Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. 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 We are just trying to clean up the bureaucracies that are 100 years out of date.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 GCA.

This misclassification restricts access to modern, effective less-than-lethal tools for law enforcement, tribal agencies, correctional institutions, and healthcare facilities. It also slows innovation in technologies explicitly designed to de-escalate encounters and reduce the need for deadly force, an outcome directly at odds with public safety goals nationwide.

H.R. 2189 corrects this problem by establishing a modernized definition of a ``less-than-lethal projectile device'' and creating a DOJ-guided, multi-step classification process to ensure these devices are evaluated consistently, accurately, and safely. This framework ensures that only true less-than-lethal devices fall within the updated category while preventing unintended loopholes or misuse.

H.R. 4242 harmonizes tax statutes with the classification framework in H.R. 2189. It ensures consistent federal treatment across the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET), reduces administrative burdens, and restores long-standing tax treatment for federal law enforcement agencies. Today, federal agencies such as the U.S. Marshal Service are not exempt from paying the FAET on less-than-lethal devices. Historical payments of the FAET tax from a federal law enforcement agency, such as the U.S. Marshals Service, are not revenue for the federal government because they are also an expense. The reforms advanced by H.R. 4242 have previously been scored as having a de minimis effect on federal revenue.

Modernizing policy for less-lethal capabilities has the backing of a wide range of respected organizations representing both law enforcement and community voices. These include:

Law Enforcement & Public Safety Organizations

Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)

Major County Sheriffs of America

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)

Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA)

Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)

Civic, Community & Reform-Focused Organizations

African American Mayors Association

Next Generation Alumni Leadership Council

Prince Jones Jr. Foundation

Coalition of Moms Against Police Brutality

This broad coalition reflects a shared understanding across communities, law enforcement, and advocacy groups that improving access to less-than-lethal tools is essential for enhancing safety, reducing harm, and achieving better outcomes in police-community interactions.

Given the bipartisan support in Congress, the backing of leading law enforcement and community organizations, and the clear public-safety benefits associated with resolving misclassifications in federal law, we respectfully request the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of the Treasury's (USDT) full support for H.R. 2189 and H.R. 4242. DOJ and USDT's leadership are critical to ensuring federal law aligns with modern technology, supports de-escalation, and advances the safety of both officers and the communities they serve.

If you have further questions, please contact Allie Esau, Deputy Chief of Staff for Congressman Pete Stauber. Sincerely, Pete Stauber, Troy Nehls, John Rutherford, Gabe Evans, Clay Higgins, Mike Ezell,

Members of Congress. ____ Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 19, 2025. Hon. Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Dear Attorney General Bondi: As the former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, as well as the Representative of Wyoming, home of the Wind River Reservation and the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes, I am writing to thank the Department of Justice (DOJ) for renewing its efforts to prioritize public safety and justice throughout Indian Country. In the spirit of helping to improve public safety on Native American reservations, I am writing to request the assistance and support of the U.S. Department of Justice in advancing H.R. 2189, the Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act of 2025.

H.R. 2189 arises from a need to make less-than-lethal projectile devices more accessible and affordable for all law enforcement, and this legislation is of even more significance for Native American tribal police departments. If enacted, this legislation would ensure that Native American tribal police departments are not subjected to unnecessary and counterproductive roadblocks, delays, and costs when acquiring less-than-lethal projectile devices.

For context, H.R. 2189 defines a less-than-lethal projectile device to include only those devices that meet all the following tests:

The device is not designed or intended to expel, and may not be readily converted to accept and discharge, ammunition commonly used in handguns, rifles, or shotguns.

The device is not designed or intended to expel, and may not be readily converted to accept and discharge, any other projectile at a velocity exceeding 500 feet per second.

The device is designed and intended to be used in a manner that is not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

The device does not accept, and is not able to be readily modified to accept, an ammunition feeding device loaded through the inside of a pistol grip.

The device does not accept, and is not able to be readily modified to accept, an ammunition feeding device commonly used in semiautomatic firearms.

This bill is needed because, in the antiquated definition of a ``firearm'' under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (``GCA''), a device that meets all of the above specifications can still be classified as a firearm by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (``ATF'') if the device uses the action of an explosive to expel a non-lethal projectile. This is true even if that action of an explosive is merely a standard small arms primer without any kind of propellant. Classifying a less-than-lethal projectile device as a ``firearm'' makes it more difficult, costly, and time-consuming to manufacture innovative new technologies for law enforcement. Additionally, law enforcement officers can be unfairly subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for discharging a ``firearm'' than a less-than-lethal device.

Despite these issues, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies still have the ability to bulk order less-than-lethal projectile devices and traditional lethal firearms directly to their facilities, as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 925(a)(1) provides an exception for federal, state, and local governments. This exception is routinely used by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to cut down on burdensome and unnecessary administrative waste. However, as recently as late 2023, the ATF took the position that Native American tribes and their law enforcement departments do not qualify for the 18 U.S.C. Sec. 925(a)(1) exception based on the plain statutory text.

Accordingly, whenever a Native American tribal police department acquires any kind of firearm--including one that is in actuality a less-than-lethal projectile device--for duty use by its officers, it is treated as if it were a private security company under our nation's federal firearms laws. This means that the tribal police departments cannot have a bulk order of firearms shipped directly to their police department and instead must send an authorized representative of the tribal police department to a Federal Firearms Licensee (``FFL'') to do an over-the-counter transfer. The only narrow exception to this general rule that the ATF has identified is the so called ``cross- deputization'' of an officer. Individual Native American tribal police officers who are cross-deputized as a federal law enforcement officer by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA'') and have permission from their supervisor at the BIA may utilize 18 U.S.C. Sec. 925(a)(1), but only for ordering weapons for their direct individual use, and not for their department.

This present policy has many civil and criminal implications for tribal police departments, especially given that this nuance is not widely explained to FFLs or the public. Additionally, the exclusion of Native American tribes and their law enforcement departments creates many logistical difficulties in states where there are limits on the number of firearms that can be acquired within a month, especially for tribal reservations that are located in more than one U.S. state. This present state of affairs is further complicated by the fact that many tribal reservations are geographically located in regions of the United States that do not have FFLs close by.

H.R. 2189 represents a major step forward in creating parity for Native American tribal police and ensuring that all law enforcement agencies have access to innovative less- than-lethal technology. I believe that H.R. 2189 and other legislative proposals like it that seek to improve the capabilities of Native American tribal police will make a quantifiable difference in improving public safety for men, women, and children who live in Indian Country. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I, along with the sponsors and co-sponsors of this legislation, look forward to collaborating with your office on this issue. Sincerely, Harriet M. Hageman, Member of Congress. ____

H.R. 4242: Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act

Lead Sponsors: Rep David Schweikert (R-AZ) and Rep Greg Stanton (D-AZ)

50 Bipartisan Co-Sponsors across 23 states

Tax Policy Alignment:

The legislation aligns the new less-lethal category outlined in H.R. 2189 with the National Firearms Act of 1934 (Tax) and harmonizes other tax code provisions to ensure all less-lethal devices are taxed consistently. The CBO scored the provision in the 118th congress and it has a de minimis impact on the U.S. Treasury. Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (``FAET'')

The bill will harmonize H.R. 2189 and continues the exemption of certain less-than-lethal projectile devices, shells, and cartridges designed for use in such devices from the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET).

The legislation provision will have a de-minimis impact on tax revenues because modern less-than-lethal tools and technologies are almost exclusively sold to official governmental end-users or exported for use by official government end-users abroad. CBO scored in 2024 with a de- minimus score.

The bill is a companion bill with HR 2189 (Fitzgerald/ Correa) and ensures a consistent and harmonious federal approach to the Department of Treasury & the DOJ updating and maintaining clear compliance guidance for less-than-lethal projectile devices.

The legislation corrects a key issue for federal law enforcement. Unlike the U.S. armed forces, state and local law enforcement agencies such as the U.S. Marshal Service are not exempt from paying the FAET on less-than lethal devices. The legislation returns the U.S. Marshal Service and other federal agencies to the status quo of not paying a ten or eleven percent tax on the purchase of less-than-lethal devices.

A historical payment of FAET tax from a federal law enforcement agency such as the U.S. Marshal Service is not actually revenue for the federal government because it is also an expense. Tax Policy--National Firearms Act of 1934

Legislation will harmonize H.R. 2189 and continues the exemption of certain less-than-lethal projectile devices, shells, and cartridges designed for use in such devices from the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.

The NFA was implemented in response to mobsters' use of machine guns in the 1930s. The NFA makes the product subject to making and transfer taxes, transfer restrictions, additional licensing and registration requirements, and even more stringent recordkeeping standards.

This provision will significantly reduce the administrative burdens and processing delays for less-than-lethal projectile devices presently designed in a configuration that brings it under the regulatory purview of the NFA. H.R. 2189 establishes a technical fix establishing a Less-Lethal classification process for the DOJ

H.R. 2189 simply distinguishes, advanced lifesaving less- than-lethal projectile devices from firearms without touching the historical definition. H.R. 2189 establishes a clear classification process for the Department of Justice to use when evaluating a ``less-than-lethal projectile device.'' A device must pass all of the following tests to qualify:

Are designed or intended to be used in a manner not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury;

Cannot expel (or be readily converted to expel) any projectile at a velocity over 500 feet per second;

Cannot use (or be readily converted to use) ammunition in a handgun, rifle & shotgun (no bullets);

Cannot accept (or be readily converted to accept) a magazine into the device's grip; and

Cannot use (or be readily converted to use) magazines for semiautomatic firearms.

The legislation requires that the Attorney General render a classification decision within 90 days of a request submitted to ATF for a determination.

The federal definition of a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968 is currently:

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

As amended by HR 2189, the definition of a firearm would be:

(A) any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm or a less-than-lethal projectile device (as defined in the multi-part test discussed above).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source