Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2189, the so-called Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. Law enforcement officers serve a…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2189, the so-called Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.
Law enforcement officers serve a critical role in promoting public safety. That is why we must give them the tools to do their job effectively and safely.
However, contrary to what so many of my colleagues have been told, H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement officers. In fact, it would put our law enforcement officers and so many others in great danger by giving dangerous people easy access to serious weapons.
By changing the definition of ``firearm,'' H.R. 2189 would create dangerous new loopholes in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, exempting so-called less-than-lethal weapons from our gun laws, including those that require firearms to be traceable, detectable by security equipment, and not available to prohibited purchasers, like felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers. These exemptions would allow these weapons, which can be deadly, to be sold to anyone, including dangerous people, without having to undergo a background check.
Law enforcement has no need for this exemption. They are already exempt from many gun laws and already use all kinds of weapons, including those covered by this bill without any legal obstacles. In fact, police departments in all 50 States already use these tasers. We also know that State and local corrections officers are armed with tasers within prisons and jails across the country.
Let's be clear: This bill is designed to increase civilian purchases of these weapons, and we know this because it
includes an exemption from the NFA excise tax, which law enforcement already does not pay.
More than 3 years ago, prosecutors and legal experts at the Department of Justice sounded the alarm when they reviewed a prior version of this bill. These experts all agree that:
This bill would endanger our officers and communities by
weakening their efforts to keep weapons out of the hands of
dangerous persons.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives warned that:
These weapons could be used against law enforcement,
security personnel, or the public, creating an increased risk
of harm to public safety. They also would not be traceable if
used in a crime.
If this bill were truly about helping law enforcement, Republicans would have taken this feedback from the DOJ and the ATF and revised this bill, but they didn't. The bill before us today poses the same risk to public safety.
Many of my colleagues share my commitment to making sure law enforcement has all the tools that they need to keep themselves and our communities safe. Some of them cosponsored this legislation because they initially believed this bill was a genuine effort to do that. They have since learned the truth. Some joined Congressman Thompson's amendment, which would ensure that less-than-lethal weapons are not considered firearms only when they are used by law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity, addressing the alleged purpose of this legislation without creating a dangerous loophole. Republicans rejected that amendment.
Now that these Members, who once cosponsored this bill, see that this bill does not help law enforcement and will, in fact, endanger police and many others, they are now opposing this bill.
We must continue providing the resources and support that strengthen officer and community safety, not undermine them by removing the safeguards that keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous and violent criminals. We need to be preventing violence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement, who already uses these weapons in all 50 States. It does not provide any new tools or training that would reduce police shootings or promote the safety of officers or the public.
Instead, it makes dangerous weapons widely available to everyone, including those who should not have them. It allows those weapons to be untraceable, undetectable by equipment, and sold to anyone without a background check.
This bill is especially dangerous for those experiencing domestic violence since this bill provides easy, legal access to weapons that are designed to control and incapacitate their target and can be deadly. Groups that combat domestic violence and gun violence and who support public safety all oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters from various organizations opposing this bill.
February 5, 2026.
Hon. John Thune,
Senate Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Senate Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
To Majority Leader Thune, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker
Johnson, and Leader Jeffries: We write to express our strong
opposition to H.R. 2189/S. 1283, the Law Enforcement Innovate
to De-Escalate Act and H.R. 4242, the Innovate Less Lethal to
De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act. While the stated intent of
these pieces of legislation is to promote the use of ``new
less-than-lethal technologies, such as long-range tasers'' by
law enforcement in lieu of traditional firearms, they do not
reference law enforcement at all, and are unnecessary,
reckless, and would have far broader implications for public
safety. These bills would create a loophole for firearm
access by prohibited individuals by effectively creating a
new legal market for untraceable weapons. Additionally, they
will upend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives' (ATF) enforcement of firearm laws, allow for the
development and sale of weapons that are properly prohibited
by law, and make ``less-than-lethal'' devices that employ
explosive propellant available to the public, including
individuals convicted of serious violent crimes, without any
federal regulation. Furthermore, while both bills present
their own independent public safety concerns, in tandem,
there are effectively no limits to what kinds of ``less-than-
lethal'' weapon systems the gun industry may develop. Even
more troubling, the legislation contains no prohibition or
limitations on modifications that could turn these devices
into lethal weapons. While we applaud bipartisan efforts to
decrease the risk of lethality in law enforcement encounters
and commend Congress' commitment to encourage de-escalation
tactics, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283 and H.R. 4242 as written
and urge members of Congress to oppose these bills in their
current form.
Unnecessary for Law Enforcement
The sponsors of these pieces of legislation contend that
their purpose is to increase access to and limit liability
for law enforcement use of certain less-than-lethal devices,
including specific types of TASERs, which are classified as
firearms because they use explosive propellant as opposed to
compressed gas. The text of these bills does not mention law
enforcement, either directly or by virtue of statutory
changes, in any capacity. Thus, the changes to the federal
code included in these bills win apply equally to all
persons, including individuals convicted of serious violent
crimes.
Federal law enforcement entities, such as ICE and CBP,
already widely employ such devices, and have entered into
procurement contracts worth over $35 million for Taser
systems in just the last few years, including at least $15
million for the Taser lo weapons system, a firearm-classified
less-than-lethal device.
Furthermore, state and local governments, along with their
accompanying law enforcement agencies, already procure and
deploy vast numbers of firearms, including less-than-lethal
devices classified as firearms. In fact, many of the civilian
requirements for firearms purchases are waived for agencies
and even individual officers purchasing weapons for service,
including background checks and prohibitions on purchasing
firearms across state lines. Such purchases are even exempted
from federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. Thus,
there is no federal constraint on law enforcement's
procurement of TASERs or other less-than-lethal devices that
are classified as firearms.
Proponents of these bills suggest that state and local law
enforcement are restrained from deploying firearm-classified
less-than-lethal devices, including TASERs that fall under
the definition of firearm, because of concerns about
liability, specifically that their use would inherently
constitute ``deadly force'' because of their firearm
classification. However, if such constraints exist at all,
they are a function of state or local laws. In fact, federal
regulations and courts have held that the use of less-than-
lethal devices, even those classified as firearms, does not
constitute deadly force on its own. Furthermore, deregulating
such devices under federal law would not absolve most law
enforcement agencies from such liability, as nearly every
single state has a statutory definition of firearm that is
functionally equal to that contained in U.S. code. Therefore,
removing these less-than-lethal devices from the federal
definition of ``firearm'' would not resolve this issue.
In fact, law enforcement agencies are already utilizing
firearm-classified less-than-lethal devices in every state at
every level: states, counties, towns, villages, townships,
and even correctional facilities have already deployed them
and many more are moving to adopt them. Moreover, even in
states with use of force policies that stipulate that the use
of a firearm constitutes deadly force, local department use
of force policies specifically enumerate that the Taser 10, a
firearm-classified device, constitutes ``non-lethal force.''
The Law Enforcement Innovate to
De-Escalate Act (H.R. 2189/S. 1283)
At its core, H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would deregulate ``less-
than-lethal projectile devices'' currently classified as
firearms under federal law and, therefore, subject to
important and long-standing public safety protections. In
doing so, these high-powered ``less-than-lethal'' devices
would become available to the general public and prohibited
persons alike without these protections all because this
legislation would no longer treat them as
``firearms.'' In addition, because H.R. 2189/S. 1283 do not
prohibit modification, there is nothing to prohibit a
convicted felon, domestic abuser, or anyone else for that
matter, in possession of such a ``less-than-lethal'' device
from turning it into a fully lethal weapon. At the same time,
this legislation would provide the firearms industry with a
roadmap to innovate ``less-than-lethal'' weapons that, but-
for H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would be considered ``firearms,'' to
make an end-run around existing federal law, which would
effectively establish a new, legal ghost gun market. H.R.
2189/S. 1283 radically alters the definition of ``firearm''
under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).
Under the GCA, a ``firearm'' includes ``any weapon which
will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive,'' as well as ``the
frame or receiver of any such weapon,'' which houses the
critical fire control components and is the only part of a
firearm that is regulated under federal law on its own.
H.R. 2189/S. 1283 changes this definition to create a new
class of weapons, ``less-than-lethal projectile devices,''
that are exempted from all federal regulation under the GCA
and would no longer require serialization of their frames or
receivers, background checks when they are transferred, or
paperwork for their manufacture, distribution, or sale.
Exempting these devices from basic public safety
requirements creates a dangerous loophole for prohibited
persons--such as individuals with felony or domestic violence
convictions--to access deadly weapons, creating a new legal
market for untraceable weapons. While H.R. 2189/S. 1283 does
stipulate that devices would need to be designed and intended
to be used in a manner not likely to cause death or serious
bodily harm, and that they may not be readily convertible to
fire ammunition commonly used in most other firearms, the
bill neither prohibits nor penalizes the modification of
these devices for such purposes, effectively deregulating
fIrearm access even for prohibited individuals.
Given the long history of modifying weapons to make them
even more dangerous, it is not hard to imagine scenarios
where unscrupulous gun industry actors would seize on this
dangerous definitional change to produce their own ``less-
than-lethal projectile devices'' that could later be more
easily modified to be fully lethal. For the last decade, the
gun industry used ambiguity in the existing regulation of
firearms to create a market for unfinished frames and
receivers, as well as kits to finish assembling them, which
were the basis for the ghost gun market before the ATF
promulgated a rule to regulate them as firearms. Aside from
frames or receivers, all other firearm components are
entirely unregulated under federal law, making it inevitable
that kits and parts to modify these ``less-than-lethal
projectile devices'' will become commercially available, and
schematics for 3D-printed conversion components will also
become available online.
More importantly, a change in the definition of ``firearm''
may upend all ATF enforcement of the law with regard to
firearms. The Supreme Court recently ruled in VanDerStok that
ATF's regulation entitled ``Definition of `Frame or Receiver'
and Identification of Firearms'' was properly conceived and
implemented--that ``the GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to
regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or
receivers. Changing the definition of ``firearm'' such that
an entire class of weapons (and their attending frames and
receivers) are no longer ``firearms'' would create new
opportunities for the industry to challenge and evade firearm
regulations. The Supreme Court's recent case law in
VanDerStok and Cargill, where the court ruled that bump
stocks did not satisfy the definition of ``machinegun,''
shows the importance of carefully crafted, thorough
definitions in firearms statutes.
While the legislation says that the device cannot be
``designed and intended and may not be readily converted to
accept and discharge . . . projectile[s] at a velocity
exceeding 500 feet per second,'' it ignores the fact that
such devices, as with all firearms, do not by themselves
determine the velocity of the projectiles they fire, but it
is the ammunition which is the determinant of velocity.
Further, while the bill prohibits manufactured devices from
being able to accept ammunition ``commonly used in handguns,
rifles, and shotguns,'' the frame or receiver of a firearm
often does not determine the type of ammunition that it can
fire on its own. Often, it is the other, unregulated
components of the firearm that determine that factor.
The Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act (H.R.
4242)
This bill would create dangerous exemptions to the
definition of ``firearm'' under the National Firearms Act
(NFA). The National Firearms Act covers certain firearms and
accessories determined by Congress almost a century ago to be
particularly dangerous. In turn, Congress imposed strict
regulations on the manufacture and sale of these weapons and
accessories, requiring approval from ATF after a background
check, the submission of fingerprints and a photograph,
registration of the weapon, as well as a tax stamp. The
weapons covered by the NFA are very limited in scope,
including machine guns, destructive devices such as grenade
launchers and large-bore rifles and shotguns (greater than
.50 caliber), and firearms that fall under the category of
``any other weapon'' such as firearms incorporated into other
common objects or disguised to be undetectable as firearms,
i.e., umbrella or flashlight guns.
This bill would remove NFA registration requirements and
deregulate the private transfer of certain devices that would
otherwise be classified as firearms under the NFA. This
includes destructive devices, including devices that would
otherwise be classified as grenade launchers, large-bore
(greater than .50 caliber) weapons, kinetic impact devices,
and immobility devices classified as ``any other weapon,''
including bola devices, so long as they fell under the
definition of a ``less than lethal projectile device''--a
definition which is both alarmingly easy to satisfy and of
which certain elements can be waived at the discretion of the
Secretary of the Treasury. While law enforcement agencies
have access to such devices, these bills would establish
broad unregulated civilian access, even for those with
prohibiting criminal convictions.
Automated and Undetectable Weapons Systems
While both H.R. 2189/S. 1283 and H.R. 4242 present their
own independent public safety concerns; in tandem, there are
effectively very few limits to what kinds of ``less-than-
lethal'' weapon systems the gun industry may develop after
their enactment--which could be sold directly to the public
without regulation.
Alarmingly, as these devices would no longer qualify as
``firearms'' under any federal statute, they would no longer
be subject to the Undetectable Firearms Act (UFA), recently
reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan and law enforcement
support, paving the way for the incorporation of firearm
technology into ``less-than-lethal'' area denial devices,
robotics, and even armed drones. While some of these weapon
systems already exist--such as the TASER Shockwave,
effectively a TASER claymore that can shoot dozens, or even
hundreds, of projectiles at the same time for crowd control--
they rely on compressed gas, making them large and cumbersome
to deploy. The incorporation of explosive propellant would
create opportunities to miniaturize these systems and deploy
them using automated or remote systems.
Finally, these bills would completely undermine the UFA,
making it legal to incorporate firearm technology into
devices that are specifIcally designed to evade all standard
security measures, such as metal detectors and X-ray
machines, all available for unregulated civilian use.
Conclusion
Deregulating these ``less-than-lethal'' devices will put
lives at risk, especially the most vulnerable in society.
Because these devices would no longer fall under the legal
definition of ``firearm,'' they would be available to all
members of the public without a background check and without
a prohibition on modification. Even with those safeguards,
these bills could open a brand new market for dangerous
weapons that are obtainable by anyone, including prohibited
persons. Despite the stated intent, these bills are not
designed to benefit law enforcement and will instead place
them at risk as they encounter these weapons more frequently
on the streets. As such, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283 and H.R.
4242 and urge members of Congress not to support them.
Sincerely,
Brady.
Community Justice Action Fund.
Everytown for Gun Safety.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats will continue to support law enforcement innovation and the adoption of tools that keep everyone safer, but we must oppose this misguided legislation that does not promote innovation or de-escalation and will only put our law enforcement, those experiencing domestic abuse, and others in danger.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
