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…
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.