots capable of killing people. The SFPD said “they had no plans to arm the robots with guns but wanted the ability to put explosives on them in extraordinary circumstances.”^[6] The Oakland Police Department, as well, requested the authority to use robots armed with shotguns under certain circumstances, but abandoned the idea after public outcry.^[7]

The question of whether law enforcement should be able to use robots or drones capable of deadly force has received increasing attention in recent years. Currently, law enforcement in California is allowed to use weaponized robots or drones, although they need to obtain permission to do so from their local governing body. This bill would allow law enforcement to operate a weaponized robotic device or one equipped with disrupter technology only when used to dispose of explosives or suspected explosives or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life. However, they would be prohibited from deploying a weaponized robotic device in all other circumstances.

5) Analysis. Explicitly outlawing the use of weaponized robotic devices and uncrewed drones is an important first step in regulating these devices as they become more affordable and easy to acquire, both by law enforcement agencies and consumers. However, larger public policy questions related to privacy and cybersecurity risks remain.

As Oakland Privacy clearly outlines in their support letter for this bill:

Drones also pose a threat to privacy and public safety, and carry significant cybersecurity and national security risk. In 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) raised concerns about drone privacy, stating: “...[the problems of] protecting the physical privacy of individuals on the ground from surveillance by UAS, and protecting data that UAS collect about those individuals—stem from a combination of drones’ small size, their virtually universal use of cameras and other sensors, their ability to fly at ground level and hover in place, and their ability to be remotely piloted.”

Drones are made by various manufacturers with different software and communications capabilities. With potentially thousands of devices deployed, it will be challenging to ensure safe operations and interactions with people. In fact, the FAA has delayed their remote ID requirement - a basic regulation for safety and security - due to the difficulty with compliance.

Drones are proving themselves to be a nightmare for privacy and security. Drone maker DJI has more than 70 percent market share and such market concentration makes them even more of a security risk than the fact that DJI is a product of China with ties to the CCP. In fact, a security researcher was able to access highly sensitive customer data on DJI’s servers, including passport and driver’s license information, photos, and flight logs from military and government workers accounts. Furthermore, many federal agencies have found DJI to be a national security risk and have restricted their use. [Citations omitted.]

Allowing private individuals, businesses, and government entities to use robotic devices and uncrewed drones that are equipped with video cameras and, perhaps, facial recognition technology remains a significant risk to Californians’ right to privacy.

While this bill this is an important public safety bill, the proliferation of robotic devices raises larger policy considerations related to the invasive nature of technology that would benefit from additional attention. With the proliferation of surveillance and tracking technology, including recreational drones equipped with cameras, in home and public surveillance cameras, automated license plate recognition tools, not to mention the ability to track someone using the smartphones that are virtually universal, at what point has surveillance gone too far? Should Californians simply accept the complete loss of privacy as people move through their lives in public and private spaces?

Much like the focus that is being placed on the impact of social media, advancement in artificial technology, and the collection and sale of personal information for profit, constant surveillance by private individuals, businesses, and government has a profound impact on Californians’ lives. Rather than considering the risks of one device or technological advancement at a time, at some point, it might behoove the Legislature, and this Committee in particular, to explore the larger surveillance policy questions, including the dangers associated with the unchecked proliferation of surveillance tools and their impact on Californians’ privacy rights, especially for those who are at risk of abuse.

6) Related legislation. AB 2014 (S. Nguyen, 2024) would allow law enforcement agencies to receive military surplus uncrewed drones for surveillance purposes, without first seeking the approval of their local governing body. That bill is awaiting hearing in the Public Safety Committee.

AB 79 (Weber, 2023) would have provided that knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a weaponized drone or robot is punishable by a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 dollars. The hearing on AB 79 was canceled at the request of the author.

AB 740 (Gabriel and Petrie-Norris, 2023) would have required the California Department of Technology to issue regulations establishing cybersecurity and privacy requirements for data collected by drones operated by state and local government entities. That bill passed this Committee and died in the Accountability and Administrative Review Committee without a hearing.

AB 48 (Gonzalez, Chap. 404, Stats. 2021), prohibits the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents, as defined, by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards.

AB 392 (S. Weber, Chap. 170, Stats. 2019), limits the use of deadly force by a peace officer to those situations where it is necessary to defend against a threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death to the officer or to another person.

SB 807 (Gains, Chap. 834, Stats. 2016), granted civil immunity to local public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority granted by a local public entity that damage an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in the course of providing emergency services.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

Writing in support, the Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International argues:

When we envision large scale commercial and civil adoption of drones and robots, weapons are not a part of that picture outside of a limited scope of companies, users, and use cases. We and our members regularly work with the Department of Defense and our service members to provide them with specialized technologies to keep them and others safe. Given this experience, we uniquely understand the varying needs these technologies serve, as well as the need to appropriately establish guard rails and guidelines for their responsible use. By working together as a group, California can pave the way towards safe adoption of these lifesaving technologies to protect citizens and structures in the State.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Boston Dynamics, INC. (sponsor)

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International
Dronedeploy
Oakland Privacy
Silicon Valley Robotics

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Julie Salley / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

1. Examples can be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rliFQ0qyAM and here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etjzk4w3xHs&t=290s. ↑

2. Full letter available here https://bostondynamics.com/news/general-purpose-robots-should-not-be-weaponized/. ↑

3. Sidner, Sara and Mallory Simon. “How robot, explosives took out Dallas sniper in unprecedented way,” CNN (Jul. 12, 2016) https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/us/dallas-police-robot-c4-explosives/index.html. ↑

4. Rubenstein, Dana and Hurubie Meko. “Goodbye for Now to the Robot That (Sort Of) Patrolled New York’s Subway,” The New York Times (Feb. 2, 2024) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/nyregion/nypd-subway-robot-retires.html. ↑

5. Jany, Libor and Gregory Yee. “See Spot spy? A new generation of police robots faces backlash,” Los Angeles Times (Dec. 21, 2022) https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-21/lapd-testing-robot-dog-amid-debate-over-arming-police-robots. ↑

6. The Associated Press. San Francisco supervisors bar police robots from using deadly force for now, (Dec. 6, 2022) https://www.npr.org/2022/12/06/1141129944/san-francisco-deadly-robots-police. ↑

7. Biddle, Sam. “Oakland Cops Hope to Arm Robots with Lethal Shotguns,” The Intercept (Oct. 17 2022) https://theintercept.com/2022/10/17/police-robot-gun-oakland/ ↑

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2024

Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

As Proposed to Be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device or unmanned aircraft equipped or mounted with a weapon. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a person who knowingly manufactures, modifies, sells, transfers, or operates a robotic device must pay a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.
   
2. Exempts from the prohibition on weaponized robotic devices:
   
   1. A defense industrial company with respect to robotic devices that are within the scope of its contract with the United States Department of Defense;
      
   2. A robotic device developer, manufacturer, or producer who modifies or operates a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon for the sole purpose of developing or testing technology that is intended to detect, prevent, or mitigate the unauthorized weaponization of a robotic device; and,
      
   3. The United States Department of Defense, and any of its departments, agencies, or units.
      
3. Provides that government officials are not prohibited from, when acting in the public performance of their duties, operating a weaponized robotic device or one equipped with an disrupter technology when used to dispose of explosives or suspected explosives or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life.
   
4. Defines “robotic device” as a mechanical device capable of locomotion, navigation, flight, or movement and that operates at a distance from its operator or supervisor based on commands or in response to sensor data, or a combination of those, including mobile robots, unmanned ground vehicles and unmanned aircraft.
   
5. Defines “weapon” as a device designed to threaten or cause death, incapacitation, or physical injury to a person, including, but not limited to, stun guns, firearms, machine guns, chemical agents or irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, weaponized lasers, and explosive devices.
   
6. Defines “defense industrial company” as a company that has a contract with the United States Department of Defense to design, manufacture, develop, modify, upgrade, or produce a robotic device, and includes any employees or agents authorized by that defense industrial company to engage in activities relating to such a contract on its behalf.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines “weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind” as “military equipment” requiring the approval a local governing body before law enforcement may seek, use, or acquire such equipment. (Gov. Code, §§ 7070, subd. (c)(6), & 7071, subd. (a)(1).)
   
2. Provides that a person who knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft system on or above the grounds of a state prison, a jail, or a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of $500. (Gov. Code, § 4577, subd. (a).)
   
3. Makes it a misdemeanor to use an unmanned aircraft system to look through a hole or opening into the interior of specified areas in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy with the intent to invade the privacy of a person inside. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (j)(1).)
   
4. Provides that it is unlawful for any person to operate an unmanned aircraft system in pest control unless the pilot operating the unmanned aircraft system holds a valid manned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate or a valid unmanned pest control aircraft pilot’s certificate issued by the director and is certified or otherwise authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate an unmanned aircraft system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct pest control. (Food & Agr., § 11901, subd. (b).)
   
5. Provides that the possession or knowing transport of a machine gun, except as specified, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years, by a fine of up to $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 32625, subd. (a).)
   
6. Provides that intentionally converting a firearm into a machine gun, or selling or knowingly manufacturing a machine gun, is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 4, 6, or 8 years. (Pen. Code, § 32625, subd. (b).)
   
7. Provides that possession of a destructive device is punishable by up to one year in county jail, by up to three years in state prison, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 18710, subd. (b).)
   
8. Provides that a person who recklessly or maliciously possesses a destructive device or explosive in a public place or designated private places is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 2, 4, or 6 years. (Pen. Code, § 18715.)
   
9. Provides that selling or knowingly transporting a destructive device is a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for 2, 3, or 4 years. (Pen. Code, § 18730.)
   
10. Provides that a person who possesses, explodes, ignites, or attempts to explode or ignite any destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure, intimidate, or terrify any person, or with intent to wrongfully injure or destroy any property, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in county jail for a period of 3, 5, or 7 years. (Pen. Code, § 18740.)
    
11. Defines “destructive device” to include, among other things, a bomb, grenade or explosive missile; a weapon of a caliber greater than 0.60 caliber which fires fixed ammunition, other than a shotgun, as specified; a rocket or rocket-propelled projectile, as specified; and a breakable container that a flammable liquid with a flashpoint of 150 degrees Fahrenheit or less with a wick capable of being ignited. (Pen. Code, § 16460, subd. (a).)
    
12. Defines “machinegun” as a weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can readily be restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of a trigger; the frame or receiver of any weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of a person; or any weapon deemed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as readily convertible to a machinegun, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 16880.)
    

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “California leads the nation in ground breaking policy when it comes to the environment, labor, public safety, consumer protections, and technology. The proliferation of cheap drones and advanced robotics has made it easier than ever to weaponize these devices. Within the last several years there have been viral videos with weaponized robots and drones utilizing firearms to shoot at targets and dropping training grenades on willing participants. These types of videos may give individuals the idea that it is okay to arm their drones or robot. We must alert the public that it is not allowed in California to arm these devices. The imagery of armed robots walking the streets of California is damaging to the goals of many robotics companies. These devices are being designed and built to assist us. They are not being designed to harm us. It is again time for California to lead the nation and establish a prohibition of weaponized robots and drones.”
2. Armed Robots in California: This bill would prohibit law enforcement from using weaponized robotic devices except in specified circumstances.
   
   Whether law enforcement should be able to use robots or drones capable of deadly force has received increasing attention in recent years. Currently, law enforcement in California are not prohibited from using weaponized robots or drones, although law enforcement needs approval to do so. Existing law requires a law enforcement agency to get approval from the local governing body with jurisdiction over the agency prior to using military equipment. (Gov. Code, § 7071, subd. (a).) Military equipment includes “unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial and ground vehicles” and “weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.” (Gov. Code, § 7070, subd. (c)(1) & (6).) And the public must have an opportunity to comment on the propriety of law enforcement’s acquisition or use of weaponized robotic devices. (Gov. Code, § 7071, subd. (c).)
   
   The decision to adopt weaponized robotic devices has been hotly debated on multiple occasions in California. The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors approved a measure that would have allowed the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to deploy weaponized robots capable of killing people. (Boyette et al., San Francisco supervisors vote to allow police to use robots to kill people, CNN.com (Nov. 30, 2022) < https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/us/san-francisco-police-remote-control-robots/index.html> [last visited Mar. 29, 2023].) (https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11449772&GUID=F7CFBF85-C7B3-4922-AC4E-7063056833AD) SFPD said “they had no plans to arm the robots with guns but wanted the ability to put explosives on them in extraordinary circumstances.” (San Francisco supervisors bar police robots from using deadly force for now, The Associated Press (Dec. 6, 2022) <https://www.npr.org/2022/12/06/1141129944/san-francisco-deadly-robots-police> [last visited Apr. 3, 2023].) After public outcry, however, the Board of Supervisors reversed its decision just days later by voting unanimously to ban such use while still allowing robots “for situational awareness, such as going first into a dangerous situation so police can stay back.” (Ibid.)
   
   The Oakland Police Department requested the authority to use robots armed with shotguns under certain circumstances, but abandoned the idea after public outcry. (Biddle, Oakland Cops Hope to Arm Robots with Lethal Shotguns, The Intercept (Oct. 17 2022) <https://theintercept.com/2022/10/17/police-robot-gun-oakland/> [last visited Apr. 3, 2022]; Baker, Oakland Police Department says it’s no longer considering armed robots, KRON (Oct. 19, 2022) <https://www.kron4.com/news/oakland-police-department-says-its-no-longer-considering-armed-robots/> [last viewed Apr. 5, 2023].) Similarly, the Los Angeles City Council postponed a vote on whether to authorize the Los Angeles Police Department to accept the donation of robot for 60 days over concerns about privacy and surveillance, and despite assurances from both the LAPD and the robot manufacture that there were no plans to furnish the robot with weapons. (Jany, City Council delays vote on LAPD robot dog for 2 months, The Los Angeles Times (Mar. 7, 2023) <https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-07/la-city-council-tables-police-robot-dog-vote-2-months> [last visited Apr. 3, 2023]; cf. Fussel, New York Returns Its Police ‘Robodog’ After a Public Outcry, WIRED.com (Apr. 30, 2021) <https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-returns-police-robodog-after-public-outcry/> [last visited Apr. 5, 2023].)
   
   Despite objections to their use, law enforcement may consider acquiring armed robotic devices promising public safety tools that could save lives. In Dallas, after an ambush attack on police left five officers dead, police outfitted a bomb squad robot with an explosive device to kill the suspect who had barricaded himself in a parking garage. According to the Dallas Police Chief, “We saw no other option [after negotiations failed] but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was… Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger.” (Karimi et al., Dallas sniper attack: 5 officers killed, suspect identified, CNN.com (July 9, 2016) <https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests> [last visited Apr. 3, 2016].) The San Francisco Police Chief noted that police had not yet had to use a robot to kill a civilian, and that police hoped to avoid such use. “But,” he added, “we need the option to be able to save lives” if there is an imminent threat to the lives of police officers or civilians. (Boyette et al., San Francisco supervisors vote to allow police to use robots to kill people, CNN.com (Nov. 30, 2022) < https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/us/san-francisco-police-remote-control-robots/index.html> [last visited Mar. 29, 2023].)
   
   Some experts caution, however, that opening the door for the use of armed robots or drones by law enforcement, even in limited circumstances, carries significant risks. One stated, “[H]orror stories, or worst examples, can and have opened the door for much more use of that power beyond the most horrific situation… Historically, when we grant police power or discretion or advanced technologies, they tend to be used in many more situations.” (Jany et al., See Spot spy? A new generation of police robots faces backlash, The Los Angeles Times (Dec. 21, 2022) <https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-21/lapd-testing-robot-dog-amid-debate-over-arming-police-robots> [last visited Apr. 3, 2022].) Another cited uncertainty about potential errors in robotics and automotive technology, citing problems self-driving vehicles. (Deto, Will Lethal-Force Police Robots Come to More Cities, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Dec. 20, 2022) <https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/will-lethal-force-police-robots-come-to-more-cities)> [last viewed Apr. 5, 2023].)
   
   This bill would specify that law enforcement is not prohibited from operating a weaponized robotic device or one equipped with disrupter technology when used to dispose of explosives or suspected explosives or for the destruction of property in cases where there is an imminent, deadly threat to human life. However, under this bill, law enforcement would be prohibited from deploying a weaponized robotic device in all other circumstances, including situations like the one in Dallas.
   
3. The Cost of Violating this Law Would Far Exceed the Minimum of $5,000: This bill creates a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 fine for manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a robotic device or unmanned aircraft equipped or mounted with a weapon. The actual cost to a person convicted of violating the statute would actually far exceed the base fine. For example, a crime carrying base fine of $5,000 would be subject to the following addition fees and assessments:

Penal Code section 1464 state penalty on fines: $5,000 ($10 for every $10)

Penal Code section 1465.7 state surcharge: $1,000 (20% surcharge)

Penal Code section 1465.8 court operation assessment: $40 ($40 fee per criminal offense)

Government Code section 70372 court construction penalty: $2,500 ($5 for every $10)

Government Code section 70373 assessment: $35 ($35 for each infraction)

Government Code section 76000 penalty: $3,500 ($7 for every $10)

Government Code section 76000.5 EMS penalty: $1,000 ($2 for every $10)

Government Code section 76104.6 DNA fund penalty: $500 ($1 for every $10)

Government Code section 76104.7 additional DNA fund penalty: $2,000 ($4 for every $10)

Taken together with additional fines and assessments, and assuming the person received the maximum fine under the proposed statute, the total owed by a person convicted of this crime would be $20,575—or roughly four times the base fine.

Further, the total cost to an individual convicted of this new crime could dramatically increase depending on the weapon connected to the robotic device. A person found guilty of possessing a destructive device may be fined up to $10,000. (Pen. Code, § 18710.) Similarly, a person convicted of the unlawful possession of a machine gun may also be fined up to $10,000. (Pen. Code, § 32625, subd. (a).) Indeed, attaching a destructive device or machine gun to robotic device could result, in addition to potential incarceration, in a total fine of roughly $60,000.

1. Argument in Support: According to the Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, “Assembly Bill 2681 is a strong measure, promoting public acceptance and protecting public safety, while encouraging the safe use of advanced robotics by preserving the proper carveouts for very specific communities in the DoD and law enforcement, allowing for precise missions for national defense and public safety.
   
   “We have built our advocacy work around industry consensus based educational campaigns and common-sense legislation and we have had great engagement with Stakeholders on this language. We are working closely with manufacturers and users of both ground robots and drones around the country.
   
   “When we envision large scale commercial and civil adoption of drones and robots, weapons are not a part of that picture outside of a limited scope of companies, users, and use cases. We and our members regularly work with the Department of Defense and our service members to provide them with specialized technologies to keep them and others safe. Given this experience, we uniquely understand the varying needs these technologies serve, as well as the need to appropriately establish guard rails and guidelines for their responsible use. By working together as a group, California can pave the way towards safe adoption of these lifesaving technologies to protect citizens and structures in the State.”
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 79 (Weber), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have provided that knowingly manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, or operating a weaponized drone or robot is punishable by a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 dollars. The hearing on AB 79 was canceled at the request of the author.
      
   2. AB 48 (Gonzalez), Chapter 404, Statutes of 2021, prohibits the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents, as defined, by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards.
      
   3. AB 392 (S. Weber), Chapter 170, Statutes of 2019, limits the use of deadly force by a peace officer to those situations where it is necessary to defend against a threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death to the officer or to another person.
      
   4. AB 931 (S. Weber), was substantially similar to AB 392 above. AB 931 was held in the Senate Rules Committee.
      
   5. SB 807 (Gains), Chapter 834, Statutes of 2016, granted civil immunity to local public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority granted by a local public entity that damage an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in the course of providing emergency services.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International

Oakland Privacy

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by: