Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FITZGERALD. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FITZGERALD. 2189.
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 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 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 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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO score for this bill. H.R. 2189, LAW-ENFORCEMENT INNOVATE TO DE-ESCALATE ACT, AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON JANUARY 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, millions of dollars-- ----------------------------------- 2026 2026-2030 2026-2035 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Direct Spending (Outlays)........... * * * Revenues............................ * * * Increase or Decrease (-) in the * * * Deficit............................ Spending Subject to Appropriation * * ** (Outlays).......................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * = between -$500,000 and $500,000. ** = not estimated.
Increases net direct spending in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036? No.
Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036? *.
Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes.
Mandate Effects:
Contains intergovernmental mandate? No.
Contains private-sector mandate? No.
H.R. 2189 would amend the definition of firearm in the Gun Control Act of 1968 to exclude certain nonlethal projectile devices. Under current law, people who violate this Act could be subject to criminal penalties. Criminal penalties are recorded in the budget as revenues, deposited into the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent without further appropriation. Because CBO expects that the number of affected cases would be small, we estimate that any decrease in revenues and direct spending would be insignificant over the 2026-2035 period.
CBO estimates that any administrative costs for the Department of Justice to implement H.R. 2189 would be insignificant. Any related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sean Christensen. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis. Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FITZGERALD. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source