Passed
233 Yea185 Nay13 Not voting1/2 required
HR-2189-119
Received in the Senate.
Sponsored by Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI)
What it does
This bill would remove "less-than-lethal projectile devices" — such as certain TASERs — from regulation under the Gun Control Act. It defines a qualifying device as one that cannot fire standard ammunition, is designed not to cause death or serious bodily injury, and cannot accept an ammunition feeding device. The bill would also require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to rule within 90 days on whether a specific device meets that definition.
Who benefits
Law enforcement agencies and officers who use or procure less-than-lethal devices and would face fewer regulatory hurdles. Manufacturers and retailers of TASERs and similar devices, who would no longer need to comply with Gun Control Act requirements. Civilians who wish to purchase less-than-lethal devices for personal protection and currently face restrictions in some jurisdictions that rely on federal classification. De-escalation training programs that advocate for wider availability of non-lethal alternatives to firearms.
Who is hurt
Gun control advocacy organizations that argue federal oversight of such devices serves a public safety function. Individuals who could be harmed by less-than-lethal devices used without the background check or dealer requirements currently applicable under the Gun Control Act. State and local governments that rely on federal classification to enforce their own restrictions on these devices. ATF, which would bear new administrative costs and a mandatory 90-day determination timeline.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that applying the Gun Control Act — designed to regulate lethal firearms — to devices explicitly engineered not to kill is regulatory overreach that discourages law enforcement and civilians from choosing safer alternatives to deadly force. They contend that wider availability of less-than-lethal options could reduce officer-involved shootings and civilian fatalities, and that the 90-day ATF review process provides a structured, accountable pathway to ensure only genuinely non-lethal devices qualify for the exemption.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that removing these devices from Gun Control Act oversight eliminates background check requirements and dealer accountability that currently apply to their sale, potentially making them more accessible to individuals who would otherwise be prohibited from purchasing regulated weapons. They contend that "less-than-lethal" is a misnomer — TASERs and similar devices have been linked to hundreds of deaths in the U.S. according to Reuters and Amnesty International data — and that deregulation could increase misuse without a compensating safety mechanism.
Constitutional context
The Gun Control Act rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority to regulate the interstate sale of firearms and related devices. Removing a category of devices from that regulatory scheme is a straightforward exercise of the same authority. The bill does not implicate Second Amendment doctrine directly, though post-Bruen (2022) litigation over the scope of the right to bear arms could eventually touch non-firearm self-defense devices.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (ATF) gains a new mandatory classification role with a 90-day deadline, while Congress narrows ATF's existing regulatory jurisdiction; courts retain authority to review ATF classification decisions.
Historical precedent
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 similarly narrowed the scope of the Gun Control Act by removing certain items and transactions from federal firearms regulation, establishing a precedent for Congress to carve out categories of devices from that framework.
Passed