A small clarification and an addition to the effective date provisions. v2 includes a technical correction to a cross-reference within the tax exemption section and adds a specific rule for how classification requests for less-than-lethal devices will be handled during the initial 180 days after enactment. The bill's core policy remains unchanged.
Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ-1]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 2, 2026
Bottom line
The bill reduces taxes and regulatory burdens on a newly defined category of less-than-lethal devices, aiming to modernize firearms law and promote de-escalation technologies.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain less-than-lethal projectile devices and their ammunition from the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition, and from the regulatory requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA). It establishes a specific definition for 'less-than-lethal projectile devices' based on projectile velocity, design intent, and ammunition feeding mechanisms, and mandates annual public lists and congressional reports by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that current firearms laws, including the National Firearms Act and related excise taxes, are outdated and do not adequately distinguish between lethal firearms and modern less-than-lethal technologies. They contend that exempting these devices will encourage innovation, reduce costs for consumers and law enforcement, and promote the use of de-escalation tools, ultimately enhancing public safety by providing effective alternatives to lethal force.
Opponents contend
Opponents, while not explicitly detailed in the provided text, might raise concerns that any expansion of exempted devices, even those deemed less-than-lethal, could create unforeseen loopholes or lead to the misuse of devices that could still cause harm. They may also question the revenue implications of the tax exemptions, particularly without a clear understanding of the market size for these devices.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a), amending IRC Section 4182
Exemption of Less-than-Lethal Projectile Devices from Firearms and Ammunition Tax
This provision amends the Internal Revenue Code to exempt certain devices from the existing federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Specifically, it applies to devices that are not designed to expel common ammunition or projectiles exceeding 500 feet per second, are intended to be used without causing death or serious injury, and do not accept ammunition feeding devices common to semi-automatic firearms or loaded through a pistol grip. This aims to reduce the cost of these devices.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this exemption will incentivize the development and adoption of less-lethal technologies by making them more economically viable and accessible. This aligns with efforts to provide alternatives for de-escalation and self-defense.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that any tax exemption for devices that can still be used as weapons, even if less-lethal, represents a loss of federal revenue that could be used for other public safety initiatives. They may also express concern about the potential for these devices to be misused.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of promoting less-lethal technologies through tax incentives against the potential loss of federal revenue and the need to carefully define what constitutes a 'less-than-lethal' device to prevent unintended exemptions.
Section 2(a), amending IRC Section 4182(d)(2)
Definition of 'Less-than-Lethal Projectile Device'
This section precisely defines what qualifies as a 'less-than-lethal projectile device' for the purpose of the tax exemption. Key criteria include that the device must not be designed to expel common firearm ammunition or projectiles exceeding 500 feet per second, must be intended for use without causing death or serious injury, and must not accept ammunition feeding devices typically found in semi-automatic firearms or loaded through a pistol grip. This detailed definition is critical for determining eligibility for the exemptions.
Section 2(a), amending IRC Section 4182(d)(3) and (4)
Classification Request Process and Annual Review
This provision establishes a process for manufacturers to request a determination from the Secretary of the Treasury regarding whether their device qualifies as 'less-than-lethal,' with a 90-day response deadline. It also mandates that the Secretary annually publish two lists: one of qualifying less-than-lethal devices and another of non-lethal devices whose projectiles exceed the 500 feet per second velocity limit. An annual report to Congress on the latter list is also required, detailing devices considered and reasons for inclusion/exclusion.
Section 3, amending IRC Section 5845(a)
Exemption of Less-than-Lethal Projectile Devices from National Firearms Act
This section amends the definition of 'firearm' under the National Firearms Act (NFA) to explicitly exclude 'less-than-lethal projectile devices' as defined in the bill, as well as devices on the Secretary's list of non-lethal devices exceeding 500 feet per second. This means these devices will no longer be subject to the stringent registration, transfer, and taxation requirements of the NFA, which typically apply to machine guns, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, silencers, and destructive devices.
The definition of 'less-than-lethal projectile device' includes a critical velocity limit, stating that the device must not be designed or intended to expel any projectile at a velocity exceeding 500 feet per second.
Section 2(a), amending IRC Section 4182(d)(2)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for technical definitions, but its specificity is crucial for the bill's intent.
Case for: This precise velocity limit provides a clear, measurable standard for distinguishing between truly less-lethal projectiles and those that could be lethal, ensuring the exemption is applied appropriately.
Case against: Critics might argue that a fixed velocity limit could become outdated as technology advances, or that it might not fully capture the potential for harm from certain projectiles even below this threshold, depending on mass and material.
Estimated impact: This specific technical detail is fundamental to determining which devices qualify for tax and NFA exemptions, directly impacting the scope of the bill's effects.
The definition of 'less-than-lethal projectile device' explicitly excludes devices that accept, or can be readily modified to accept, ammunition feeding devices loaded through the inside of a pistol grip or commonly used in semiautomatic firearms.
Section 2(a), amending IRC Section 4182(d)(2)(C)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to prevent loopholes, ensuring that devices resembling traditional firearms, even if firing less-lethal projectiles, do not qualify for exemptions.
Case for: This clause is crucial for preventing the exemption of devices that could be easily converted into or mistaken for more dangerous firearms, thereby maintaining a clear distinction and addressing public safety concerns.
Case against: Some might argue that this restriction could inadvertently limit innovation in less-lethal designs that might otherwise incorporate ergonomic or feeding mechanisms similar to traditional firearms without posing a lethal threat.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly narrows the scope of devices eligible for exemption, preventing certain firearm-like platforms from being reclassified as less-lethal, thus maintaining existing regulatory distinctions.
The bill requires the Secretary to annually submit a written report to the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee regarding the list of non-lethal devices whose projectiles exceed 500 feet per second, including a copy of the list, a description of devices considered, and reasons for inclusion or exclusion.
Section 2(a), amending IRC Section 4182(d)(4)(B)(ii)
Why it matters:This is a standard oversight mechanism, ensuring congressional awareness and accountability for the Secretary's classification decisions, but it's not a primary policy change.
Case for: This reporting requirement ensures transparency and congressional oversight over the classification process, allowing legislators to monitor how the law is being implemented and whether the definitions are effectively capturing the intended devices.
Case against: Some might argue that annual reports could become boilerplate and not provide meaningful oversight, or that the administrative burden on the Treasury Department for detailed reporting might outweigh the practical benefits.
Estimated impact: This provision primarily impacts administrative transparency and congressional oversight, rather than directly affecting the market or consumers. Its impact is on accountability.