What local ordinances ban or limit police use of tear gas and flash‑bangs in U.S. cities since 2020?

1. The immediate 2020 response: temporary bans and moratoria

In the weeks after George Floyd’s murder, multiple cities announced short‑term suspensions of tear gas for crowd control—Seattle, Portland, Denver and Dallas were widely reported to have paused use or announced temporary bans amid mounting public outcry over health and safety risks ^{[5] [3] [1]}. Those emergency measures were often executive actions or formal statements rather than long‑term ordinances, and local reporting showed they could be reversed or ignored in the field: Seattle’s mayor and police chief announced a 30‑day ban, yet officers used gas during protests days later, illustrating a gap between policy pronouncements and on‑the‑ground practice ^{[1] [6]}.

2. From moratoria to lawmaking: which places moved to formal restrictions

Some jurisdictions translated pressure into more durable rules: Seattle’s City Council passed legislation restricting chemical irritants and kinetic impact munitions for crowd control, and Washington, D.C.’s council enacted bans limiting the use of tear gas and similar tactics to disperse First Amendment assemblies ^[2]. Portland’s mayor issued a ban on CS gas except in life‑threatening situations, signaling a narrowing of permissible use rather than an absolute prohibition ^[2]. Charlotte’s council took a different route by blocking funding for tear gas purchases for the coming year, a budgetary limit rather than a direct operational ban ^[2].

3. Proposals, local lobbying and mixed results

Many other cities saw legislative proposals or council debates—Philadelphia’s Councilmember Helen Gym introduced a broad bill to ban tear gas, rubber bullets, flash‑bangs and other “less‑lethal” munitions in First Amendment contexts, reflecting a statewide pattern of proposed bans that frequently encountered resistance from police unions and public‑safety advocates ^[7]. Stateline reporting warned that outright bans hit a political sticking point: police leaders asked what alternatives would exist if gas were removed from their toolkits, and some jurisdictions struggled to convert temporary pledges into enforceable ordinances ^[8].

4. Enforcement, loopholes and the durability problem

A recurring theme in the reporting is durability: temporary executive bans can be undercut by exceptions for SWAT or “life‑threatening situations,” by subsequent tactical decisions, or by the absence of clear enforcement mechanisms—Seattle’s short 2020 ban being a case in point when officers employed gas despite the order ^{[4] [6]}. Funding blocks, like Charlotte’s, limit procurement but do not necessarily prevent use of existing stockpiles, and mayoral or police‑chief bans can be reversed by future administrations or circumvented in high‑intensity responses ^{[2] [8]}.

5. What this patchwork means going forward

The national picture is a patchwork: some cities have moved to formal restrictions (Seattle, Washington, D.C., Portland’s executive rule, and funding limits in places like Charlotte), while many major municipalities did not adopt permanent bans and instead relied on temporary suspensions, proposals, or policy guidance ^{[2] [3] [8]}. Reporting also highlights a broader debate—public‑health and civil‑liberties advocates pressed for comprehensive bans because of documented harms and pandemic concerns, while law‑enforcement voices defended limited use as necessary for crowd control—leaving future change contingent on local politics, litigation, and whether councils codify limits into enforceable ordinances ^{[1] [9] [8]}.