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

Ah huh finally sumpin we CAN agree on brother Gryph 🍺

=d>

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)'.

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.

Next thing you know, someone will start ranting to have dihydrogen monoxide banned

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. 😣

Ban Ice-nine!!! 🌫

:-k

but gyrokraut said he wrote his congress dude about this..... 😟

Given TW's information, good thing you used the word "guess" there.

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).

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.

Thank you sir, my bad on the typo!!

Whatever, nice you have that kind of free time though 🍺