Disarm Federal Agencies ? !

[RicInOR]

Count me as Yes - this is a good idea.
I'd also direct the FBI to have a regional SWAT team available to those agencies.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/187666/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/30/bundy-aftermath-utah-lawmaker-moves-to-disarm-blm-/

"Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, ..a measure to cut funding for any "paramilitary units" that work for theBureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies."

Read More

 

[Xader]

The only one I believe should be armed is the FBI.

If any other agency has a legitimate law enforcement matter, let them request assistance from the legitimate federal law enforcement agency, the FBI.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Get rid of the ATF while they're at it as well. Too much over lap, too much money being spent, too much power at their fingertips to not let it get to their heads.

 

[Colt Carbine]

.........!

 

[Martini_Up]

The only one I believe should be armed is the FBI.

If any other agency has a legitimate law enforcement matter, let them request assistance from the legitimate federal law enforcement agency, the FBI.

No, they should contact the local LE agency (sheriff's department, police, etc..)

 

[Jamie6.5]

 

[j3hill]

I will take it upon myself to start disarming feds tomorrow. I will post a issue size foot locker as a drop box and sit out with some beers and a shade umbrella at the federal building downtown. After dinner tonight I will make a huge bubblegum sign that says something to the fact of " Attention feds! The constitution says the right of the people, not the government. Please place your firearms in the box and go the hell home"

 

[Riot]

You guys are looking at this the wrong way.

Really the only federal agency that shouldn't be armed is the IRS and your Postal Workers. All the rest should be armed.

Why? Chances are that Park Services/BLM will catch someone in the middle of a crime and violence will be attempted on them to get away. Besides, you guys are missing a lot of Federal agencies that should also be armed...

US Marshals
ICE (Immigrations and Customs)
Boarder Patrol

However...I think it should be evaluated as to why we need some these Federal agents to begin with.

Here me out.

Should the Federal Government be tasked with providing security for the airports (TSA)? How about state land (BLM)? Shouldn't it be tasked to the city/state since this is their property, not federal property?

 

[willseeker]

TSA! Now that's an agency about as effective as getting leche' from a boars teat!

 

[Xader]

No, they should contact the local LE agency (sheriff's department, police, etc..)

Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to coordinate a multi-state investigation between local departments? If you recall, 9/11 was able to occur specifically because of the right hand not knowing what the left was doing. Magnify that times 100,000.

For the actual arrests, sure. Locals can handle that just fine. But the interstate investigation needs to be handled by an interstate agency, otherwise nothing gets done. And you can hardly expect the agents themselves to be completely disarmed any more than you can expect the same of local police and detectives.

No, I think there is a legitimate purpose for a federal investigative agency, as long as they're kept in check. And let's be honest, it's rarely the FBI that goes overboard in infringement of citizens' rights. It's the paper-pushing agencies (BATFE, BLM, DOE, DEQ, etc) that get shiny new toys and really, really, really want to try them out that are the biggest problem.

It's the militarization of non-enforcement agencies that has become the threat to the citizens of this county.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to coordinate a multi-state investigation between local departments? If you recall, 9/11 was able to occur specifically because of the right hand not knowing what the left was doing. Magnify that times 100,000.

For the actual arrests, sure. Locals can handle that just fine. But the interstate investigation needs to be handled by an interstate agency, otherwise nothing gets done. And you can hardly expect the agents themselves to be completely disarmed any more than you can expect the same of local police and detectives.

No, I think there is a legitimate purpose for a federal investigative agency, as long as they're kept in check. And let's be honest, it's rarely the FBI that goes overboard in infringement of citizens' rights. It's the paper-pushing agencies (BATFE, BLM, DOE, DEQ, etc) that get shiny new toys and really, really, really want to try them out that are the biggest problem.

It's the militarization of non-enforcement agencies that has become the threat to the citizens of this county.

But you just described exactly why they are the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and NOT the Federal Police Bureau.
Interstate and large scale investigation is understandable to some degree. But arrests then and now entailed the deployment of cooperating local police.
To this day, unless a crime is an interstate matter, the FBI needs an invite from the state police or county sheriff. Crimes committed across state or international borders are definitely the FBI's "bailiwick." Even J. Edgar Hoover, the great police statist understood this.
Being an investigative service doesn't mean a SWAT team is necessary.
A little history on the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/brief-history

 

[Martini_Up]

But you just described exactly why they are the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and NOT the Federal Police Bureau.
Interstate and large scale investigation is understandable to some degree. But arrests then and now entailed the deployment of cooperating local police.
To this day, unless a crime is an interstate matter, the FBI needs an invite from the state police or county sheriff. Crimes committed across state or international borders are definitely the FBI's "bailiwick." Even J. Edgar Hoover, the great police statist understood this.
Being an investigative service doesn't mean a SWAT team is necessary.
A little history on the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/brief-history

exactly.

this thread topic is about the armament / disarmament the federal police and indeed all federal agencies have, not investigations or management.

Xader's attempt to morph it into some sort of desire for no federal agencies whatsoever is not what this topic is about and is best left for another thread.

 

[mjbskwim]

The problem is ,how is the government gunna take over everything and take all our guns without all these extra agencies being armed?Put us all in FEMA camps? (tongue in cheek)
The idea would be to make a bunch of silly carry laws so all these land management agencies can arrest more people on firearm violations. Heck otherwise we'll just go to the woods to shoot and stay away from the cities.
Just more control issues

 

[Xader]

Chances are that Park Services/BLM will catch someone in the middle of a crime and violence will be attempted on them to get away. Besides, you guys are missing a lot of Federal agencies that should also be armed...

US Marshals
ICE (Immigrations and Customs)
Boarder Patrol

You're absolutely right that those occupations are hazardous, and the individual officers/agents should be able to protect themselves, as should any citizen of this county. But it makes me wonder if any of these issues could be handled at the state level instead of being federalized.

Xader's attempt to morph it into some sort of desire for no federal agencies whatsoever is not what this topic is about and is best left for another thread.

What? Where did you get that? I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I was arguing IN FAVOR of the existence and legitimacy of federal agencies for many situations-albeit with more constraints than many have now-but AGAINST every three-letter agency having paramilitary forces conducting raids that absolutely should be the purview of law enforcement (FBI, state and local), and not of bureaucratic agencies (Dept of Education, BLM, DEQ).

Most of the agencies absolutely are valid in their existence (though I think vastly overreaching in their scope), and I never called for theme to be abolished. I called out their militarization, period.

 

[RicInOR]

There is a huge difference between being armed and running SWAT.

Those revenuers coming after your 'shine need to be armed. But do they need a SWAT team? I think not. If they can't convince the FBI's they need the team, then they really don't need the team.

 

[mkwerx]

The problem isn't just a bunch of armed feds - it's that every stupid federal agency has it's own law enforcement branch - from the US Postal Service to the Parks Service, the BLM, etc. And they're all becoming more aggressive and more militaristic in their mind sets and actions.

It's the old cliche' that when you give a man a hammer, all his problems start looking like nails. When you give cops MRAPs, AR's, SWAT teams - they're going to want to use them. They've got to justify having all the expensive toys. Frankly I don't believe that 90% of the federal law enforcement agencies that exist need to. Every entity does not need their own police force/special investigators. As someone else mentioned - if law enforcement action is needed - they should call upon the FBI or local cops. Imagine it on a state level - armed police powered agents working for the DOT, the DMV, Human Services, Forest Service, Fish & Game, Parks Service, BOLI, the Employment Department PLUS having a State Police department. And say half of the previously described agencies don't just have "investigators" - but tactical teams with armored vehicles, automatic weapons, etc. Pretty pointless, a waste of money, and frankly too many cops.

There needs to be a top-down scrubbing and restructuring of Federal agencies and getting rid of a lot of the dead weight - the decent cops could be moved into the FBI. Get rid of the ATF, get rid of the DEA and get rid of the tac teams - save for the FBI Hostage Rescue Teams.

There is zero reason for agencies like the BLM to have tactical teams and armored vehicles. I would even take it a few leaps further and get rid of the BLM entirely and transfer BLM "owned" or managed lands to the respective states. And yes I realize that's a pipe dream and less likely to happen than Captain Kirk flying the Enterprise down and landing in my back yard and asking me to go party with him and Elvis. A guy can still dream.

There is a need for a federal law enforcement agency - A federal law enforcement agency, not 100. And that agency should work with local agencies for actual arrests and enforcement actions whenever possible.

 

[Martini_Up]

mkwerx, you need to run for office.

 

[JustShoot]

What if the Fed. agencies that you don't like being Armed, did Stop issuing weapons to there employees in those agencies ?
OK, since the employees are now defenseless . Would you fight for those now disarmed employees having the right to practice there right to personal protection/self-defense by 'Concealed Carry' on there Job , as hard as you fight for your own ???
.

 

[Jamie6.5]

What if the Fed. agencies that you don't like being Armed, did Stop issuing weapons to there employees in those agencies ?
OK, since the employees are now defenseless . Would you fight for those now disarmed employees having the right to practice there right to personal protection/self-defense by 'Concealed Carry' on there Job , as hard as you fight for your own ???
.

Not disarmed.
Just de-militarized.

There's a difference.
But if you can explain why the Dept of Health and Human Services, or the IRS, or the Dept of Education, or the USDA, or the BLM needs a S.W.A.T. team,....
I'm all ears.

 

[BigStick]

I won't say that no federal agencies should be armed, but there are many that are, that shouldn't be. Sounds like most of us are on the same page. Also, there is a difference between armed and militarized.

I have no problem with BLM or Forrest Service personnel having a sidearm to carry on their duties, or even a long gun for the car, but they do not need their own SWAT like teams. They can contract out help for that kind of operation.