Los Angeles had a chance this week to rein in how police use military-style weapons against residents. Instead, a narrow majority of the City Council chose to maintain the status quo, rejecting an amendment that would have temporarily halted LAPD’s use of 40 millimeter foam projectile launchers and tear gas until the department could prove it was complying with state law.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez proposed the amendment under AB 481, which requires cities to annually review police use of military-grade equipment and approve it only if legal standards are met. He and others argued that recent deployments of foam rounds and tear gas in Los Angeles protests clearly violated state requirements meant to protect civil liberties, including during a June demonstration where more than a thousand munitions were fired into crowds that included journalists. City Controller Kenneth Mejia raised the same concerns in an August 2024 audit of LAPD’s compliance with AB 481, urging the Council not to reauthorize military equipment without evidence of lawful use. That report was quietly referred to committee and never brought forward before this vote.

Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Heather Hutt, Ysabel Jurado, and Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson joined Soto-Martínez in supporting the amendment, stating that current practices have caused serious injuries and lawsuits while damaging public trust.

LAPD leadership sharply opposed any restrictions. The police chief repeatedly described tear gas and impact launchers as necessary “de-escalation” tools, arguing that taking them away would leave officers with only lethal options in volatile situations. Harris-Dawson challenged that framing directly before the vote, drawing from his own experience being struck by tear gas in a protest and saying the department’s definition of de-escalation does not match the lived reality of the people subjected to those tactics.

When it came time to vote, the amendment failed 5–7. Voting against were Bob Blumenfield, John Lee, Tim McOsker, Adrin Nazarian, Imelda Padilla, Traci Park, and Curren Price. Three councilmembers, Nithya Raman, Monica Rodriguez, and Katy Yaroslavsky, did not cast a vote despite being present on the Council floor. Their abstentions carried the same effect as a no vote, helping to defeat the amendment and allowing LAPD’s use of tear gas and projectile launchers to continue for another year. For members who campaign as progressives, especially Raman and Yaroslavsky, the decision not to take a position on such a consequential civil rights issue was striking and will likely draw continued scrutiny from constituents.

The full military equipment authorization then passed, keeping tear gas and less-lethal projectiles in LAPD’s crowd-control toolkit for another year as protestors take to the streets to protest ICE raids and the rise of fascism. For advocates of stronger oversight, the outcome shows how contested even incremental reform remains, and how definitions like “safety” and “de-escalation” continue to mean very different things depending on who is using them.