S-1283-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Bill Hagerty (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would remove "less-than-lethal projectile devices" — such as certain TASERs and similar devices — from regulation under the Gun Control Act. It defines a qualifying device as one that cannot fire standard ammunition, cannot exceed 500 feet per second projectile velocity, is designed to avoid causing 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 any specific device meets this definition.
Who benefits
Manufacturers and retailers of less-than-lethal devices (e.g., TASER/stun gun companies) who would face reduced regulatory compliance costs. Law enforcement agencies that purchase and deploy these devices in bulk. Civilians who use or wish to purchase less-than-lethal devices for personal protection, particularly in jurisdictions where they are currently restricted under firearms laws. Individuals with prior felony convictions who are currently prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act, who could potentially access less-than-lethal devices for self-defense. Security companies and private guards who rely on these tools.
Who is hurt
Individuals or communities concerned that removing regulatory oversight could make it easier for dangerous actors to obtain devices capable of causing harm. State and local regulators who currently rely on federal firearms classifications to enforce local restrictions on these devices. Victims' advocacy groups who may argue that reduced oversight weakens accountability. Competing non-lethal device manufacturers who have already structured compliance around existing regulations and may face new market competition. ATF, which would bear the administrative burden of a new 90-day classification review process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that less-than-lethal devices like TASERs are fundamentally different from firearms and that subjecting them to the Gun Control Act — designed for deadly weapons — is regulatory overreach that burdens both manufacturers and law-abiding consumers. They contend that removing these devices from firearms regulation would expand access to non-lethal self-defense options, particularly for people who are legally prohibited from owning firearms but still have a constitutional right to self-defense, as recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). They further argue that the bill's clear definitional criteria and mandatory ATF review process provide a structured, accountable framework to prevent abuse.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that removing less-than-lethal devices from the Gun Control Act eliminates background check requirements and other safeguards that currently prevent prohibited individuals — including those with violent criminal histories — from easily obtaining these devices, which can still cause serious harm or death in certain circumstances. They contend that the 500 feet-per-second velocity threshold and "not likely to cause death" standard are difficult to enforce and could be exploited by manufacturers to market borderline-dangerous devices as exempt. They further argue that the 90-day ATF classification mandate may strain agency resources without sufficient congressional funding or staffing to support it.
Constitutional context
The Second Amendment's scope regarding non-lethal weapons remains unsettled. In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court vacated a state ban on stun guns, signaling that Second Amendment protections may extend beyond traditional firearms. Under the Bruen (2022) text-history-tradition framework, the constitutionality of regulating less-than-lethal devices would need to be assessed against historical analogues, an area where doctrine is actively developing.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (ATF) gains a new classification authority under this bill, but is constrained by the bill's specific definitional criteria and a mandatory 90-day response deadline; Congress retains oversight authority and could revisit the definitions legislatively.
Historical precedent
In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously vacated a state conviction under a stun gun ban, holding that the Second Amendment's protections are not limited to weapons in existence at the founding — the most directly analogous federal judicial action regarding less-than-lethal device regulation.