Less-Lethal Weapons Get Regulatory Fast Pass: New Bill Exempts Certain Devices from Federal Firearm Rules

This bill, officially titled the Innovate to De-Escalate Modernization Act, aims to create a new regulatory lane for specific types of non-lethal weapons. Essentially, it carves out certain “less-than-lethal projectile devices” from the standard federal firearm restrictions found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. The goal is to make it easier to manufacture and distribute tools designed for de-escalation rather than deadly force, but the devil, as always, is in the details.

The Fine Print: What Qualifies as 'Less-Lethal'?

To earn this exemption and avoid the usual federal oversight applied to guns, a device has to jump through three specific hoops. First, it cannot be designed to fire standard handgun, rifle, or shotgun ammunition, and it can’t be easily modified to do so. Crucially, the projectile must travel slower than 500 feet per second (fps). For context, many BB guns shoot faster than that, so this sets a hard, measurable limit intended to reduce kinetic energy.

Second, the device must be designed so that using it “probably won't cause death or serious injury.” This is where things get a little squishy. Design intent is subjective, and it leaves room for interpretation. For the average person, this means that devices marketed for self-defense or law enforcement—like advanced paintball markers or specialized launchers—might become more widely available without the same regulatory hurdles as traditional firearms.

The Magazine Loophole and Regulatory Speed Bumps

The third requirement is technical but important: the device cannot use a detachable magazine that loads through the handle grip, nor can it use a magazine commonly found in semi-automatic guns. This provision seems aimed at preventing manufacturers from creating devices that look and feel like standard firearms but claim exemption based on the non-lethal ammunition.

For manufacturers, the bill offers a clear path to regulatory certainty. If they aren't sure if their new device meets these criteria, they can submit it to the Attorney General for review. The bill mandates that the Attorney General must issue a decision within 90 days of receiving the device. This is a big deal for product development, providing a relatively quick classification process compared to the years it can take to navigate complex federal regulations.

Real-World Implications: Safety vs. Availability

On one hand, this bill could genuinely encourage the development of safer alternatives for law enforcement and private security. If a device can quickly get certified as less-lethal, it incentivizes innovation away from deadly force. This could mean better tools for police departments seeking de-escalation options, or new ways for security guards to manage situations without resorting to traditional weapons.

However, the exemption removes these devices from existing federal oversight, which is a concern. While the 500 fps limit is clear, the requirement that a device “probably won't cause death or serious injury” is vague. If a manufacturer pushes the design close to the 500 fps limit, or if the projectile contains a chemical irritant, the potential for serious harm remains, even without standard firearm regulation. For the public, this means potentially seeing more devices on the market that are classified as non-firearms but are still capable of causing significant injury, relying heavily on the Attorney General’s interpretation of “design intent.”