HR-4242-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 407.
Sponsored by David Schweikert (R-AZ)
What it does
This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt "less-than-lethal projectile devices" — defined as devices that cannot fire standard ammunition and cannot propel a projectile faster than 500 feet per second — from the existing federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. It would also remove such devices from the definition of "firearm" under the National Firearms Act (NFA), eliminating the associated registration and transfer requirements. The Treasury Secretary would be required to maintain and annually update a public list of qualifying devices and to respond to manufacturer classification requests within 90 days.
Who benefits
Manufacturers and importers of less-lethal devices (e.g., rubber bullet launchers, paintball-style devices, certain air-powered tools) who currently pay the 10–11% federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Law enforcement agencies and private security firms that purchase less-lethal equipment at lower post-tax prices. Consumers — including individuals seeking non-lethal self-defense options — who may see lower retail prices. De-escalation training programs and institutions that use less-lethal devices. Retailers specializing in non-lethal products who would face reduced compliance burdens.
Who is hurt
The federal government would lose excise tax revenue currently collected on qualifying devices, reducing funds that flow to the Wildlife Restoration Fund (Pittman-Robertson Act), which is funded in part by firearms and ammunition excise taxes. State wildlife agencies that depend on Pittman-Robertson distributions could see reduced funding. Traditional firearms manufacturers whose products remain taxed may face a relative competitive disadvantage if less-lethal alternatives gain market share. Taxpayers broadly may bear the cost of any revenue shortfall if it is not offset elsewhere.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that applying NFA registration requirements and firearms excise taxes to devices incapable of firing lethal ammunition is a regulatory mismatch that discourages the development and adoption of de-escalation tools. They contend that removing these barriers would lower costs for law enforcement agencies and civilians seeking non-lethal alternatives, potentially reducing injury and death in confrontational situations. The bill's broad bipartisan sponsorship — including members from both parties — reflects the argument that modernizing a 1930s-era regulatory framework to account for technological advances is a straightforward, non-controversial update.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's definition of "less-than-lethal projectile device" — particularly the 500 feet-per-second velocity threshold — could be exploited to reclassify devices that pose meaningful injury risk, effectively creating a regulatory gap. They contend that removing devices from NFA oversight eliminates traceability and transfer recordkeeping that law enforcement relies on, and that the Treasury Secretary's classification process lacks sufficient oversight mechanisms to prevent misuse. Critics may also note that the resulting reduction in Pittman-Robertson Act funding would harm state wildlife conservation programs that depend on those excise tax revenues.