The Second Amendment was never intended to just cover firearms. At the time it was ratified, cannons were in private hands, and swords were still common on the battlefields of the time. These were all classified as arms and were protected by the Second Amendment.
Advertisement
Technology, as it always does, marched on.
In time, we found ways to make weapons that weren’t inherently lethal. They’ve been around for decades, and while I don’t think they’re a great tool to trust your life to–far too many can shrug off some of them, after all–they’re an option for people who are uncomfortable with taking someone’s life. It’s better than harsh language, after all.
Yet in a thread on X, it seems Brady is very upset that while people were talking about the Epstein files, they weren’t completely losing their minds over less lethal weapons being discussed.
This bill isn’t from a well-intentioned lawmaker or a group working to prevent deadly police violence. It’s backed by the manufacturers of so-called “less-than-lethal” weapons, like tasers, who have started making products that are appropriately classified as guns under the law.
— Brady | United Against Gun Violence (@bradybuzz) November 19, 2025
If you manufacture and sell things that are classified as guns, federal law requires record keeping, licensing, serializing products, and running background checks on the people who want to buy them.
But mega corporations hate red tape.
— Brady | United Against Gun Violence (@bradybuzz) November 19, 2025
But, what if those weapons weren’t guns? Then the rules for firearms wouldn’t apply anymore. Red tape gone.
That’s what the bill does. It creates a broad exemption in the legal definition of “firearm,” turning weapons that are regulated as guns today into “not guns” tomorrow.
— Brady | United Against Gun Violence (@bradybuzz) November 19, 2025
Advertisement
But, what if those weapons weren’t guns? Then the rules for firearms wouldn’t apply anymore. Red tape gone.
That’s what the bill does. It creates a broad exemption in the legal definition of “firearm,” turning weapons that are regulated as guns today into “not guns” tomorrow.
— Brady | United Against Gun Violence (@bradybuzz) November 19, 2025
They are insisting this is about law enforcement but outside of its name, the bill doesn’t mention law enforcement in any way.
There are no federal barriers to law enforcement accessing “less-than-lethal” weapons. This is not about law enforcement. This is about money.
— Brady | United Against Gun Violence (@bradybuzz) November 19, 2025
This bill won’t make law enforcement less likely to use lethal force, but it will subject them, and everyone living in America, to greater danger.
We must tell Congress to oppose this bill and focus on solutions that will save lives.
— Brady | United Against Gun Violence (@bradybuzz) November 19, 2025
So what exactly are they talking about here?
Damned if I know.
See, they’re kvetching about a less-lethal “gun” but they never mention what it is, who makes it, or anything else.
Plus, they’re misrepresenting the law. What is regulated is a firearm, not a “gun.”
But let’s look at the definition of a firearm under federal law.
Advertisement
(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Now, the term “antique firearm” is often interpreted to include replicas as well. You can get a cap-and-ball pistol shipped directly to your house without needing some form of FFL, for example.
So that raises the question of what less-lethal company is trying to sell a product that propels a projectile by the action of an explosive.
I know Taser makes shotgun rounds, but those are rounds and not the weapon itself. The shotgun is still controlled under federal law.
Byrna is a less lethal weapon that uses compressed air or gas to fire a projectile, which isn’t an explosive and thus doesn’t fall under federal law. If it did, then every air gun in the country would fall under the same regulations.
So, again, what are they talking about?
Plus, note that they don’t make the claim that the less lethal tool isn’t less lethal. They’re not claiming that these are actually deadly, just as deadly as actual firearms. They’re just bent out of shape that less lethal weapons are a thing and that someone, either private parties or the police, might use them without having to bow and scrape to our supposed betters like they want us to do with guns.
Advertisement
You’re never going to win with these people.
It’s evil that you’re prepared to kill someone, but it’s evil if you want to avoid that, too.
It’s impossible to take these people seriously anymore. I understand the threat they represent and take that seriously, but everything else about them? Laurel and Hardy teaming up with the Three Stooges would be a more serious group than Brady is.
Editor’s Note: Radical anti-gun groups like Brady will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
