Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act

Floor Speech

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. McBATH. Kamlager-Dove).

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.

GIFFORDS.

Newtown Action Alliance. ____ Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Raskin: On behalf of Sandy Hook Promise, a national nonprofit committed to preventing violence and other acts that harm children, we write to share our opposition to H.R. 2189 and S. 1283, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. This legislation has the potential to deregulate certain TASERs and other less-than-lethal devices currently classified as firearms. While we appreciate Congressional efforts to decrease the potential for lethality during interactions with law enforcement, especially for children, the legislation could create expanded harm to young people and does not increase access to less than lethal technology for law enforcement in a meaningful way.

The Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act could also lead to a widespread increase in the availability of less- than-lethal devices, including TASERS, for general-public use. While these devices can cause serious bodily harm when used on adults, they pose an even greater risk to children. Even manufacturers of these devices acknowledge that deploying them on young people increases the risk of death or severe injury. It is therefore dangerous to expand access to these devices before creating strong guardrails to ensure they are not deployed against children.

Sandy Hook Promise applauds Congress for working on bipartisan legislation to reduce the use of lethal force, and we are eager to work with you if this bill advances out of Committee. We encourage Congress to pursue avenues such as conducting hearings or requesting a study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide clear guidance around the use of force against youth. We are happy to meet any time with your offices on this issue. Sincerely, Elizabeth Murphy, Senior Vice President of Policy and Partnerships, Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund. ____ 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 USC 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 USC 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 firearms--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'' does 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. 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 Abuse; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team; Ujima: The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community; United Church of Christ.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. McBATH. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source