A bill to disarm the BLM.
I agree with Glenn, no regulatory agency should have swat teams. Or tanks. This is big government run amok.
68 thoughts on “My Kind Of Gun Control”
Comments are closed.
A bill to disarm the BLM.
I agree with Glenn, no regulatory agency should have swat teams. Or tanks. This is big government run amok.
Comments are closed.
The Interior Department, for its part, said the BLM and National Park Service had armed agents at Mr. Bundy’s ranch to guarantee the safety of the public and of their workers.
Do we allow this BS to stand? They should immediately fire anybody related to this statement.
At the very, very least, the credentials should be standardized and boiled down to a -very- small number of types. “Hi, here’s my FBI credentials, but I’m helping the EPA investigate this.”
And bring them up to the level of anti-forgery tricks driver’s licenses have.
As long as we’re dreaming (because even that it too much), the QR code on the back of every agent’s ID should bring up their photo when scanned. (Not their home address and other sillyness, but their picture plus “FBI” or whatever. “Yes, this is really a cop.”)
Agreed. The fact that the BLM and IRS and the Department of Education, fer crissake, have SWAT teams is undeniably stupid, tyrannical and moronic.
If the BLM has to go and collect a bill, and they are afraid for their pink little skins, they can request police backup. If the situation is escalated by the ower of money to shots or threats with weapons, the state involved has SWAT teams.
Weaponizing the IRS, Dept. of Education and BLM is yet another in a long list of reasons why they should be eliminated from the Federal government root and branch.
On the one hand, I have no objection to disarming the BLM. Although, it is rather ironic that the same people who seem to need an assault rifle over their shoulder to safely go to the Wynn Dixie for milk want to deny Federal agents that self-same right of self-protection.
On the other hand, what practical difference does it make? When they (whichever agency “they” are) expect to have lawbreakers point guns at them, they will have whatever Federal force they need at hand.
What is an “assault rifle”?
On the other hand, what practical difference does it make? When they (whichever agency “they” are) expect to have lawbreakers point guns at them, they will have whatever Federal force they need at hand.
It will be more likely that they’ll only use it when they really “need” it, and not just want to play Rambo.
Assault Rifle = A rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine, with a high rate of fire. The weapon is designed to be lethal and effective against man-sized targets at 300 meters (as opposed to the old bolt-action standard of 600 meters.)
Looks to me that they “really needed” SWAT when dealing with Bundy.
“Looks to me that they “really needed” SWAT when dealing with Bundy.”
Why?
And why do you put “really needed” in quotes?
I was mirroring Rand’s use of quotes.
Regarding really needing – so if a hundred or so armed people are blocking a public road, law enforcement should only send one person? Per Rand, one unarmed person?
No. Why don’t you back and read what I wrote, again. This time for comprehension.
“Regarding really needing – so if a hundred or so armed people are blocking a public road, law enforcement should only send one person? Per Rand, one unarmed person?”
“One riot, One Ranger”. Frankly, the Judge should send the US Marshals out to
bring Bundy to court to face contempt charges
You left out an important part of the definition of assault rifle as defined by the US government (from FSTC-CW-07-03-70, November 1970, and was also published in later editions, “Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide – Eurasian Communist Countries”
“Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.”
The key words are “selective-fire”, meaning capable of firing semi-automatic or full automatic. Only a small percentage of privately owned weapons are capable of full automatic fire and those require federal licensing. Contrary to what some will try to tell you, you can’t just go to your friendly neighborhood gun store and buy one.
A real Assault Rifle is fully automatic, something that is very expensive and difficult to legally obtain. No one carries a $20,000 Transferable M-16 slung over their shoulder to Winn-Dixie for a bottle of Milk and you are completely nuts if you think they do.
When will you stop molesting strawmen?
” Although, it is rather ironic that the same people who seem to need an assault rifle over their shoulder to safely go to the Wynn Dixie for milk want to deny Federal agents that self-same right of self-protection.”
Strawman (quelle surprise).
Once again: if the BLM needs protection, there are plenty of State law enforcement agencies which can provide it. The FBI is a Federal Law Enforcement organization. It is NOT A REGULATORY agency which is the topic of the article. The FBI can have guns. They also are (supposed) to have a limited charter on what they can take on/investigate etc.
The Department of Education has no earthly need for SWAT teams. None. Zero. ZIP
Same with the BLM, Department of the Interior, the Commerce Department, or the IRS.
If any member of those REGULATORY organizations find themselves in the midst of a threat with guns they should leave immediately. Do nothing.
E.G. If a Federal inspector of Re-education Protocol, Doctrine, and Curricula, from the Department of Education wants to visit a school and there is resistance to that person’s entering the school by angry citizens, the Fed should leave. Right away. Then the Feds can decide whether or not to call out the tanks and RPG’s. But the tanks and RPG’s should NOT come from the Department of Education.
The Feds should work with the local law enforcement first to effect a safe entry by the Commissar into the Re-edukation Kamp, as it’s legel for the Commisar to do so.
I have no problem with BLM employees having a sidearm and an AR-15 for protection. They operate in some vast, remote areas and if somebody decides to make themselves a threat, self-rescue is likely their only real option.
They should have the same defensive options as all other free citizens, AKA Civilians.
What I object to is giving them the power to execute warrants. Leave that to the experts at US Marshal Service.
“I have no problem with BLM employees having a sidearm and an AR-15 for protection. ”
I was talking about SWAT teams.
There is nothing ironic about it if you understand that the 2nd amendment is about preventing tyranny. Having every agency of the government with it’s own SWAT team sounds like a gateway to tyranny to me.
Especially when all those federal agencies can cavalierly choose which laws and regulations to enforce, or not to enforce.
“Although, it is rather ironic that the same people who seem to need an assault rifle over their shoulder to safely go to the Wynn Dixie for milk want to deny Federal agents that self-same right of self-protection.”
Clearly you do not understand that the Constitution was written to protect the free citizen from a tyrannical and dangerous government and not the other way around.
“On the other hand, what practical difference does it make? When they (whichever agency “they” are) expect to have lawbreakers point guns at them, they will have whatever Federal force they need at hand.”
Did you know, Admiral, that by law, the Federal armed forces are NOT allowed to operate in the US unless we are attacked from without?
There’s a really good reason for that. Can you think really hard and figure out what that reason might be?
“Did you know, Admiral, that by law, the Federal armed forces are NOT allowed to operate in the US unless we are attacked from without?”
Can you cite this ?
I wrote:
“Did you know, Admiral, that by law, the Federal armed forces are NOT allowed to operate in the US unless we are attacked from without?”
DN writes:
“Can you cite this ?”
Are you joking? Seriously, you MUST be joking here, right?
google posse comitatus.
Gregg – Posse Commitatus Act of 1876 (spelling?) – passed to end Reconstruction. Basically, the whites in the South were tired of the US Army using force to prevent them from lynching blacks for the crime of wanting to vote. So, as part of a deal to not toss the Presidential election to the House of Representatives, the Army got (somewhat) out of the business of law enforcement. And actually, under the current law, the Army can be called out to put down insurrections, or when civil order fails, ala New Orleans after Katrina. Any other questions?
In any event, private thugs throwing up roadblocks on public roads used to be defined as something that happened in failed nation-states. Nevada was not, last I checked, failed nor a nation-state.
In any event, private thugs throwing up roadblocks on public roads used to be defined as something that happened in failed nation-states.
If that is a real problem in general, it is not one for the BLM.
“the Army can be called out to put down insurrections, or when civil order fails,
Wrogn again. NOT the Army. The National Guard.
” Any other questions?”
I’ve already asked you several all of which you’ve avoided or answered incorrectly. Come back when you’ve educated yourself. Bye.
Gregg,
Have you actually read 10 USC Sec. 333? Here it is.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/333
[[[The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.]]]
“…want to deny Federal agents that self-same right of self-protection.”
Horsepuckey.
Did anyone say that government employees shouldn’t be allowed to arm themselves? With their own damn personal money, of course. Not right to force the rest of us pay for it.
Ryan,
So, for the record, you feel police departments should require their officers to pay for their own guns? How about their police cars, should they paid for them as well? How about fire departments, do you feel they should pay for their own equipment?
“On the other hand, what practical difference does it make? When they (whichever agency “they” are) expect to have lawbreakers point guns at them, they will have whatever Federal force they need at hand.”
Lets not forget that the militia types did not show up until after BLM’s paramilitary forces were pushing old ladies to the ground and video was broadcast, despite the best efforts of the BLM to prevent it, of dogs and tasers being used against the protesters. The protesters were not rioting, burning down buildings, or using violence at all. People were peacefully protesting.
When all of this started, there was zero reason to expect armed resistance that would require the use of a paramilitary assault squad. It was the use of these tactics that provoked the response.
Funny thing is that even with all those scary militia types with guns, there was no more violence after they showed up. OWS was responsible for more violence than all of these people with guns and horses. Well, aside from BLM assassinating cattle because their ego’s were bruised. Maybe all of these law and order big government types are just over compensating? You notice these people are only concerned with using the law to harass the little guy and steal their stuff and never when people with power are breaking the law.
There are laws and regulations that are quite specific to publicly held lands, and these laws have to be enforced. To name a few: “mineral resource theft; wilderness area violations; hazardous materials dumping; archaeological and paleontological resource theft and vandalism; cultivation, manufacture, smuggling, and use of illegal drugs; timber, forest product, and native plant theft; off-highway vehicle use; alcohol related crimes; and wild land arson.” So they essentially have to do a lot of ranger activities on lands that are not state or national parks. Do you really assert that the park system not have peace officers?
I don’t know why it’s “better” that state law enforcement, with all of its responsibilities, enforce these federal laws and somehow patrol the 245 million acres under BLM’s jurisdiction.
Do you really assert that the park system not have peace officers?
I have no problem with a park ranger being armed. I don’t think they need a swat team. I sure as hell know that the Department of Education doesn’t.
The Park Police find themselves tangling with marijuana growers and lumber thieves.
When there is a couple million in marijuana plants, people get a little crazy.
Those park rangers might use, well let’s see, intelligence? They can use their sidearms to retreat the area. What they should do is get information out. Not fight a war.
When rangers stumble on a pot grow, they should call the FBI or DEA to come take care of things just like if they found a still the ATF would be called. But the rangers mostly just drive around and write people parking tickets so finding a pot grow would be an accident.
But, but, Rand! What if some homeschooling parent is using materials not approved by the Glorious Common Core Review Board? Those SWAT teams are For the Children!
“and these laws have to be enforced.”
Obama has shown that the law is meaningless and it doesn’t have to be enforced at all. Now, if you were to hold Obama and the Democrats accountable for the laws they have broken, then maybe we could take you seriously when you want to uphold the law when poor rural people break it.
Rand to Chris Gerrib: “Why don’t you back and read what I wrote, again. This time for comprehension.” Comprehension isn’t exactly the Admiral’s strong suit, RS, although I often think he pretends to miss points (even at the risk of looking stupider than he probably is) just to go after straw men.
Also, I can think of one very good reason why the BLM should have police duties: there are currently armed thugs in Nevada impeding the free flow of traffic through BLM lands — literally stopping cars and demanding proof that you’re a “resident”. I would like law enforcement to come down hard on people who think they can do that to American citizens.
That’s not the BLM’s job. Much, in fact most of the BLM land should in fact be managed by states.
But until the BLM is abolished by law and all of those lands are turned over to individual states, some entity has to enforce laws. Right now it’s the federal government. To demand that it not do so is to be some kind of anarchist. Or Teahadist.
some entity has to enforce laws
If only there was some federal agency charged with enforcing federal laws…
“But until the BLM is abolished by law and all of those lands are turned over to individual states, some entity has to enforce laws. Right now it’s the federal government. To demand that it not do so is to be some kind of anarchist. Or Teahadist.”
Ah, the New Toryism at its finest!
Ah, the New Toryism at its finest!
No, the correct analogy is that you’re a new Whiskey Insurrectionist. You know, the post-independence tax rebellion that Washington led an army to put down. That one was resolved with no casualties — I hope this time around the clowns out in the desert just get tired of the Nevada heat and go home after a month of paramilitary fantasy camp.
go home after a month of paramilitary fantasy camp
But the BLMers weren’t indulging in a paramilitary fantasy camp? When they could have simply put a lien on the ranch?
Really?
When they could have simply put a lien on the ranch?
Sure, I would agree that would be a better strategy. I don’t know if the BLM has the statutory means to go after bank accounts. I’m sure they have the authority to remove things trespassing on the land they manage, which is probably why they chose the action that they did.
don’t know if the BLM has the statutory means to go after bank accounts.
You don’t put a lien on a bank account. They could put a lien on his property, including his cattle.
I was mistaken. Several jurisdictions allow liens on bank accounts.
No one demanded that the federal government not enforce laws.
But as always, leftists have nothing but straw men.
“But until the BLM is abolished by law and all of those lands are turned over to individual states, some entity has to enforce laws. Right now it’s the federal government. To demand that it not do so is to be some kind of anarchist. Or Teahadist.”
OR soemone who has read the thread and actually knows what’s being argued, and who has (several of us) pointed out that there are already Federal law enforcement agencies on the job. So, therefore (and for the zillionth time) agencies like the BLM do not need SWAT teams.
How often do these agencies really need SWAT teams? How well are these teams going to be trained compared to regular police SWAT teams? Which is likely to be closer to incidents in which a SWAT team is required?
It all sounds like macho BS by the management of these agencies to me.
Cool we’ve got our own SWAT teams!!
Andrew, when your only tool is a Hammer, every problem starts looking like Nails………..
They do NOT have enough need for an Entry Team to justify the expense of maintaining one. The USMS should be the primary go-to Agency for this type of service.
Keep it there, keep it professional and keep it in check.
Exactly, Andrew.
It’s nice to see that someone actually has the ability to comprehend written English.
My idea of gun control is hitting where I aim.
I know Rand has no interest in facts or doing research on the things he helps to echo around the blogsphere but this should be informative as to why some BLM agents are armed.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/law_enforcement.html
So Rand do you think a separate agency is needed to support the BLM in patrolling federal lands? Or should they just be left open to looters.
I think there should be no federal lands, other than parks, or military bases.
But we know you’re a statist who thinks that DC running Nevada is just fine.
Ah, the master of misinformation! Anyone that believes in the United States of America is a statist. I guess you would like to see a new civil war to establish state sovereignty since the last one didn’t turn out the way you wanted.
Since you are an outsider I will fill you in on the local history. When Nevada became a state, under the Constitution, it decided to allocate most of the land in the east and south to the federal government, mostly because it didn’t want to deal with the Mormons, folks like Mr. Bundy, preferring to leave them to the federal government to deal with, For Nevada to get the land now would, under the Constitution you claim to believe in, would take an Act of Congress, not a nut with a gun. But so far Congress doesn’t seem interested in the issue.
But if you feel so strongly about it why don’t you start lobbying Congress about it? But you will find most ranchers, not to mention prospectors, loggers, etc. will oppose you as the fees they pay to the federal government for grazing, minerals, etc. are far less than the states charge for those activities. Its only folks like Mr. Bundy who doesn’t want to pay fees to anyone for freeloading on the land.
BTW as long as it is federal land, and local police don’t have authority over it, as per the Constitution, you will need armed federal officers. In the old days you dream about the army handled it. You might look at how long there were army troops stationed in Yellowstone to patrol it. But then the government decided rather than use troops it made more sense to have government rangers. Since Yellowstone National Park is a park, the armed park rangers. But for land that is not under the park system, or national forest service, they assigned BLM Rangers. But I guess you would prefer it to be a lawless area so you may play out your libertarian fantasies.
In NZ the public (state owned) land area is around 30,000 square miles, about 10% of the area of BLM land, there are no armed rangers to control 2 legged pests, only 4 legged pests.
There is no problem with looters.
What loot is there on BLM land that’s such a magnet for looters anyway?
And in England the police don’t carry guns. So what? Different cultures. Apples and Oranges.
“What loot is there on BLM land that’s such a magnet for looters anyway?”
Sparse vegetation. We must clamp down on those moochers and welfare abusers who are using cattle to convert sparse vegetation into steaks for overfed rich persons.
Let’s see, Native American ruins, fossils, historical sites (ghost towns).
In terms of the issue with Mr. Bundy, it looks like the BLM Rangers having to deal with Mr. Bundy has allowed looters into the area. FYI, something you won’t see on the national news or the right wing blogsphere.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29632901
Grave robbers likely struck during rancher dispute
By Natalie Crofts
Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29632901#52o5JraTqXz3ubPJ.99
[[[The damage done to a grave in the Gold Butte ghost town was discovered April 18 by an outdoor enthusiast, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal. She said the dirt appeared to still be fresh when she arrived, but the exact time of the robbery is unknown.
“It looks like they burrowed right into the coffin for sure,” BLM archaeologist Mark Boatwright told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “They were probably looking for historic artifacts.”]]]
But hey, lets get rid of all the BLM rangers and just ignore the public lands, folks will respect them 🙂
What is the BLM going to do? They certainly are not capable of preventing acts like this. They should refer the case to a proper investigative body like the FBI.
News flash, the BLM is the proper agency as per the Act of Congress that created it. Unless you don’t believe Congress has the authority to pass such laws.
it looks like the BLM Rangers having to deal with Mr. Bundy has allowed looters into the area.
The BLM didn’t have to “deal with Mr. Bundy” in such brutish manner, so pulling rangers off other duties wasn’t necessary.
FYI, something you won’t see on the national news or the right wing blogsphere.
That would be because it’s such a minor issue it’s below the radar for most of the world, most house burglaries don’t get national or international coverage either.
But hey, lets get rid of all the BLM rangers and just ignore the public lands, folks will respect them 🙂
Your reading comprehension is lacking or maybe you’re just stupid, no one has suggested getting rid of all the BLM rangers.
So you advocate rangers running around trying to catch criminals with guns? That is like sending NYPD officers to a bank robbery without guns.
BTW I take you don’t spend much time on public lands out west – they aren’t all that safe like they used to be with all the pot growers, looters and other anti-government types hanging out.
That should be “without guns”
So you advocate rangers running around trying to catch criminals with guns?
Did I say that? Where did I say that?
they aren’t all that safe like they used to be with all the pot growers, looters and other anti-government types hanging out.
Have you any statistics?
Andrew W.
Would you believe the figures if I had? But here is one article on the problem. I
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/webster/100620
June 20, 2010
Many U.S. Parks, Monuments, Wildlife Refuges & Public Lands are too dangerous for U.S. public to use
By Michael Webster
As a federal regulator, and a newly-minted Progressivist Leftist, I firmly support the right of the federal regulator to be armed with assault weapons, flame throwers, white phosphorus grenades, Anthrax spores, the rack, the wheel, and the guillotine. Seriously, how else would my agency get people to conform to the rule of using gram-centimeters as the unit of work? Do you think you can do that without bludgeoning someone to death periodically?
I’m certainly on board with Chris Gerrib and dn-guy on this one.
Skipping all the way back to QR codes in badges:
While you’re at it, you could include not just a photo but a digital signature from the relevant authority. That would make the badges all-but-unforgeable. Not a bad idea at all.