Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 2189, the taser bill. I would note that the bill doesn't mention tasers anywhere in the bill, other than in the title.

I am a supporter of innovation. I am a supporter of de-escalation. I am a supporter of tasers. My son is a deputy sheriff. I support giving him and all law enforcement every tool needed to keep them and the people they serve safe, but let me be clear: This bill does nothing to help law enforcement access tasers. The fact is, this bill recklessly and needlessly weakens both the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.

Under current law, tasers are not regulated by the National Firearms Act. That is the law that regulates especially dangerous devices like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

Under current law, law enforcement in their official capacity are not subject to the background check requirement in the Gun Control Act. That is the law that prevents felons and domestic abusers from buying weapons.

Under the current law, contrary to what the chairman just mentioned, law enforcement is not subject to the excise tax for firearms or for tasers.

Instead of helping law enforcement access tasers, this bill weakens the law that regulates machine guns and opens the door to another flood of unregulated, deadly ghost guns in our community. I don't know one person in law enforcement who wants more untraceable ghost guns on our streets.

Mr. Speaker, it is unclear what barriers law enforcement faces in using long-range tasers. I have never received a complaint from law enforcement in my district, nor have I seen any reports suggesting that this is a problem. Long-range tasers are already used by law enforcement--and listen to this--in all 50 States, and in all 50 States, law enforcement pays zero excise taxes on these devices. It is important to know that long-range tasers can already be legally purchased by civilians. All they need to do is pass a background check.

I support tasers. I support law enforcement. This bill does not mention tasers once, and law enforcement is only mentioned in the title. I don't know what they are trying to do, but it looks to me like this might just be the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, my good friend from New York was talking about how important this is for law enforcement to have access to these types of tasers. As I said in my opening remarks, all 50 States already have access to these tasers.

As a matter of fact, in New York, the gentlewoman who just spoke talked about their need to have them. The New York Police Department uses these tasers and the Syracuse Police Department uses these tasers. As a matter of fact, their use is funded by a State grant. The Ramapo Police Department uses these tasers.

In Arizona, where my good friend Mr. Schweikert is from, the Phoenix Police Department uses these tasers. The Mesa Police Department uses these tasers. The Scottsdale Police Department uses these tasers.

This is not about providing access for law enforcement to use these tasers. They are already used in all 50 States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank Mr. Stauber for his time in public safety. I thank him for being a cop. We all owe a deep gratitude to those in uniform who keep us safe.

As I mentioned when I first made my opening statement, my son is a cop. I appreciate him, and I appreciate all his colleagues.

However, it is disingenuous to stand on this floor and say that this bill is needed so cops can have access to this particular type of taser technology.

Mr. Stauber is from Minnesota. I just want to point out that Minnesota uses this. The Minnetonka Police Department uses this technology. The Minneapolis Police Department uses these tasers. The St. Charles Police Department uses these tasers. The Hastings Police Department uses these tasers. The Brooklyn Park Police Department uses these tasers.

This is not about police not having access to this taser technology. They have it, and they can use it. It is not about that. Please focus on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for making my point.

If it is about the tax code, then let's address that. That is not what this bill does. This opens a huge loophole that will allow people who are a danger to themselves and others to have access to devices that none of us believe that they should have access to.

If it was all about what Mr. Schweikert said, then why didn't the majority take my amendment that I filed that would have taken the ghost gun loophole issue off the table?

If it is about the tax code, then let's deal with the tax code. However, as Mr. Doggett made the argument about domestic abusers, these are people who perpetrate the most heinous of crimes. That is why when this House and Senate passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we closed the boyfriend loophole to ensure that abusive boyfriends were blocked from accessing firearms, the same way we block abusive husbands from getting their hands on weapons.

The Gun Control Act is the Federal statute that requires background checks which block these abusers from getting their hands on firearms. This bill weakens the Gun Control Act and would allow convicted domestic abusers to purchase long-range tasers and ghost guns. That is not what my colleagues on the other side are suggesting that they want to do.

So why don't we deal with the tax issue? We can do it. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is right here. That is an easy one for us to fix. But don't create a loophole big enough to drive a truckload of ghost guns through.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, this bill does not do what my colleagues on the other side are suggesting that it does. They say that police need this bill in order to have access to and use this new taser, this new innovation in tasers. As I have pointed out a number of times, everyone who has spoken, in their home State they use these tasers. The police departments have access to these, and they use them.

As a matter of fact, all 50 States use these tasers today. I have a list of all those.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that list of States.

Sampling of State and Local Law Enforcement and Correctional Adoption

of Axon's Taser 10 (Firearm-Classified Taser)

Despite the claim from proponents of H.R. 2189 and H.R.

4242 that the bills are needed for state and local law

enforcement to be able to obtain and use Taser 10, in

reality, law enforcement departments across the country in

every state have already obtained and use these devices--

making this legislation unnecessary.

Also, on the issue of domestic abusers, the idea that this body would make it easier for domestic abusers to get new technology in tasers is just beyond explanation. We should be extremely worried about these people getting this type of technology.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a February 9, 2026, to House leadership.

February 9, 2026.

Speaker Mike Johnson,

House of Representatives.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries,

House of Representatives.

To Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: In 2014, a

Washington, DC resident (name withheld to protect the

victim's privacy) abused his wife with a TASER, repeatedly

shocking her in the face and head. While she was still

suffering the effects of the TASER, he repeatedly hit her in

the head with a baseball bat, punched her multiple times in

the face, and then sexually assaulted her. In 2018, a New

Jersey man threatened his girlfriend repeatedly with a TASER

in the course of raping her several times over multiple

incidents. Eventually, he carried through with his threat,

tasing her in the neck and raping and sodomizing her.

These incidents are both horrific and emblematic of a

larger issue: domestic abusers' use of weapons to exert power

and coercive control over their victims. Abusers threaten the

victim, the children, pets, and others. As a nation, we

should erect more barriers to domestic abusers acquiring

weapons, not demolish existing protections. But that is

exactly what H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would do by undermining laws

designed to keep so-called ``less-than-lethal projectile

devices,'' such as TASERs classified as firearms, and ghost

guns out of the hands of adjudicated abusers.

To be clear, despite their marketing, TASERs are not always

``less-than-lethal,'' as claimed in H.R. 2189. Perhaps they

are less lethal than other firearms, but between 2012 and

2021, 538 people were killed by TASERs or stun guns. And

studies that have found TASERs have only minor health impacts

were not only primarily funded by the manufacturer, they did

not mimic real-life situations, having exclusively healthy

subjects, a short exposure time, and no long-term follow-up.

Moreover, domestic violence continues or for some populations

even escalates during pregnancy, and there is evidence that

the use of a TASER on a pregnant woman can cause her to

miscarry.

Under current federal law, adjudicated domestic abusers

(with a few notable exceptions) are prohibited from

possessing TASERs that are classified as firearms in addition

to ghost guns and traditional firearms. Removing such TASERs

and other ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' modified to

be lethal from the definition of a ``firearm'' in 18 U.S.C.

921(a) will not only allow adjudicated domestic abusers to

acquire projectile weapons without a background check, it

will make it perfectly legal for a domestic abuser--and other

people convicted of violent and abhorrent crimes such as

felony child molestation--to possess these weapons. While

that might not be the intent of the bill authors, that will

be the real-life impact.

H.R. 2189/S. 1283 will have another chilling unintended

consequence: domestic abusers and others who are prohibited

under federal law from possessing firearms will modify

``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' to circumvent federal

laws and regulations, including those regulating so-called

`ghost guns.' In 2022, an adjudicated domestic abuser who was

prohibited from possessing firearms used a ghost gun to

murder his three daughters in a Sacramento church during a

supervised visitation then murdered the chaperone and killed

himself. Unable to pass a background check, he assembled his

own firearm from untraceable gun parts which were unregulated

at the time. Since that incident, the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issued a regulation, upheld

by the United States Supreme Court in Bondi v. Vanderstock,

to require background checks and serial numbers on unfinished

frames and receivers and on some weapons parts kits. But only

firearms frames and receivers are thus regulated; removing

``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' from the definition

of ``firearm'' in 18 U.S.C. 921(a) would also allow ghost

guns modified from such devices to proliferate among

individuals with criminal records. And since only firearms

frames and receivers are regulated, kits to modify such

devices into fully-lethal projectile weapons would be

entirely legal and unregulated. Plus, while the bill

stipulates that ``less-than-lethal projectile devices . . .

must be designed and intended to be used in a manner that is

not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury,'' the

bill fails to prohibit or even acknowledge the inevitable

modification of ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' into

entirely-lethal projectile devices. Once again, adjudicated

domestic abusers who are prohibited from possessing firearms

under federal law would be legally permitted to possess a

firearm-equivalent, with the same lethal capacity, due simply

to semantics.

So, now, let us return to the depraved domestic and sexual

violence offenders whose heinous acts were detailed in the

opening paragraph. Despite their use of TASERs to physically

and sexually abuse their intimate partners and the attendant

criminal convictions that would prohibit them from possessing

firearms, immediately upon their release from prison these

individuals would legally be permitted under federal law to

acquire TASERs and other high-powered ``less-than-lethal

projectile devices'' that today are classified as

firearms. Moreover, once they obtained such weapons, there

would be no barrier in federal law to obtain the necessary

parts to modify them into lethal projectile weapons.

The purpose of this bill is truly perplexing. Not only will

H.R. 2189/S. 1283 arm adjudicated domestic abusers and others

who pose a danger to public safety, it in no way achieves its

stated goals and is a solution in search of a problem. The

federal classification of TASERs as firearms in no way

precludes law enforcement agencies from accessing TASERs,

just as it does not preclude them from accessing an array of

any of the ``less-than-lethal'' devices currently classified

as firearms. Law enforcement agencies are easily able to

procure firearms, including ``less-than-lethal projective

devices'' currently classified as firearms, with many

civilian requirements for purchasing firearm--and federal

taxes--being waived. And contrary to a further argument in

support of H.R. 2189/S. 1283, removing ``less-than-lethal

projectile devices'' from the federal definition of a

``firearm'' will not decrease law enforcement's liability for

the use of deadly force. In terms of federal law, both

regulations and courts have held that, on its own, the use of

TASERs and other ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' do

not constitute deadly force. Moreover, even if that were not

the case, changing the federal definition of a firearm to

exclude TASERs and similar devices would in no way impact

liability for using deadly force, because such liability

outside the context of federal law enforcement is established

in state and local law, which H.R. 2189/S. 1283 cannot alter.

So what, then, is the purpose of H.R. 2189/S. 1283? Perhaps

it is to exempt individuals attempting to acquire TASERs and

similar devices from undergoing a background check. In that

case, the benefits to public safety are unclear, while we

have amply demonstrated the risks. Perhaps an individual

seeks to acquire such a device for self-protection. If the

individual does not have a prohibiting record, they should be

able to pass a firearms background check with no

inconvenience to themselves--most firearms background checks

take only a few minutes to complete. And if they do have a

prohibiting record, for the safety not only of victims and

survivors of domestic violence but for public safety more

broadly, they should not have access to either a ``less-than-

lethal'' device or a fully-lethal firearm.

For all of these reasons, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283, and

we urge you to oppose it as well. If you have any questions,

please reach out.

Sincerely,

Jewish Women International; Catholics for Family Peace

Education and Research Initiative; Congregation of Our Lady

of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Hope Rise

Thrive; Interfaith Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual

Violence; Legal Momentum: The Women's Legal Defense and

Education Fund; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of

the Good Shepherd; Nuns Against Gun Violence; Safe Havens

Interfaith Partnership Against Domestic Violence and Elder

Abused; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team; Ujima:

The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black

Community; United Church of Christ.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who make the argument that people are afraid, they want to have the newest taser technology to keep themselves safe in the civilian space, I understand that. They are not precluded from being able to purchase and have this new technology in tasers. They just have to get a background check to make sure they aren't domestic abusers and to make sure they are not prohibited individuals who couldn't otherwise get firearms.

This bill does a lot more than the proponents are suggesting that it does. If, in fact, they want to deal with the issues that they stood on this floor today and talked about, they are all good issues, everybody will agree with that, let's do it. Let's draw the bill to deal with those issues. We could have done that had the majority accepted my bill that would have closed the ghost gun loophole, but they chose not to.

If they really want to make this bill do what they are claiming, then let's write a bill that does that. This bill doesn't do it. This puts American communities at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I call up the bill (H.R. 2189) to modernize Federal firearms laws to account for advancements in technology and less-than-lethal weapons, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2189.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2189, the Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.

This bill will put lifesaving, less-lethal technology in the hands of more law enforcement and public safety officers.

When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted more than 50 years ago, it was not written with the intent to regulate less-lethal projectile devices such as tasers.

Unfortunately, if a taser or other device uses an explosive propellant to discharge the projectile, the ATF classifies it as a firearm. This makes it more difficult for law enforcement and public safety officers to obtain and use these devices.

For starters, many States prohibit public safety officers from using firearms. In at least 12 States, correctional officers are unable to carry firearms in the course of their official duties. Many State laws also prohibit or restrict the use of firearms in schools and hospitals, meaning security officers would be unable to purchase these devices if they are needed.

For police departments, law enforcement officers can be unfairly subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for discharging a firearm than a less-lethal device. This includes my own State of Wisconsin, which includes in its definition of deadly force the discharge of a firearm.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act is both necessary and important. H.R. 2189 makes a small but important change to the Gun Control Act's definition of a firearm to appropriately define a less-lethal projectile device.

It does so by instituting a five-part test, ensuring only devices that are truly less lethal will pass ATF scrutiny. It also exempts these devices from the firearm excise tax, the simple logic being that police departments and manufacturers should no longer be paying a firearm tax on a device that no longer is classified as a firearm. It was never intended to apply to them in the first place, and it should not apply to them now.

By making these simple changes, we are equipping our law enforcement and public safety officers with the best tools to keep our communities safe and our first responders out of harm's way.

Innovation should be rewarded, not stifled, and this bill does just that. I thank my colleagues--Congressman Correa, Congressman Schweikert, Congressman Stanton, and all the others who have been supportive of this--for their leadership on this issue over the last two Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that the bill itself has a ton of support, to include the Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, NOBLE, Hispanic American Police Command Officers and their associations, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Again, I think there is a ton of support out there, and there is actually a real need and a number of requests for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I remind Members, again, that a lot of the accusations that this will create other avenues for individuals to get firearms is just not true. To be classified as a less-than-lethal device under this bill, the device may not accept firearm ammunition. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

There are no firearm magazines involved with these weapons at all, and they do not have high-velocity projectiles.

There are a lot of scare tactics being used to try to paint this as if it is being extended to other firearms. It is not.

This would also prevent these ideas from taking hold amongst discussions about ghost guns, which is something that is out there on the street. For any weapon that also has kits that can be converted to a firearm, it doesn't apply to them.

This bill also requires ATF to deny classification to any device that could be readily modified into a firearm.

I know there is a lot of hearsay, a lot of thoughts about where this could go in the future, but, quite honestly, that is not the way this bill was drafted. It is not going to lend itself to being used that way.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the ranking member that all U.S. States and territories already criminalize misuse of less-than-lethal devices through existing assault and battery laws.

Mr. Speaker, 42 States have explicit statutory definitions for less- than-lethal devices. Of those 42 States, 34 already prohibit possession by violent felons and domestic abusers, they impose age restrictions, and impose criminal penalties for misuse. Several States even require permits, licenses, or a background check to purchase or possess these devices.

This is not something that the State legislatures aren't aware of. As a matter of fact, I have said before, I think that there may be some State legislatures that will react to the legislation before us today and possibly come up with other items that States have already put in place that probably will support law enforcement in this area.

I think suggestions that the bill will put these devices in the hands of violent felons or the general public are blown way out of proportion and that H.R. 2189 preserves State regulations on these devices. It does not weaken existing safeguards against misuse.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the Members we have 22 Democrat cosponsors on this bill. I am sure that those Members are hearing from their own local law enforcement. I am sure they are hearing from their chiefs of police. I am sure they are hearing from their sheriffs.

I am sure that they are hearing from some private security firms that want to be able to access this technology that has been there for some time and has been proven to be a de-escalator in these very tense situations that law enforcement officers find themselves in.

Mr. Speaker, I will say Wisconsin, my State, defines deadly force in its use-of-force policy as: The intentional use of a firearm or other instrument that creates a high probability of death or great bodily harm.

That is what we are trying to overcome, is this definition that does not fit this new technology.

Wisconsin already regulates the use of tasers and stun guns at the State level. You must be over 18 to own a stun gun or a taser, and you must be 21 and possess a valid concealed carry permit to carry in the public.

This is not going to be unchecked. There are absolutely going to be legislatures that will revisit this. It is currently a felony to carry a stun gun or a taser in public without a valid permit. It is illegal to possess stun guns or tasers for those who had prior felony convictions.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of this has already been thought out. It is law enforcement members who think about these items each and every day. It is those in leadership positions who think about these items, and we are responding to that. That is simply what we are doing here.

Once again, I think it is a great bill. I hope that Members support it. It sounds like it is going to be what I would expect to be a solid, bipartisan vote today.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO score for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will spend the time I have remaining responding to a few points made by my colleagues.

First of all, the U.S. States and territories already criminalize the misuse of less-lethal devices through existing assault and battery laws, and 34 States also restrict possession by violent felons and domestic abusers.

Let me repeat that. It is illegal for violent felons and domestic abusers to own or misuse less-lethal devices.

Mr. Speaker, our bill does not change that. H.R. 2189 preserves State regulation and, in fact, may invite State legislatures to adjust their statutes to harmonize with Federal law.

Second, the bill will not create ghost guns or other unregulated firearms. The five-part test in this bill would sufficiently protect against deregulation, and any product submitted to ATF for classification will be scrutinized under the ATF's existing classification process.

There is no loophole. This fear-mongering by colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning is nothing more than that.

Finally, police do, in fact, have difficulty obtaining these devices. State and local police departments in States like California, New York, and Texas will not buy the newest taser models due to the increased liability.

This is not some hypothetical. Unless we make this change, State and local police departments will have to settle for weaker, less-accurate taser models due to this misclassification.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

H.R. 116: Mr. Jack.

H.R. 154: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 158: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 220: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 251: Mr. Jack.

H.R. 253: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 282: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 349: Mr. Min and Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 397: Mr. Jeffries.

H.R. 429: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 438: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 485: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 488: Ms. McDonald Rivet and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 498: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 516: Mr. Norman.

H.R. 520: Mr. Min.

H.R. 539: Mrs. Trahan.

H.R. 585: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 718: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 821: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 865: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 869: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 879: Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 921: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 945: Ms. Bynum, Ms. McDonald Rivet, and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 953: Mr. Min.

H.R. 1027: Mr. Subramanyam.

H.R. 1054: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 1055: Mr. Subramanyam.

H.R. 1078: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 1110: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 1162: Mr. Gill of Texas.

H.R. 1175: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1181: Mr. Nunn of Iowa and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 1241: Mr. Jack and Ms. Mace.

H.R. 1246: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1254: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 1277: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1285: Mr. Wied.

H.R. 1329: Ms. Strickland, Ms. McBride, Mrs. Hayes, Ms.

Ansari, Mr. Crow, Ms. Gillen, Mr. Landsman, and Mr. McDowell.

H.R. 1361: Mr. Tran.

H.R. 1369: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1394: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 1398: Mrs. Kim.

H.R. 1404: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 1412: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1421: Mr. Tran.

H.R. 1464: Mr. Thompson of California.

H.R. 1475: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 1492: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.

H.R. 1502: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1522: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 1529: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1546: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1564: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 1576: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 1628: Ms. Salazar, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr.

Brecheen, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Norcross.

H.R. 1659: Mr. Riley of New York and Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 1661: Ms. Balint and Mr. Keating.

H.R. 1695: Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 1775: Mr. Moran.

H.R. 1810: Mr. Morelle.

H.R. 1960: Mr. Min.

H.R. 1983: Ms. Norton.

H.R. 1986: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1991: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1993: Mr. Crenshaw, Mrs. Hinson, and Ms. Davids of

Kansas.

H.R. 2028: Mr. Conaway.

H.R. 2036: Mr. Kean and Mr. Casten.

H.R. 2055: Ms. Morrison.

H.R. 2062: Mr. Moore of North Carolina.

H.R. 2068: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 2094: Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 2141: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2152: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2154: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 2165: Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 2192: Mr. Nadler and Mr. Bera.

H.R. 2199: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 2232: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 2244: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 2253: Ms. Kamlager-Dove.

H.R. 2257: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2315: Mr. Jack.

H.R. 2370: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 2402: Mr. Cisneros and Ms. Sewell.

H.R. 2467: Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 2496: Mr. Messmer.

H.R. 2531: Mr. Casar.

H.R. 2672: Mr. Min.

H.R. 2678: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Ms. Ross, and Mr.

McGovern.

H.R. 2680: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 2703: Mr. Quigley.

H.R. 2705: Mr. Jack and Ms. Mace.

H.R. 2716: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 2718: Mrs. Foushee.

H.R. 2727: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 2728: Mr. Fields.

H.R. 2731: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2736: Ms. Johnson of Texas.

H.R. 2799: Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 2829: Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 2878: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2902: Mrs. Hayes.

H.R. 2941: Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 2947: Ms. Simon.

H.R. 2986: Mr. Quigley.

H.R. 3028: Ms. Johnson of Texas.

H.R. 3184: Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Turner of Ohio.

H.R. 3206: Mr. Reschenthaler.

H.R. 3246: Mr. Min.

H.R. 3261: Mr. Casar.

H.R. 3277: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 3316: Mr. Carson.

H.R. 3333: Mr. Thanedar.

H.R. 3337: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 3350: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 3367: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 3447: Mr. Cline and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3497: Mr. Correa, Ms. Salazar, Ms. Lois Frankel of

Florida, Ms. Lee of Florida, Mr. Schmidt, and Mr.

Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3513: Mr. Larson of Connecticut.

H.R. 3514: Mr. Menendez.

H.R. 3526: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 3534: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3565: Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 3604: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3629: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 3694: Mr. Case.

H.R. 3699: Mr. Huizenga.

H.R. 3740: Ms. Balint and Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 3791: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 3793: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3858: Mr. Hunt.

H.R. 3867: Mr. Rutherford.

H.R. 3868: Mr. Neal.

H.R. 3885: Ms. Lee of Nevada.

H.R. 3931: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 3959: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 4083: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4130: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 4141: Mr. Min.

H.R. 4151: Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H.R. 4164: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4167: Mr. Mackenzie.

H.R. 4169: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 4176: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4194: Mr. Williams of Texas.

H.R. 4206: Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rutherford, and

Ms. De La Cruz.

H.R. 4231: Mr. Smith of Washington.

H.R. 4242: Mr. Murphy.

H.R. 4291: Mr. Self.

H.R. 4299: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 4317: Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Babin, and Mr.

Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 4464: Mr. Conaway.

H.R. 4521: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4582: Mr. Levin, Mr. Thompson of California, and Ms.

Escobar.

H.R. 4583: Mr. Levin, Mr. Thompson of California, and Ms.

Escobar.

H.R. 4585: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 4606: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 4611: Ms. Friedman.

H.R. 4640: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 4646: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 4660: Mr. Harder of California and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 4662: Mr. Takano, Mr. Whitesides, Mr. Vargas, Mr.

Lieu, Mr. Levin, Ms. Lofgren, and Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4677: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4710: Mr. Moran.

H.R. 4721: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 4810: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 4821: Mr. Neal.

H.R. 4921: Mr. Cisneros.

H.R. 4945: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4950: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 4982: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4989: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 5068: Ms. Johnson of Texas.

H.R. 5106: Mr. Langworthy.

H.R. 5235: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 5263: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 5269: Ms. Pou and Mr. Edwards.

H.R. 5271: Ms. Ross, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Swalwell, and Mr.

Beyer.

H.R. 5282: Mr. Neguse and Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5309: Ms. Pressley, Ms. McDonald Rivet, Ms. Pingree,

and Ms. Rivas.

H.R. 5387: Mr. Min.

H.R. 5390: Ms. Pou and Mr. Meeks.

H.R. 5415: Mr. Harrigan, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Ms.

Ross, and Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 5434: Ms. Meng, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Soto, and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 5438: Mrs. Harshbarger and Mr. Perry.

H.R. 5461: Ms. Friedman.

H.R. 5469: Ms. McDonald Rivet and Mr. Conaway.

H.R. 5509: Ms. Gillen, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Davis of

North Carolina, Mr. Correa, and Mrs. Luna.

H.R. 5521: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5543: Mr. Whitesides.

H.R. 5638: Mr. Begich.

H.R. 5641: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5767: Mr. Williams of Texas and Mr. Babin.

H.R. 5791: Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 5835: Ms. Randall.

H.R. 5861: Mrs. Dingell.

H.R. 5867: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 5870: Mr. Obernolte.

H.R. 5910: Ms. Ansari.

H.R. 5934: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5939: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5940: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 5951: Mr. Thompson of California.

H.R. 5972: Mr. Cleaver.

H.R. 5983: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5993: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6006: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6020: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 6056: Mr. Crow, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Sewell, and Mr.

Morelle.

H.R. 6093: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 6099: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6108: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6109: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6110: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6111: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6119: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6121: Mr. Owens and Ms. Norton.

H.R. 6123: Ms. King-Hinds.

H.R. 6126: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6128: Mr. Soto.

H.R. 6130: Mr. Soto, Mr. Neguse, and Mrs. Hayes.

H.R. 6152: Mr. Min.

H.R. 6164: Mr. Aguilar.

H.R. 6170: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6181: Mr. Bera, Ms. Balint, Mr. Torres of New York,

and Mr. Aguilar.

H.R. 6182: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 6213: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 6219: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H.R. 6228: Mr. Garcia of California.

H.R. 6231: Mr. Murphy and Ms. Brownley.

H.R. 6245: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 6259: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6261: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6268: Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

H.R. 6293: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6366: Mr. Obernolte and Ms. Ross.

H.R. 6422: Mr. LaLota.

H.R. 6425: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6432: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6434: Ms. McBride and Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 6436: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6440: Mr. Garcia of Illinois and Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 6444: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6448: Ms. Plaskett.

H.R. 6449: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6450: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6468: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6475: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6498: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6501: Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 6521: Mr. Vargas.

H.R. 6529: Mr. Thanedar.

H.R. 6541: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6543: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6546: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6547: Mr. Foster and Mr. Rose.

H.R. 6550: Mr. Rose, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6551: Mr. Gottheimer.

H.R. 6552: Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6553: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Nunn of Iowa.

H.R. 6554: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Nunn of Iowa.

H.R. 6555: Mr. Gottheimer.

H.R. 6556: Mr. Gottheimer.

H.R. 6574: Mr. Goldman of New York, Ms. DelBene, Mr.

Subramanyam, Ms. Meng, Ms. Plaskett, Mrs. Dingell, Ms.

Pingree, Ms. Titus, and Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 6597: Mrs. McClain Delaney.

H.R. 6608: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 6624: Mr. Gill of Texas and Mrs. McClain Delaney.

H.R. 6670: Mr. Haridopolos and Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 6675: Mr. Gill of Texas.

H.R. 6677: Mr. Case.

H.R. 6678: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 6707: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia.

H.R. 6724: Mr. Mannion.

H.J. Res. 13: Ms. Bonamici.

H. Con. Res. 12: Mr. Dunn of Florida and Mr. Tran.

H. Con. Res. 64: Ms. Goodlander, Mr. Espaillat, and Ms.

Hoyle of Oregon.

H. Res. 297: Ms. Budzinski.

H. Res. 381: Mr. Conaway.

H. Res. 704: Mr. Thanedar.

H. Res. 733: Mr. Conaway.

H. Res. 843: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H. Res. 931: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

Mr. Speaker, have you ever had a piece of legislation--we all go through this--where you have your friends on the opposite side who say things, and you think, wow, I can't find that in this piece of legislation. I guess we are all sometimes in the pandering business.

About a year ago, in my community, we had a woman who came running out of her house holding a knife. She was having some sort of horrible mental health issue, and she was charging a police officer with a knife. Before this type of technology, she would have lost her life because a traditional firearm would have been used. They used a nonlethal.

The reason it doesn't say ``taser'' in the language is because who knows what next year's innovation is going to be. That is the whole point: Can you have a society where, through the use of technology, people don't die?

Why do the bill? Why do this portion of the bill for those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means? Let's go back about 100 years ago. On excise tax, you have 11 percent on the cartridge, and you have 10 percent on the unit itself. You collect the excise tax. Then you have to go back to the tax-exempt government agency, have them fill out their paperwork, submit it over, and then turn back to refund it. We are just trying to clean up the bureaucracies that are 100 years out of date.

It is not that hard. Make up your mind. Do you want broader adoption of nonlethal technology so our brothers and sisters don't die?

Think of some of the crappy things that have happened in our society over the last 10, 20 years because of the discharge of a firearm in law enforcement. It does not need to be that way.

This is actually the second or third rewrite of this bill as we try to make the anti-firearm groups happy. It turns out we would meet their requests, and then they would change their standard. The problem or the disagreement kept changing.

I don't know what the motivation is for playing games, but we bring this to the floor with honest hearts. We want our brothers and sisters not to die in this moment of violence. I would think there would be this almost giddy optimism that technology is bringing us here. Instead, it continues to be the moving excuse of why to oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 10, 2025.

Hon. Pam Bondi,

Attorney General, Department of Justice,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Dan Driscoll,

Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Robert Leider,

Chief Counsel, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Scott Bessent,

Secretary of the Treasury,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.

Hon. Robert Cekada,

Deputy Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mary G. Ryan,

Administrator, Alcohol, Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,

Washington, DC.

Dear Attorney General Bondi, Secretary Bessent, Director

Driscoll, Deputy Director Cekada, and Chief Counsel Leider,

and Administrator Ryan: As former law enforcement officers,

we write to share our concerns regarding the outdated federal

classification of modern less-than-lethal technologies and

provide an update on the strong legislative progress of H.R.

2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, and

H.R. 4242, the Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax

Modernization Act. H.R. 2189 has received significant

bipartisan support and was marked up and approved by the

House Judiciary Committee with favorable guidance on November

18, 2025.

H.R. 2189 addresses a serious and growing challenge:

outdated statutory language within the 1968 Gun Control Act

(GCA) that unintentionally classifies certain non-lethal

devices as firearms. As technology has advanced, this

decades-old framework has failed to keep pace, creating

regulatory outcomes that run counter to modern policing needs

and Congress's original intent.

A clear example is the TASER T10. Although engineered

expressly for less-than-lethal use, it has been classified as

a firearm solely because its propulsion system uses a small

primer charge to expel its non-lethal projectiles. Older

TASER models also contain a primer, but because those devices

utilize compressed air released from a punctured gas cylinder

to expel the projectile, they fall outside the GCA

definition. The T10's updated, gas-less propulsion system

triggers firearm classification under the statute, even

though the device is no more dangerous and, in many respects,

safer than previous models that remain unregulated under the

Mr. Speaker, 90 seconds is the shortest I have ever spoken.

Mr. Speaker, if someone is actually listening to our discussion, the Democrats have made it clear: Hey, lots of law enforcement have this product.

Wonderful. We are trying to explain that this is a segment of the tax code we are trying to make easier and more efficient. Once again, just read the bill. It is remarkably simple.

Mr. Speaker, you have an excise tax. You have to go through all these steps to collect it then to refund it.

So my friend from California--he is a good guy. We have done a number of bills together over the years--made my argument. This is actually in wide distribution across the country, and there is another generation of technology, hopefully, coming and another one coming.

It is more than just the taser in the hand. It may be the thing on the wall that protects my synagogue or my school or those things. There is a revolution of nonlethal coming so that people don't have to die.

I thank the gentleman for explaining that it is in wide distribution. Now let's deal with the things in the tax code that add bureaucracy and costs. If we both support the fact that these should be in the hands of people protecting our public, then let's remove some of the bureaucracy that makes it more expensive.