Not if you give or sell it to the National Guard or civilian police agencies.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to use drones. I can think of a specific situation in my county in which the use of a drone ended a standoff with an estranged husband who had shot and wounded a police officer after he failed to kill his wife and then barricaded himself in his wife's property after she escaped. At the time I was asked not to report on the use of the technology since it was not yet widely known what our forces were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan with high-tech surveillance equipment, but that's now widespread public knowledge.
There are also search-and-rescue situations where virtually everyone would believe drones are good because they save lives.
If you can see it from a plane, you can see it from a drone, and there's no legal barrier to using one.
After seeing just a small portion of the surveillance technology available to the federal government used in that shooter standoff situation, I think it's fair to say that their capabilities are far greater than what our enemies know.
Of course, not all things which are legal are a good idea and I share the concerns of a number of people on this thread about government surveillance. This is question of what the government **SHOULD** be doing, not what it legally **CAN** be doing.