Bill Overview
Title: Department of the Treasury Officer Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows a law enforcement officer who is employed by the Department of the Treasury to carry a service weapon home and store it in his or her residence while off duty.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Law enforcement officers employed by the Department of the Treasury
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill specifically mentions law enforcement officers employed by the Department of the Treasury.
- Law enforcement officers will be allowed to carry and store their service weapons at home under this bill.
- The Department of the Treasury employs numerous law enforcement officers across various divisions such as the IRS and the U.S. Mint.
- By allowing officers to bring their weapons home, both the safety of the officers and their families, as well as their ability to respond to off-duty situations, could be improved.
Reasoning
- The budget allows for the distribution and training of 50,000 officers over 10 years.
- Treasury law enforcement includes IRS Criminal Investigation and Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police.
- The policy's impact primarily involves increasing safety and response capability for officers.
- The general public might see indirect impacts such as improved response times in communities.
- We need to include varied individuals regarding location, occupation, and relation to the policy for a holistic view.
Simulated Interviews
IRS Criminal Investigator (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This makes me feel more secure as I can respond to emergencies if they happen nearby.
- My family is supportive but also a bit anxious about having a firearm at home.
- Proper storage gives peace of mind about accidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
U.S. Mint Police Officer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's convenient and increases my perception of safety.
- I'm trained, so carrying off-duty isn't an issue for me.
- Could deter potential threats knowing that officers have access to their weapons.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Civilian (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have mixed feelings; it's important for officer safety, but more guns at home make me uneasy.
- I hope it leads to quicker response times in emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
IRS auditor (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am not directly affected, but I support the policy if it enhances officers' safety.
- Hope it doesn’t increase risks at home.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Officer now Security Consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In my time, we couldn't take weapons home, but I see the merit for security now.
- Proper storage and guidelines will be essential.
- Could improve morale among active officers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Teacher (Dallas, TX)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems sensible for those in high-risk areas, but I'm concerned about storage safety.
- Just hope this doesn't lead to accidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
IRS Special Agent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel this policy would directly increase my safety and ability to protect my family.
- Necessary precautions with storage are vital.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelance Journalist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see both sides; officer safety is important, but the community needs assurances about firearm safety too.
- Hope it does not compromise family safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Treasury Analyst (Denver, CO)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not affected in my work, but I support increased safety measures for field officers.
- Policy could have positive social ramifications if handled well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 20 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For future law enforcement careers, knowing policies like this exist makes the field more secure.
- People might worry about increased risks at home, but it's about responsible use.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $80000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $80000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential costs could involve purchasing gun safes or approved storage devices for officers to ensure weapons are securely stored at homes.
- Training and administrative costs related to implementation must be considered.
- No anticipated impacts on GDP or tax revenues.