Proposed by Sen. Ernst, the bill aims to enforce limits on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the government agency responsible for collecting taxes. In essence, the Act proposes that the IRS employees should no longer carry firearms or ammunition.
Under Section 1, the purpose of the Act is clearly delineated. The Act views the IRS as an unlikely candidate for firearms ownership, asking the rhetorical question, “Why?” Now, IRS employees do have guns, but why they need them is the motivation behind the Act.
Keep in mind that the bill pertains not to just “guns” in a colloquial, simplistic sense. Terms like “firearm” and “ammunition” are taken from its legal definitions under section 921(a) of title 18, US Code, as stipulated by Section 2 of the Act.
If the proposed legislation comes to pass, the IRS will be blocked from spending money on buying, receiving, or storing firearms or ammunition. The Act firmly establishes that none of the funds made available to IRS can be used for this purpose, by Section 3.
Moreover, within 120 days from the Act becoming law, the IRS will be required to hand over its existing cache of firearms and ammo to the Administrator of General Services. This process known as ‘transfer’ is explained in Section 4, ensuring no loophole is left for the IRS to retain its firearms post the Act’s passage.
But what happens to these guns and bullets once they belong to the Administrator of General Services? They’ll be “liquidated,” in a manner of speaking, as outlined by Section 5 of the Act. The firearms get sold or auctioned off licensed dealers while the ammo goes under the auctioneer’s hammer for the general public. The money raised from such a process is slated to be deposited into the Treasury’s general fund to reduce deficit.
Importantly, Section 6 hints at a reshuffling of responsibilities upon the Act’s implementation. Predominantly, criminal investigation duties concerning tax issues, which traditionally fell under the IRS’s purview, will now be overseen by the Attorney General. This means future tax-related criminal issues will be dealt with by the Department of Justice (DOJ), not the IRS. To facilitate this transition, the Act anticipates transferring the personnel and assets from the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division to a special section within the DOJ Criminal Division.
This significant proposed change comes with future implications and echoes in the broader, bipartisan debate about the necessary level of arms possession by non-security-centric government bodies. From the citizens’ perspective, establishing checks and boundaries on firearm possession, even by government bodies, may be potentially viewed favorably. However, contrastingly, the IRS, losing its guns, could potentially face challenges in executing investigations into major tax fraud cases, once its weaponry gets auctioned off.
We are looking at a multi-channeled effect—a potential reduction in government spending, mitigation procedures for deficit reduction, but also a possible need for adjustment within tax enforcement structures.
As the Act moves forward, it is yet to win the approval of the Committee on Finance, as well as both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Remember, it’s still days young, but it’s already caught national attention and will continue to navigate its path through American legislative corridors as the country watches. The big question remaining: will the IRS have to hang up its holster for good? Only the passage of time—and the bill—will tell.
