Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia for her extraordinary leadership for gun safety and public safety in America.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would rip a dangerous new loophole in the Gun Control Act by changing the definition of firearm throughout the entire criminal code to exclude from coverage certain less-than-lethal but still highly dangerous weapons, such as tasers, which have been identified as a contributing factor in more than 500 deaths throughout the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would exempt these weapons, which are currently classified as firearms, from all regulations under all Federal firearm laws. These weapons would be exempted from the laws, regardless of who uses, purchases, possesses, or manufactures them.

Mr. Speaker, 20 million people who are presently not allowed to possess or buy firearms in this country--convicted domestic abuses, convicted felons in every State, fugitives, and other prohibited purchasers--would legally be able to buy these dangerous weapons, like tasers, that are designed to incapacitate their targets.

A convicted domestic felon, who has been deprived of his right to have firearms because he has been proven to be a danger to people in his family, in his home, his wife, his girlfriend, would be able to go out and get a taser. They would be able to go and get that taser without going through a single background check. They would just be able to go get it.

The bill exempts these weapons from the requirement that they have a serial number and that they be traceable so that law enforcement can identify their owners if they are used in violent crimes.

It would also exempt them from the Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires that firearms be detectable by metal detectors and X-ray machines used at airports. This detection element is key to preventing weapons from getting where they shouldn't be and preventing serious crimes.

If the bill becomes law, nothing would stop a convicted felon or a convicted domestic violence abuser from purchasing an undetectable taser and smuggling that weapon past security, onto an airplane, into a school area, indeed, into the Capitol, unbeknownst to anyone before it is too late. The bill would make everybody less safe.

Supporters say it is needed so law enforcement can use these less- than-lethal weapons. Mr. Speaker, 18,000 law enforcement agencies are already exempt from many of the provisions in this act and are already using taser technologies. Everybody knows that police have access to tasers. Police departments in all 50 States are using tasers today.

Likewise, the tax exemption in this bill does nothing for law enforcement agencies either because they already purchase these weapons completely free of the excise tax.

The combination of these exemptions is no accident. They do nothing for law enforcement. They both provide unfettered, even tax-free, access to dangerous weapons to civilians, including at least 20 million who shouldn't have them and wouldn't have them under current law.

Supporters argue the change is needed because the classification of these weapons as firearms may result in the use of the weapon being considered deadly force, even though the device is designed to be less than lethal.

We have been asking for years, and they cannot provide us a single case where this problem exists. In fact, courts have readily distinguished between deadly force and intermediate force in cases involving law enforcement.

They don't have a single case. They just say that some State attorney somewhere heard from another lawyer they were nervous about it. Mr. Speaker, come on. That is not how we should be legislating in the Congress of the United States.

Congressman Mike Thompson and 18 of our colleagues submitted an amendment to ensure that less-than-lethal weapons are not considered firearms only when they are used by law enforcement in their official capacity, which is purportedly what this is about. They rejected it.

The Republicans didn't want to hear it because we know that, in fact, there is a commercial purpose that pervades this entire legislation. It is all about opening up a huge, new market to sell tasers, including to millions of people who nobody should want to have them.

I have repeatedly supported and will continue to support legislation to give law enforcement every tool and training they need to keep us safe. I have got to oppose this legislation that could put law enforcement officers and the rest of us in danger.

I stand with the huge number of gun safety groups working to combat gun violence and domestic violence and who strongly oppose and condemn this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in opposing H.R. 2189.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source