A substantive expansion. v3 introduces an entirely new Title II, which exempts less-than-lethal projectile devices from federal firearms and ammunition taxes and the National Firearms Act. This significantly broadens the scope of the bill beyond just modernizing Title 18 restrictions, adding new administrative requirements for classification by the Secretary of the Treasury.
To modernize Federal firearms laws to account for advancements in technology and less-than-lethal weapons, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 24, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 2189 exempts a newly defined class of less-than-lethal projectile devices from federal firearms regulations and taxes, aiming to encourage their development and use.
What it actually does
This bill modernizes federal firearms laws by creating a new category for 'less-than-lethal projectile devices.' It exempts these devices from certain restrictions under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the federal firearms and ammunition excise tax, and the National Firearms Act. The bill defines these devices based on projectile velocity, design intent (not to cause death or serious injury), and ammunition feeding mechanisms. It also mandates the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to make determinations and maintain lists of such devices.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will encourage the development and adoption of less-than-lethal technologies for law enforcement and public use, providing alternatives to deadly force. They contend that by removing regulatory and tax burdens, manufacturers will be incentivized to innovate, leading to safer outcomes in situations that might otherwise escalate. Proponents believe this modernization is crucial to keep pace with technological advancements in de-escalation tools.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that creating new exemptions could inadvertently create loopholes or lead to the proliferation of devices that, while 'less-than-lethal,' can still cause significant harm. They may argue that the definitions could be exploited or that the administrative burden on federal agencies to classify and list these devices could be substantial, potentially leading to inconsistent enforcement or delays in determinations. Some may also raise concerns about potential revenue loss from the tax exemptions.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for a quick read and evaluation.
Title I, Section 102
Exemption from Title 18 Firearms Restrictions
This section amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which governs federal firearms laws. It introduces a new definition for 'less-than-lethal projectile devices' and exempts them from certain existing firearms restrictions. To qualify, a device must not be designed to expel common ammunition or projectiles exceeding 500 feet per second, must be intended not to cause death or serious injury, and must not accept ammunition feeding devices loaded through a pistol grip or commonly used in semi-automatic firearms. The Attorney General is tasked with determining if a device meets this definition within 90 days of a request.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this exemption is crucial for fostering innovation in less-than-lethal technologies, allowing manufacturers to develop and distribute safer alternatives without being unduly burdened by regulations designed for traditional firearms. They believe it will enhance public safety by providing law enforcement with more de-escalation tools and individuals with non-lethal self-defense options.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that the definition, particularly the 500 feet per second velocity limit, could be challenging to enforce consistently or could be circumvented by manufacturers. They might also worry that any expansion of devices outside traditional firearms regulations could lead to unforeseen safety issues or make it harder to track potentially dangerous items.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to promote less-lethal technologies with the need to maintain robust oversight of devices that could still cause harm. The tension lies in defining the precise line between a regulated firearm and an exempted less-than-lethal device, and ensuring that the exemption does not create unintended safety gaps.
Title II, Section 202
Exemption from Federal Firearms and Ammunition Tax
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt less-than-lethal projectile devices and their specific shells/cartridges from the federal excise tax imposed by Section 4181. It provides a similar definition for 'less-than-lethal projectile device' as Title I, tailored for tax purposes. The Secretary of the Treasury is mandated to make determinations on device classification within 90 days, maintain an annual public list of exempted devices, and report annually to Congress on non-lethal devices that exceed the 500 feet per second velocity threshold but would otherwise qualify.
Title II, Section 203
Exemption from National Firearms Act
This section amends the National Firearms Act (NFA) to exempt less-than-lethal projectile devices, as defined in the new Section 4182(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, and any devices on the Secretary of the Treasury's public list, from NFA regulations. The NFA imposes strict registration, taxation, and transfer requirements on certain types of firearms, such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles, and suppressors. This exemption means qualifying less-than-lethal devices will not be subject to these stringent controls.
Both titles define 'less-than-lethal projectile device' by including a specific velocity threshold: it may not be readily converted to accept and discharge 'any other projectile at a velocity exceeding 500 feet per second.'
Title I, Section 102(39)(A)(i)(II) and Title II, Section 202(d)(2)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms within a statute, but its technical nature means a casual reader might overlook the specific numerical threshold that dictates which devices qualify for exemptions.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this precise velocity threshold is essential for distinguishing truly less-than-lethal devices from those that could still cause significant harm, providing a clear and measurable standard for manufacturers and regulators.
Case against: Critics might question the scientific basis for this specific 500 fps threshold, arguing it could be arbitrary or that devices just above or below this limit might have similar real-world impacts, potentially leading to inconsistent application or encouraging manufacturers to design devices specifically to meet this limit.
Estimated impact: This threshold directly determines the scope of devices that will benefit from the regulatory and tax exemptions, influencing the market for less-than-lethal technologies.
The Secretary of the Treasury is required to make publicly available a list of devices that are not described as 'less-than-lethal projectile devices' (specifically those exceeding 500 fps) but would otherwise qualify, and to submit an annual report to Congress on this list.
Title II, Section 202(d)(4)(B)
Why it matters:This is a standard reporting and transparency mechanism, but its placement might make it less prominent than the direct exemptions.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a crucial transparency measure, ensuring that Congress and the public are informed about devices that approach the 'less-than-lethal' threshold but do not fully qualify, allowing for ongoing review and potential policy adjustments.
Case against: Critics might argue that this adds an unnecessary administrative burden on the Treasury Department, requiring resources to track and report on devices that are explicitly *not* receiving the tax benefits.
Estimated impact: This provision creates an ongoing reporting requirement for the Treasury Department and provides Congress with data for future policy decisions regarding less-than-lethal technologies.