The original TASER device (the TF-76) was launched in the mid 1970s by a NASA scientist named Jack Cover, the TASER device inventor. The TASER TF-76 fired two darts up to a distance of 15 feet. These darts remained attached to the hand-held device by small, thin, insulated wires. The original TASER used a gunpowder propellant to launch the darts. Because of the explosive propellant, the TF-76 was classified by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and also now Explosives, as a firearm. However, the TF-76 looked like a flashlight, not a gun. Because it did not fit the specifications for either a pistol or a long gun, the TF-76 was classified as a Title 2 weapon - the same as a "sawed-off" shotgun. This classification meant that the TASER TF-76 could only be sold with special permits that were expensive and difficult to obtain (just like it would be for a "sawed-off" shotgun). Accordingly, the TF-76 could only effectively be sold to law enforcement agencies. While the Title 2 weapon classification did not adversely effect law enforcement agencies' acquisition and use of the early TASER devices, it did prevent most civilians from acquiring, possessing, and using the devices. Shortly after the TF-76 was classified as a Title 2 weapon, TASER Systems (the company that made the TF-76) collapsed.

This early company eventually raised funding, re-emerging as a company called Tasertron, but struggled over the next decades and sold only a limited number of devices into the law enforcement marketplace. The Tasertron devices were originally offered in seven-watt versions and then later in eleven-watt models.

In the early 1990s, two friends of mine (Corey and Todd) were shot and killed in a traffic altercation in Scottsdale, Arizona. This tragic event caused me to start thinking about violent crime, and wondering why the state of the art in self-defense weapons required killing other human beings - just as it had been for centuries. I came to believe that, if advances in technology could provide truly effective non-lethal alternatives, many people would choose non-lethal weapons instead of lethal weapons - and many lives could be saved.

In September of 1993, my brother Tom Smith and I formed ICER Corporation - a company whose mission would be to develop future non-lethal electronic weapons. As part of our early research, I contacted Jack Cover, the original TASER inventor. Jack Cover shared with me the history of the TASER technology, and he proposed a business model whereby we could develop a new, non-firearm version of the TASER device using a compressed air (or nitrogen) propulsion system. On October 15, 1993 we signed an agreement whereby Mr. Cover licensed his technology to ICER Corporation and joined the corporation as a full-time employee to help us develop the next generation of TASER devices. Shortly thereafter, we then changed the name of the company to AIR TASER, Inc.

In December of 1994, this work culminated with the launch of the AIR TASER model 34000. The design intention of the AIR TASER 34000 was to use the same electrical output as the original TASER TF-76, but with a compressed air propulsion system that would comply with federal firearm statutes and allow for private citizen sales. The AIR TASER 34000 implemented an innovative new technology called AFID (Anti-Felon Identification), which used serialized confetti tags dispersed from every cartridge at the time of firing. These ID tags would enable law enforcement to trace persons who misused a TASER device. This was another first for weapons' use accountability - a self-defense device that left a tracer back to the purchaser. Also, the AFIDs are made in both paper and clear Mylar - making it more difficult for a criminal to pick up the AFID evidence of his crime. Also, some of the AFIDs are made to literally glow under a black light, thus making them very easy for law enforcement investigators to locate and recover.

Shortly after the launch of the AIR TASER 34000 in 1994, AIR TASER Inc. was sued by Tasertron, the remainder of the original TASER company from the 1970s. Tasertron asserted that it had exclusive rights to the underlying technology for use in the law enforcement and military markets in North America. To avoid a costly legal battle, AIR TASER Inc. signed a non-compete agreement that recognized this exclusivity and precluded AIR TASER Inc. from selling to law enforcement or military agencies in North America until the patent in question expired in 1998.

Around November of 1995, the company received an inquiry from the Czech police seeking a product demonstration in Prague. The non-compete agreement with Tasertron did not preclude foreign police or military sales. Accordingly, the company agreed to make, and was very eager to give, a presentation of the AIR TASER 34000.

Around December of 1995, I flew to Prague with the company’s head of sales. After a brief technology demonstration, the Czech police asked for a volunteer demonstration. Prior to being hit with the TASER 34000, the volunteer was strongly instructed - ordered - by his superior officer to fight through the (pain compliance) effects of the device and get to the shooter - me. In fact, several volunteers that day were all able to overcome the (pain compliance) effects of the AIR TASER 34000.

Following this highly embarrassing Czech debacle, the company set out to develop a more effective device - a device that would not only involve discomfort, but also interfere with voluntary muscle control. The result of this development was the ADVANCED TASER M26. Earlier generations of TASER devices such as the TF-76 and the AIR TASER 34000 caused a strong shock sensation. However, focused or pain-insensitive subjects, such as the police volunteers in Prague, could fight through these effects. Accordingly, these earlier-generation devices can be considered stun devices. Their effects may psychologically stun the subject, but they did not cause involuntary incapacitation.

I am proud to have led the development team, designed the test methodology used to develop the ADVANCED TASER M26, and am the listed inventor on the patent for the electrical waveform of the TASER M26.

Because the earlier stun devices did cause a strong sensation, they clearly caused some degree of stimulation of the sensory nervous system. However, there was little or no interference with or impairment of muscular control with these early devices. In contrast, the new ADVANCED TASER M26 was designed to cause significant, uncontrollable muscle contractions capable of incapacitating even the most focused and aggressive combatants. Accordingly, we termed this new technology Electro-Muscular Disruption (EMD). More recently, we adopted the more accurately descriptive terminology: Neuromuscular Incapacitation (NMI).

The ADVANCED TASER M26 was launched in late 1999, with significant shipments starting in early 2000. By this time, the company had changed its name to TASER International, Inc. to signify the company had more than just the one AIR TASER product. The ADVANCED TASER M26 was adopted by thousands of law enforcement agencies, and was hailed as a breakthrough - as the first non-lethal weapon capable of stopping aggressive, focused, or drug-impaired persons. In addition to the AFID system, the TASER M26 implemented a new accountability control technology - the dataport. The dataport is a function wherein the M26 would record the time and date of every trigger pull in order to allow law enforcement agencies to monitor use of the device - another use-of-force accountability break through.

In 2003, TASER International introduced the new TASER X26. The X26 implemented a newer, more efficient electrical stimulation pulse called "Shaped-Pulse Technology." This new pulse allowed for a more efficient power supply that enabled the X26 to be packaged in a form factor that was 60% smaller and 60% lighter than the M26. However, the X26 design was tuned in laboratory testing to deliver an incapacitating effect that caused muscular contractions 5% stronger than the M26.

The TASER X26 has been very well received and as of early 2006 accounts for the majority of the company's shipments.