A few years back, you might remember, there was some information floating around about how much ammunition was being purchased by various branches of the federal government. Some of that, of course, is legitimate; I wouldn't deny ammo (including training ammo) to, say, FBI field agents, or the U.S. Marshals Service. Even the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service may have members with a reason to be armed for self-defense, against big, toothy critters if nothing else.

But the IRS? It's for sure and for certain that if you don't pay your taxes, the government will send men with guns out looking for you. But should the same agency that collects the taxes be the ones with the guns?

Not according to four GOP representatives: Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL), Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), Mary Miller (R-IL), and Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA). They are introducing a bill to strip the IRS of its guns and ammo; it's called the Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act.

The "Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act" would disarm the federal agency, prohibiting the commissioner of internal revenue from using funds to buy, receive or store firearms and ammo, and requiring the transfer of IRS firearms and ammunition to the Administrator of General Services.

The guns would then be sold or auctioned to licensed dealers and the ammo would be auctioned to the public.

Proceeds would go to "the general fund of the Treasury for the sole purpose of deficit reduction," the measure stipulates.

That last part - that the proceeds from the sold-off heaters and ammo would go into deficit reduction - that's a winner, although I'd rather see it go into outright debt reduction. But at least it's not just going to be dropped back into the general fund to be spent on who knows what.

The Act would hand off enforcement of tax law to the Department of Justice.

The bill states that "there are transferred to the Department of Justice the authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, which shall be maintained as a distinct entity within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, including the related functions of the Secretary of the Treasury."

That's good, at least, as long as Pam Bondi or someone of her inclinations remains in charge of the Department of Justice; I wouldn't have handed Merrick Garland this particular authority, or any other, for that matter. (Personally, I wouldn't put Merrick Garland in charge of a squad of port-a-potty cleaners, but then there are a lot of things I wouldn't do.) While there's a lot I'd like to see reformed with the IRS and the tax system in general, this is as good a place to start as any.

See Also: This Simple DOGE Action Regarding the IRS Website Login Button Is What I Voted For

Beware: People Who Say Paying Taxes Is Patriotic, Always Want to Make You Pay More

I am, though, not sanguine about the bill's prospects. I'd be a bit surprised to see it moving anywhere, even in the current GOP-controlled House. And if it did make it to the Senate, you can be sure that the Democrats would be lockstep against it, precluding the 60 votes needed for cloture.

That's too often the case, sadly - a good idea fails to draw the approval it should, mostly just because of inertia. (Or the lack thereof.) Granted, Congress has a lot of big fish to fry, but a good, hard look at how many federal agencies are packing iron is something that needs to be done, and I mean all of them, not just the IRS.

I trust my neighbors with guns. I trust my fellow law-abiding gun owners with guns. I trust our armed forces with guns. I trust most cops with guns. Federal bureaucrats? Not so much.

Every single day, here at RedState, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its major wins. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.