This is another example of laws and regulations responding to people doing things and using technology in irresponsible ways. If RPV/UAV users hadn't started flying them over sports events and near airports in the way of aircraft and crashing them into people and buildings, then laws requiring registration and regulation would have been a little longer coming. They probably would have come along anyway, with registration fees, and taxes, etc., because the gov't never misses an opportunity to cash in on our stuff.
I hate that the news media has used the word "drone" so much now that it has become synonymous with any sort of small, radio-controlled aircraft. Most of what they are referrinbg to aren't drones, but Remotely Piloted Vehicles or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Kind of like assault rifles that aren't. But I do like the references that the term "drone" has historically been used for flying target vehicles, so maybe that can be a defense for anyone who shoots one down.
http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130326/C4ISR02/303260023/The-8216-D-8217-Word-What-Call-UAVhttp://oldnfo.org/2013/04/26/drones-or-rpvas-or-uavss-or-uas/http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/industrial/difference-between-uav-and-rpv/https://www.aclu.org/blog/drones-vs-uavs-whats-behind-name