Exemption for less-than-lethal devices

Full Title:
Innovate to De-Escalate Modernization Act

Summary#

This bill adds a new definition for “less-than-lethal projectile device” to federal law and says such devices are exempted from certain restrictions under Title 18 (federal criminal and weapons laws). The new definition sets three tests the device must meet about what it fires, how it is intended to be used, and whether it can be adapted to accept common ammunition or feeding devices. The bill also requires the Attorney General to decide within 90 days if someone asks whether a specific device meets the definition.

  • Main change: Creates a legal category called “less-than-lethal projectile device” and removes devices that meet that definition from the Title 18 restrictions referenced in the amendment.
  • Definition rules: A device qualifies only if (1) it cannot fire common handgun/rifle/shotgun ammunition or any projectile above 500 feet per second, (2) it is designed to be used in a way not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, and (3) it cannot accept or be easily changed to accept certain ammunition feeding devices used in semiautomatic firearms.
  • Agency action: The Attorney General must make a determination about whether a device fits the definition within 90 days of receiving a requested device.

What it means for you#

  • Manufacturers and inventors: You can ask the Attorney General to review a device and get a written determination within 90 days. If the device meets the definition, it would be exempted from the Title 18 restrictions named in the bill.
  • Buyers and users of less-lethal tools: If a device is officially determined to meet the definition, federal restrictions under Title 18 that currently apply to some weapons may not apply to that device. This could change what federal rules govern purchase, possession, or transfer — the bill text does not list specific procedural changes.
  • Law enforcement and public safety officials: Devices meeting this definition would be treated differently under the specified federal rules. How that changes day-to-day policing or evidence handling is not detailed in the bill.
  • State and local governments: The bill changes federal law. It does not say how state or local laws would be affected, so state rules could still apply.
  • General public: The bill aims to make certain less-lethal technologies easier to use or bring to market by carving out a federal exemption for devices that meet the listed criteria. The practical effects depend on how many devices qualify and how agencies and courts interpret the tests.

Expenses#

No direct public cost estimate is provided in the bill text or the supplied material.

  • No publicly available information.
  • The requirement that the Attorney General decide on requests within 90 days could create an administrative workload for the Department of Justice. This suggests there may be staffing, testing, or processing costs, but the bill does not provide numbers.
  • If devices are exempted, there could be indirect fiscal effects (for example, changes in enforcement costs or in markets for regulated items), but the bill gives no estimates.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to modernize federal firearms law to account for new technologies and less-lethal options.
  • Supporters may argue the change could encourage development and use of non-lethal tools designed to de-escalate violent encounters.
  • The 90-day review rule could provide faster legal clarity for manufacturers and purchasers about whether a device is covered by federal restrictions.
  • The technical criteria (speed limit, inability to accept common ammunition or feeding devices, and intended non-lethality) aim to draw a line between weapons and less-lethal devices.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that key terms are vague: phrases like “not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury” are subjective and could be open to different interpretations.
  • The 500 feet-per-second speed threshold and the feeding-device tests may be argued as easy to evade by modification or design changes, creating potential loopholes.
  • It is unclear which specific Title 18 restrictions would no longer apply and how that would affect background checks, transfers, or criminal liability in practice.
  • The bill does not address how state or local laws interact with the federal exemption, leaving uncertainty for enforcement across jurisdictions.
  • The Department of Justice’s 90-day deadline may create pressure to make technical determinations quickly, which could raise questions about testing standards or consistency.