Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Judiciary Committee backs bill to create a 'less‑lethal' category for new devices; Democrats warn of loopholes
Loading...
Summary
The committee adopted an amendment and reported H.R. 2189, which would create a statutory category for certain 'less‑lethal' projectile devices used by law enforcement. Supporters said the measure would encourage nonlethal tools and de‑escalation; critics cautioned it could create an enforcement loophole and make dangerous devices more broadly available.
The House Judiciary Committee voted to report H.R. 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to Deescalate Act, after adopting amendments in the nature of a substitute. Sponsors argued the bill updates the Gun Control Act's definitions to enable law enforcement and certain public‑safety entities to access next‑generation less‑lethal devices (for example, advanced taser‑type devices) without automatically categorizing them as firearms, while retaining technical limits and DOJ/ATF oversight.
Rep. Fitzgerald, the sponsor, said the measure would promote safer options for officers and communities and described a multi‑part test and DOJ review mechanism to ensure only genuinely less‑lethal devices qualify. "This bill will establish a new less lethal category in law to prevent new taser models from being improperly classified as firearms," he said.
Opponents, including Rep. Raskin and several Democrats, warned that revising the federal definition of "firearm" risks creating an unchecked loophole that would exempt some dangerous devices from background checks, serial numbers, and metal‑detector detection requirements. They cited DOJ and ATF concerns and studies associating taser use with fatalities in some circumstances.
The committee adopted the substitute and then recorded votes; the clerk reported the final tally as recorded in the markup (18 ayes, 8 noes in a later roll call) and ordered the bill to be reported favorably to the House. Members entered letters of support and opposition into the record and requested further work on statutory language.
