Bill introduced that would strip firearms from some federal agencies

Dianna McKinley
Dianna McKinley and her K9 partner Sabre, Flathead National Forest. USFS photo. (More information about an award earned by Ms. McKinley.)

A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that would allow firearms to be owned by only a few non-military agencies. H.R.4934, the Regulatory Agency Demilitarization Act, would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing or using a firearm. The only exemptions from the act would be the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, the military departments, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Capitol Police, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Most, if not all, of the federal land management agencies have law enforcement officers and special agents that have access to weapons.

No action has been taken on the bill since it was introduced on June 23, 2014, so it has a very long road ahead before it becomes law. And the do-nothing Congress rarely passes legislation, so don’t hold your breath on this being voted on in the House and Senate any time soon. But it does have 31 cosponsors after being introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart from Utah.

Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Chris.

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

22 thoughts on “Bill introduced that would strip firearms from some federal agencies”

  1. Purely in the interest of reporting factual information, it should be noted here that in this bill the term firearm is given the definition of the internal revenue code of 1986, section 5845a. By this definition, the bill only applies to shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches, shotguns with an overall length of less than 26 inches, rifles with barrels less than 16 inches, rifles with an overall length of 26 inches and machine guns (fully automatic weapons). Hence, this bill does not apply to most weapons commonly carried by law enforcement including semi auto handguns, shotguns, and semi auto rifles such as AR-15s. This bill deals strictly with “special weapons” such as machineguns and short barrel weapons. Again, I am entirely ambivalent as to the debate here, but I think it is important to at least know what the debate is about. The description of the bill given by the author of this article is less than accurate.

    0
    0
    1. Pete, thanks for contributing the additional information.

      This quote comes from the summary of the bill at Congress.gov:

      Prohibits a federal agency from purchasing or using a firearm.

      In the complete version of the bill, it says:

      Prohibition.–Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, a Federal agency may not purchase or use a firearm.

      But a few paragraphs later the bill has this:

      Firearm.–The term “firearm” has the meaning given that term in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, but does not include a silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code).

      And, from section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:

      § 5845. Definitions
      For the purpose of this chapter—
      (a) Firearm
      The term ‘‘firearm’’ means (1) a shotgun having
      a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in
      length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such
      weapon as modified has an overall length of less
      than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than
      18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or
      barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a
      weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as
      modified has an overall length of less than 26
      inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16
      inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined
      in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any
      silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18,
      United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.
      The term ‘‘firearm’’ shall not include an
      antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun
      or destructive device) which, although
      designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by
      reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design,
      and other characteristics is primarily a
      collector’s item and is not likely to be used as
      a weapon.

      Thanks for the info.

      0
      0
    1. Honestly, if you have to ask such a question, you certainly could never illuminate on the factual answer…wow, just WOW!

      0
      0
    2. “Since when…” ?

      Since 1886 in Yellowstone National Park. At that time the War Department was the land management agency in the park. For a few decades they took over from the Department of the Interior, which was not geared up to deal with the law enforcement problems in the park.

      From Wikipedia:

      The army military commanders implemented backcountry patrols, wildlife protection and management, and protection of natural features. Army educational programs were later adopted by the National Park Service as part of their resource management. The army effectively implemented law enforcement priorities and developed a ranger force that provided for prosecution and punishment of those engaged in illegal activity in the national parks. The National Park Service carried over a version of the campaign hat worn by members of the army during the last years of their management of Yellowstone National Park for use by Park Rangers.

      0
      0
  2. Ridiculous! Just another congressional representative acting on something he doesn’t want to understand!

    0
    0
  3. There is not one single federal land management agency with “automatic weapons.” They have very little, if any riot gear. These employees, like much of law enforcement, are asked to do dangerous and thankless jobs with little to zero backup, communications or support. How would you handle groups of 20, 30 or more intoxicated people by yourself? How would you deal with drug traffickers or murderers by yourself? The public “perception” needs to include these facts too. These public servants walk out the door every day not knowing if they will be assaulted or killed as a result of doing their job. How many other employees in land management face that on a daily basis.? Law enforcement needs to attract the best people, but I have seen lots of really great employees leave some agencies because they are not supported by their leadership in being proactive. That leads to a demoralized workforce with very little experienced police officers to guide the younger generation. What’s left is a token force who are trained at the federal law enforxement training center alongside every other federal agency to do straight up “police work” without any context at all. You could say the same for fire fighters wasting millions of dollars every year unnecessarily on overtime, from the outside looking in.

    0
    0
    1. I agree with you Art. I said earlier that I dont agree with the proposed bill. I am not a Fed, I work part time for the State, and am a private landowner. I have some view points from a couple of different sides.

      Law enforcement has not done a good job selling themselves to the public lately and it does no good to sensationalize what they do, even if the sentimentalization is accurate. We can say that blood will turn the creeks red in the back country, but that will not increase a budget.
      Yes, the public perception is wrong in some cases, but the Agencies have not done much to change that perception. Actions have to be justified and accountability must take priority.

      Cops cant get away with being bullies anymore, social media and smartphones make that harder all the time. If Law enforcement wants a better image, they have to get to work.

      0
      0
  4. Public relations. You cant have an effective law enforcement operation if it does not respect the people it “serves and protects”. It is simple.

    It would seem that every “agency” has automatic weapons and riot gear.
    I do not agree with the proposed legislation, but the struggle almost seems like an arms race. Someone is going to flinch. The perception has shifted from a helpful govt. employee asking what they can do to help to someone in combat gear jabbing a finger into your chest telling you to bugger off and shut off your camera.

    Just someone from the outside looking in.

    0
    0
  5. My grand-niece is a U.S. Forest Service LEO. She has a college education in criminal justice and has been through numerous FS sponsored training programs primarily in the Southeast. As a thirty-eight year FS firefighter, I have seen numerous “really bad dudes” during some very illegal activities in our national forests, to think that my niece would be expected to do her job without a weapon is utterly ridiculous, in fact maybe the most outrageous notion I have heard. Congressman Stewart and his co-sponsors don’t have a clue about what goes on in our national forests. As noted in another reply, Congressman Stewart would emasculate the Forest Service to a point that the public would seriously consider transferring national forests to states as an eventual sale to private interests. I hope that Utah residents would be wise enough to show him to the door in the 2016 elections.

    0
    0
  6. I’m a fairly right-wing, pro-law enforcement guy, with also a strong history on both sides of the family of military service as well. And, to me, the reality is a number of BLM and NPS have no business anywhere near firearms, at least not until they are thoroughly trained or retrained. Try hunting in a perfectly legal spot to do so, and then having belligerent BLM rangers look like they might shoot your dog because it’s “off-leash.” No shoot, Sherlock, it’s called bird hunting and not done with the dog leashed. Not to mention shooting unarmed vagrants. I do think they need to police their extensive landholdings. But they need police, and it seems that’s not always what they’ve got.

    0
    0
    1. There are some extremely well qualified people in the ranks including ex military special forces. They do need more training, but the problem is that training requires money and that’s something many leaders are unwilling to give them. Just look at what Tom Tidwell is doing to gut his law enforcement staff in the Forest Service: cut $18 million from their budget just last year alone. There are brave, great people doing these jobs led by feckless, clueless bureaucrats who haven’t the first clue what being a police officer means. Please direct some of your comments to them!

      0
      0
  7. The people seem to have less trust in law enforcement.

    Is that because the citizens are too stupid to know better? I wonder.

    Is this proposed legislation a knee jerk reaction to often times knee jerk law enforcement carried out by the govt?

    I would think that as usual the truth is somewhere between “jack booted thugs” and “we are the govt! we dont make mistakes!”

    0
    0
  8. It is just another sign of the anti-law enforcement rhetoric spreading throughout our nation.

    Two counties in CA have taken away State Peace Officer Authority from federal LEOs… but the remainder of the state is happy for the added protection while visiting federal lands.

    0
    0
  9. NPS Rangers are the number one most assaulted federal law enforcement personnel in the system.
    This has the stink of the BLM/Bundy standoff, being sponsored from UT and that state’s notorious relationship with the federal government.

    0
    0
    1. Living in Utah, I have to agree. It’s just another attempt to take control of Federal land so the state can sell it to private developers. Guess who would get stuck with any cleanup costs after the private developers had skimmed off their profits.

      0
      0
  10. What’s surprising is the number of supporters from states where you’d think they’d know better (Montana, Texas, Arizona). What could they be thinking?? (And yes, Chris, that piece at hcn.org is mind-blowing!)

    0
    0

Comments are closed.