Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Less Than Lethal Weapons topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules hearing exposes partisan divide over taser bill and whether it creates a loophole for prohibited purchasers
Summary
Supporters say HR 2189 would clarify federal law to let law enforcement access modern less‑than‑lethal devices; opponents warn the bill rewrites the definition of 'firearm,' may exempt tasers from background checks and serial-number requirements, and could allow convicted felons or domestic abusers to purchase such devices.
The Rules Committee heard sustained debate over HR 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovative Deescalate Act, as Representative Scott Fitzgerald and other proponents urged statutory updates so law enforcement can acquire modern less‑than‑lethal projectile devices more easily.
Representative Fitzgerald told the committee that the Gun Control Act’s definition of 'firearm' predates modern taser technology and can unintentionally prevent procurement. "This bill will put life saving less-than-lethal technology in the hands of more law enforcement and public safety officers," he said, and described bright-line device criteria in the bill—such as a projectile velocity cap and prohibitions on magazine-fed ammunition.
Ranking Member Raskin strongly opposed the measure, arguing it carves a broad new exception that would “open up a lot more statutory loopholes” and could allow prohibited purchasers to buy untraceable or undetectable devices without background checks. "If HR 2189 were to become law, nothing would stop a convicted felon from buying an undetectable taser and carrying that weapon right past security onto an airplane," he warned, citing concerns about the elimination of serial-number and detectability requirements.
Members debated whether the bill’s principal purpose—improving law-enforcement access—would actually be served by a broad exemption that applies to all purchasers. Representative McGovern offered a motion to narrow the exemption so it would apply only when devices are acquired and used in an official law‑enforcement capacity; the committee rejected that motion in a roll-call vote (3–8). Other exchanges covered excise-tax provisions, intergovernmental procurement, state-law interactions, and whether states, TSA, or other agencies would need new rulemaking to address any regulatory gaps.
Supporters listed law-enforcement organizations backing the bill, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; opponents noted letters from domestic-violence and gun-violence prevention groups opposing the text.
The committee reported a closed rule covering HR 2189 as part of a three‑bill package and sent the rule to the floor; no final change to the bill text was made in the Rules Committee during the hearing.
