America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by TMCTLT. 23 replies replies.
HR 4934
TMCTLT Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Is anyone else's Reps. Working on this Bill that your aware of? I FULLY support Mr. Rokita in his efforts to get this Bill passed!!!

H.R. 4934 would repeal the expansion of paramilitary and police capabilities given to federal regulatory agencies. This legislation would also prohibit federal agencies, other than those traditionally tasked with enforcing federal law, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Marshals, from purchasing weaponry regulated under the National Firearms Act. This bill also directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to write a report detailing all federal agencies with specialized units falling outside of regular law enforcement officers.

I believe that the militarization of agencies is a symptom of a deeper problem in Washington – that the federal government no longer trusts the American people. H.R. 4934 would restore and rebuild this trust by defunding the paramilitary capabilities within the federal regulatory agencies.




I guess this is what happens when you lie and cheat the American People.....eventually you have to silence the Lambs
CruzJ Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 04-17-2014
Posts: 222
Going only off this snippet of info, I'd support something like this as well. I also think our recent wars have influenced the militarization of law enforcement. Urban warfare tactics we used over there are being used more and more here. Not to mention all the new and modernized gear that has come out is now being scooped up by everybody cause they think it looks cool.
gryphonms Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
TMCTLT is absolutely correct. I have written my congressmen to support this bill. I would urge everyone here to do the same.
TMCTLT Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
gryphonms wrote:
TMCTLT is absolutely correct. I have written my congressmen to support this bill. I would urge everyone here to do the same.



Ah huh finally sumpin we CAN agree on brother Gryph Beer
DrMaddVibe Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
Rip the BDU's off the cops too...that disgusts me to no end...bunch of Barney Fife's getting their GI Joe on...F' em!
gryphonms Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
TMCTLT, I am in an azz hat mood. I think I am doing a good job of being an azz hat. This to shall pass. You caught the brunt of it. I am a numbers guy who wants to use numbers to support my position. If you go back and read my posts, which I not asking you to, you will find I am usually asking questions looking to support a position with statistical proof. Once I got you going it was to much fun to stop which I will now. My only liberal tendency is the ethical treatment of animals, though in no way do I support the PETA nut jobs. I am actually a civil libertarian.
CruzJ Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 04-17-2014
Posts: 222
DrMaddVibe wrote:
bunch of Barney Fife's getting their GI Joe on...F' em!



Applause
teedubbya Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
H.R.3934 -- Passenger Fee Restructuring Exemptions Act of 2014 (Introduced in House - IH)


HR 3934 IH


113th CONGRESS


2d Session



H. R. 3934

To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain flights from increased aviation security service fees.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



January 27, 2014

Ms. GABBARD (for herself, Ms. HANABUSA, and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security





A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain flights from increased aviation security service fees.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Passenger Fee Restructuring Exemptions Act of 2014'.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO RESTRUCTURING OF PASSENGER FEE.

(a) In General- Section 44940(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking `Fees imposed' and inserting the following:
`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided by paragraph (2), fees imposed'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(2) EXCEPTIONS- Fees imposed under subsection (a)(1) may not exceed $2.50 per enplanement, and the total amount of such fees may not exceed $5.00 per one-way trip, for passengers--
`(A) boarding to an eligible place under subchapter II of chapter 417 for which essential air service compensation is paid under that subchapter; or
`(B) on flights, including flight segments, between 2 or more points in Hawaii or 2 or more points in Alaska.'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 601(d) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting `, as modified by the amendments made by section 2 of the Passenger Fee Restructuring Exemptions Act of 2014' after `subsection (b)'.
teedubbya Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
1000 Bills from the 113th Congress ranked by relevance on "expansion+of+paramilitary+and+police+capabilities+ ".
0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
1 bill containing all your search words but not near each other.
999 bills containing one or more of your search words.
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 121,359
Too funny TW.

Next thing you know, someone will start ranting to have dihydrogen monoxide banned
Buckwheat Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
gryphonms wrote:
TMCTLT is absolutely correct. I have written my congressmen to support this bill. I would urge everyone here to do the same.



Why do you think any congressman gives two chits what the general populous has to say on any issue? The only way to be heard is to give millions to their campaigns. Brick wall

Ban Ice-nine!!! fog
DrafterX Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
teedubbya wrote:
1000 Bills from the 113th Congress ranked by relevance on "expansion+of+paramilitary+and+police+capabilities+ ".
0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
1 bill containing all your search words but not near each other.
999 bills containing one or more of your search words.



Think
but gyrokraut said he wrote his congress dude about this..... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Hey TCBY....

Given TW's information, good thing you used the word "guess" there.
Abrignac Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
teedubbya wrote:
1000 Bills from the 113th Congress ranked by relevance on "expansion+of+paramilitary+and+police+capabilities+ ".
0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
1 bill containing all your search words but not near each other.
999 bills containing one or more of your search words.



Really????

You obviously have no idea how things are done in DC. Don't you remember that the ACA was a completely gutted and re-written VA bill so it could originate in the Senate instead of the House were spending bills are supposed to come from.
gryphonms Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
HR 4934 is the rereferenced bill.
teedubbya Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Abrignac wrote:
Really????

You obviously have no idea how things are done in DC. Don't you remember that the ACA was a completely gutted and re-written VA bill so it could originate in the Senate instead of the House were spending bills are supposed to come from.



I work a lot with pending legislation and regs. I may have even worked extensively with the ACA. Thats why I went to the source document. Given the title of the thread HR 3934 I'd think it would have to be House Resolution rather than the Senate.

What you are quoting from me is nothing more than a cut and paste of the results on the search terms I used. I can't find anything in the house (or Senate).
teedubbya Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
gryphonms wrote:
HR 4934 is the rereferenced bill.




Much better. it doesn't mention paramilitary etc. This is such a short bill why not go to the source document rather than paraphrase it using terms not in the bill? On the surface I have no problem supporting this one either unless someone could give me legitimate reasons for other agencies to be armed not based on a knee jerk reaction to either side of the issue.





[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 4934 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4934

To prohibit certain Federal agencies from using or purchasing certain
firearms, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 23, 2014

Mr. Stewart (for himself, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Graves of
Missouri, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr.
Bentivolio, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Long, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Smith of Nebraska,
Mr. Lankford, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Rice of South Carolina, and
Mr. Amodei) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To prohibit certain Federal agencies from using or purchasing certain
firearms, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Agency Demilitarization
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PURCHASE AND USE BY A FEDERAL AGENCY OF
FIREARMS.

(a) 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.
(b) GAO Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Comptroller General
shall submit to Congress a report that includes the following:
(1) Each Federal agency, including the office of Inspector
General for the Federal agency, that has specialized units that
receive special tactical or military-style training or use
hard-plated body armor, shields, or helmets and that respond to
high-risk situations that fall outside the capabilities of
regular law enforcement officers, including any special weapons
and tactics (SWAT) team, tactical response teams, special
events teams, special response teams, or active shooter teams.
(2) A description of each such unit.
(3) A description of the training and weapons of each such
unit.
(4) The criteria for activating each such unit and how
often each such unit was activated for each year of the
previous ten years.
(5) The annual cost of equipping and operating each such
unit.
(6) Any other information that is relevant to understanding
the usefulness and justification for the units.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' has the
meaning given that term in section 102 of title 40, United
States Code, but does not include--
(A) the Department of Defense;
(B) the Department of Justice;
(C) the Department of Homeland Security;
(D) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
(E) the United States Capitol Police;
(F) the Bureau of Diplomatic Security;
(G) the Central Intelligence Agency; and
(H) the military departments (as defined in section
102 of title 5, United States Code).
(2) 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).

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AGENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 6 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App.) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e).
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act.
Abrignac Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
teedubbya wrote:
I thought you'd be at 3.75. I'm good at 1.88

TMCTLT Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
gryphonms wrote:
HR 4934 is the rereferenced bill.



Thank you sir, my bad on the typo!!
TMCTLT Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
teedubbya wrote:
1000 Bills from the 113th Congress ranked by relevance on "expansion+of+paramilitary+and+police+capabilities+ ".
0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
1 bill containing all your search words but not near each other.
999 bills containing one or more of your search words.



Whatever, nice you have that kind of free time though Beer
opelmanta1900 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
TMCTLT wrote:
nice you have that kind of free time though Beer


seriously, does nobody fish anymore?

it used to be when people retired they took up fishing...

if they sucked at that, they took up golf...

if they sucked at that, it didn't matter cuz no one is ever watching and you keep your own score...

now when people retire, they spend all their time on internet forums arguing with people they should be fishing with... Herfing
jetblasted Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
I just want them to stop shooting puppy dogs

ram27bat
TMCTLT Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
opelmanta1900 wrote:
seriously, does nobody fish anymore?

it used to be when people retired they took up fishing...

if they sucked at that, they took up golf...

if they sucked at that, it didn't matter cuz no one is ever watching and you keep your own score...

now when people retire, they spend all their time on internet forums arguing with people they should be fishing with... Herfing



I have to admit Joel I laughed right put loud while reading your reply.....ain't it the truth though Beer
Users browsing this topic
Guest