Bill Overview
Title: To restrict the possession, use, and acquisition of firearms and ammunition by the Internal Revenue Service.
Description: This bill prohibits any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) hired after the bill's enactment, from possessing a firearm while performing official duties and receiving training in the use of a firearm in connection with such duties. The bill further prohibits the IRS from acquiring any firearm or ammunition after the bill's enactment.
Sponsors: Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5]
Target Audience
Population: People interacting with IRS-employed officers or employees
Estimated Size: 7000000
- The bill primarily affects the operational procedures and employment conditions within the IRS, specifically impacting new hires.
- There are approximately 80,000 IRS employees currently; however, only future hires would directly be impacted by this restriction.
- The population who might feel secondary effects includes taxpayers and other entities interacting with the IRS, potentially benefiting from reduced risks of firearm incidents during IRS activities.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts only the new hires at the IRS, particularly affecting how they are trained and operate without firearms, which reduces immediate budgetary implications related to training and equipment acquisition.
- Since the policy does not provide direct financial benefits or burdens to the broader public, its impact is more indirect, focusing on perceptions of safety and interaction quality with IRS employees.
- Looking at the broader population who interact with IRS agents, these include individuals and businesses who might have concerns about armed federal employees. The population at large may not perceive or quantify a change in their personal wellbeing due to this policy, leading to lower direct impact ratings.
- Considering the target population size of 7 million, which includes frequent and infrequent interactions with the IRS, creating more nuanced responses in the wellbeing changes post-policy becomes crucial even if they are indirect.
- The financial cost of the policy implementation is likely limited to administrative changes and communication, falling well within the provided budget. Most taxpayers would not notice any immediate change in IRS services directly related to this policy.
Simulated Interviews
accountant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a good move. Officers don't really need firearms for auditing paperwork.
- The policy doesn’t change much for me, but it’s a step in decluttering unnecessary government expenditures.
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 |
IRS officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It makes sense; we're largely dealing with finances, not criminal enforcement.
- It won't drastically change my duties but might limit some on-field authority perceptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
small business owner (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In the few audits I've experienced, there was no need for the agents to be armed.
- Feels slightly safer knowing these interactions won't involve firearms, not that it was ever serious.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
retired (Naperville, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m always suspicious of government employees being armed unless necessary.
- The policy aligns somewhat with my views on reducing federal power in civilian areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
software engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels inconsequential to me, but lessening firearms with federal employees slightly resonates with personal security values.
- No big change; software concerns and tax computation stay the same.
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 |
lawyer (Saint Louis, MO)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt this changes any substantive interactions with IRS from a legal perspective.
- It's an intriguing policy, might reduce firearm mishaps, however rare those may be.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
small retail business owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support it. Less weapons in civilian scenarios are ideal.
- I'll still have my work cut out with IRS, but less intimidation is positive. It might never have been an issue though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
financial advisor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Kind of positive since IRS audits don't need to involve firearms.
- It affirms the image of IRS as less aggressive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
college professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see it as largely neutral but relevant to discussions on government roles.
- It's not directly impactful on my life, but philosophically interesting.
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 |
security consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seems appropriate to limit firearms in financial monitoring. It lowers needless risks.
- Professionally, it reflects well on government accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $1000000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Key Considerations
- The bill affects the IRS's ability to handle potentially dangerous situations directly, which might require coordination with local law enforcement for armed support, impacting response times and costs.
- Altering the IRS's training programs involves immediate overhaul costs but reduces long-term firearm training expenses.
- The estimated savings from reduced firearm purchases and training might be offset by increased security measures at IRS facilities.