GOP rep wants to cut funding for federal ‘paramilitary units’ after BLM dispute

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

A Republican congressman wants to crack down on the proliferation of armed law enforcement units within the federal government, on the heels of the standoff last month between supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and a federal land agency.

Both sides of that standoff -- agents with the Bureau of Land Management, and states' rights protesters who streamed into Nevada -- were armed, leading the BLM to back down for fear of violence.

But Utah GOP Rep. Chris Stewart told The Salt Lake Tribune that the BLM doesn't need an armed unit in the first place. He's reportedly looking at ways to cut funding for what he calls "paramilitary units" and require them to rely on local law enforcement instead.

"There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team," he told the newspaper. "They're regulatory agencies; they're not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us."

The bill could apply to a host of federal agencies, including the BLM, IRS and others.

FoxNews.com previously reported, followed controversy over a separate armed raid by the EPA last year in Alaska, that 40 federal agencies have armed divisions. This includes nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement.

The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

Though most would expect agents within the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Prisons to carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board also employ armed officers.

Among those with the largest armed units are the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Park Service.

A BLM spokeswoman told the Tribune that the BLM and Park Service had law enforcement on the scene in Nevada to ensure safety -- and that, with just 300 officers covering millions of acres of public land, they already coordinate with local law enforcement.

But Stewart says they should be able to rely on the local sheriff in these types of incidents.

Other lawmakers, though, are focusing more on the armed militia members who showed up to protest agents taking Bundy's cattle over a grazing fee dispute.

KLAS-TV in Las Vegas reported that Sgt. Tom Jenkins, of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said officers were concerned for their lives.

"We didn't show any fear that day, but I can tell you, we all thought in the back of our minds, we all thought it was going to be our last day on earth, if it went bad," he reportedly said.

I kind of agree with this

Though I would currently go with updated and current training across the board on all Dept's paramilitary units

**LordofHats**

Yeah they'll go for that, what with armed citizens showing up and resisting law enforcement when the BLM isn't even all that armed. Apparently this guys idea of "paramilitary" goes so far as to include the fat rentacop at the front door. You know, when you deal with rednecks with rifles on a regular basis who have a horribly inflated idea of their own worth while buying into the idea the government is personally out to get them, it kind of makes sense to arm yourself.

Congratulations GOP for once again pandering to the most moronic denominator of your demographic and alienating everyone else.

**Frazzled**

I agree with that too. Nothing will come of it though. Enough with every govenrment agency playing "keeping up with the Jones'" and having their own SWAT teams. If there's a situation, you call the US Marshals, FBI, Secret Service. "Enhanced interrogation" required? Just call the IRS. Leave it to the professionals...

After all, we still have TSA and VIPR. Whats been done about them?

**Breotan**

I agree, too. If some dept. or bureau needs paramilitary force, let them coordinate with the FBI. No need for each and every department in the government to have their own internal, dedicated SWAT team standing ready on a helipad somewhere.

But that's just me wearing rose tinted glasses.

**whembly**

*meh*

Is it really that big of a deal?

The FBI/CIA/ATF may have better things to do than to enforce things like the Bundy escapade...

**Frazzled**

Then they don't need a SWAT team out there.

Its a symptom of two things:
1) the militarization of the police and the government.
2) rampant duplication and over spending.

The BLM is freaking park rangers. They don't need SWAT team wannabees. If that issue comes up it needs to be with qualified personnel.

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:
They don't need SWAT team wannabees.

Really? How is it that when a bunch of psychos who spend their days fantasizing about a war with the government can show up and create a stand off with a bunch of guys trying to do their job, and people say with a straight face that the government has too many guns? I don't think the crazy red necks give a game how many guns BLM had when they showed up.

BLM can walk up and hold the entire Bundy incident up as the case and point for why they need guns, not why they should be taken away.

If your goal is to reduced armed government agents citing examples of civilians pointing guns at government agents probably isn't the best way to make the case.

**Manchu**

I agree that government agencies that are not law enforcement agencies should not have armed personnel. It's shocking and worrisome that forty, including the EPA, currently do. While I agree with frazzled that there is an issue of militarization of the police, which I would argue is a bad thing, this is even worse. We're talking about militarization of non-police agencies.

LordofHats wrote:
How is it that when a bunch of psychos who spend their days fantasizing about a war with the government can show up and create a stand off with a bunch of guys trying to do their job

Agencies should be directed by elected officials to coordinate efforts. If someone illegally interferes with a government agency fulfilling its obligations, the executive should order law enforcement agencies to get involved. The non-law enforcement agency should not have its own armed branch.

**Dreadclaw69**

Manchu wrote:
I agree that government agencies that are not law enforcement agencies should not have armed personnel. It's shocking and worrisome that forty, including the EPA, currently do. While I agree with frazzled that there is an issue of militarization of the police, which I would argue is a bad thing, this is even worse. We're talking about militarization of non-police agencies.
LordofHats wrote:
How is it that when a bunch of psychos who spend their days fantasizing about a war with the government can show up and create a stand off with a bunch of guys trying to do their job
Agencies should be directed by elected officials to coordinate efforts. If someone illegally interferes with a government agency fulfilling its obligations, the executive should order law enforcement agencies to get involved. The non-law enforcement agency should not have its own armed branch.

No arguments here

**AlmightyWalrus**

Should've named the thread "GOP wants to take guns away". That'd get people in here in a hurry.

**Ensis Ferrae**

having a general "security officer" type person in a fed agency, for most agencies make sense. Agencies like Fish/Wildlife are often the ones on scene and required to make arrests or other actions in the case of poaching and the like.

I agree that most Fed. agencies do not need MRAPs, IOTVs and other associated "full combat gear" or SWAT or any other type of emergency response units. But to completely disarm all of them seems a bit too far, and that there is some sort of middle ground in many of the agencies.

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
I agree that government agencies that are not law enforcement agencies should not have armed personnel. It's shocking and worrisome that forty, including the EPA, currently do. While I agree with frazzled that there is an issue of militarization of the police, which I would argue is a bad thing, this is even worse. We're talking about militarization of non-police agencies.
LordofHats wrote:
How is it that when a bunch of psychos who spend their days fantasizing about a war with the government can show up and create a stand off with a bunch of guys trying to do their job
Agencies should be directed by elected officials to coordinate efforts. If someone illegally interferes with a government agency fulfilling its obligations, the executive should order law enforcement agencies to get involved. The non-law enforcement agency should not have its own armed branch.

Ya know... that's a good point.

I think I'm going to have to change my mind.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree that most Fed. agencies do not need MRAPs, IOTVs and other associated "full combat gear" or SWAT or any other type of emergency response units. But to completely disarm all of them seems a bit too far, and that there is some sort of middle ground in many of the agencies.

I don't think that anyone is looking to disarm the agencies in question. I fully support having Park Rangers being armed as they are often in the wilderness with a very long window before back up. But do I believe that they, or the IRS, needs a dedicated SWAT team ready to go at a moments notice? Not really

**Ensis Ferrae**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree that most Fed. agencies do not need MRAPs, IOTVs and other associated "full combat gear" or SWAT or any other type of emergency response units. But to completely disarm all of them seems a bit too far, and that there is some sort of middle ground in many of the agencies.

I don't think that anyone is looking to disarm the agencies in question. I fully support having Park Rangers being armed as they are often in the wilderness with a very long window before back up. But do I believe that they, or the IRS, needs a dedicated SWAT team ready to go at a moments notice? Not really

That's basically what I'm saying Dread. Obviously, in today's FB/Twitter world, the large media outlets would cry foul at someone actually taking the time to REALLY look at each and every one of the fed. agencies to determine whether they need anyone armed with more than a stapler.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
They don't need SWAT team wannabees.

Really? How is it that when a bunch of psychos who spend their days fantasizing about a war with the government can show up and create a stand off with a bunch of guys trying to do their job, and people say with a straight face that the government has too many guns? I don't think the crazy red necks give a game how many guns BLM had when they showed up.

BLM can walk up and hold the entire Bundy incident up as the case and point for why they need guns, not why they should be taken away.

If your goal is to reduced armed government agents citing examples of civilians pointing guns at government agents probably isn't the best way to make the case.

Thats nuts. When weirdoes come into your office you call the cops, you don't form your own police force.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agencies should be directed by elected officials to coordinate efforts. If someone illegally interferes with a government agency fulfilling its obligations, the executive should order law enforcement agencies to get involved. The non-law enforcement agency should not have its own armed branch.

Manchu speakest the truth.
If this were a private matter with cows in my field and their owner threatening me if I didn't let them graze, legally I would call the local sheriff and the sheriff would deal with him.
If its too much for the sheriff the sheriff calls the state. The state sends help. If its not enough for the state they call the fed. If the fed can't handle it, then they call...Team Wienie!

**LordofHats**

Manchu wrote:
The non-law enforcement agency should not have its own armed branch.

The entire purpose of the executive branch is law enforcement. The biggest problem with the right in the US today is they omit every part of the constitution that isn't the Bill of Rights (and even then). Congress writes the law. The Judiciary decides if the laws are okay and the executive carries them out.

BLM is a law enforcement agency. They're all law enforcement agencies. That's what the executive is. A huge collection of agencies tasked with ensuring the laws are followed.

When weirdoes come into your office you call the cops, you don't form your own police force.

That seems counter intuitive to the whole, self defense aspect of the second amendment, but I forgive you for changing tune when it suits you

If this were a private matter with cows in my field and their owner threatening me if I didn't let them graze, legally I would call the local sheriff and the sheriff would deal with him.

The United States government is the sheriff in the Bundy situation.

**Frazzled**

The entire purpose of the executive branch is law enforcement.

Strangely I'd proffer thats a minority view you have there. The Post Office is a law enforcement entity?

The biggest problem with the right in the US today is they omit every part of the constitution that isn't the Bill of Rights (and even then). Congress writes the law. The Judiciary decides if the laws are okay and the executive carries them out.

DOgma would say something good here. I'll just note thats not relevant to the discussion. No one is arguing constitutionality in this thread.

BLM is a law enforcement agency. They're all law enforcement agencies.

No. the BLM is a land management entity.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html

That seems counter intuitive to the whole, self defense aspect of the second amendment, but I forgive you for changing tune when it suits you

what the

?

The United States government is the sheriff in the Bundy situation.

Then send the sheriff. You don't the Sheriff's accountant with a MAC 10.

as Cartman would say. MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC TEN!

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:

Strangely I'd proffer thats a minority view you have there. The Post Office is a law enforcement entity?

Surprisingly, the government is bound by law to provide a mail service.

No. the BLM is a land management entity.

Yeah. And there are, shock put on your surprised face, laws about how land is mean to be managed, and BLM is mandated with enforcing those laws. Given that they often end up dealing with red necks, that they have their own armed division shouldn't a shock to anyone.Read your own link;

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages a wide variety of resources spread over 245 million acres of public lands and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate. These public land resources include timber, forage, energy and minerals, recreation, wild horse and burro herds, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness areas, and archaeological and paleontological sites. The BLM has been given specific resource protection and law enforcement responsibilities that relate to its resource management mission. There are many federal laws and regulations that relate to public lands and resources. These laws and regulations are often quite unique in that they apply only to federal lands and have no counterparts in state law.

The BLM fields a force of approximately 200 Law Enforcement Rangers (uniformed officers) and 70 Special Agents (criminal investigators) who enforce a wide range of laws and regulations in the prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes affecting public lands resources. These crimes include 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 wildland arson.

The public lands managed by the BLM are predominantly located in the western U.S., including Alaska, and consist of extensive grassland, forest, high mountain, arctic tundra, and desert landscapes. Each of these landscapes has a diversity of resources. As a result, the specific duties of each BLM law enforcement officer can vary considerably. For example, in the southwestern desert, officers may spend a considerable amount of time dealing with large numbers of recreational off-highway vehicle users as well as archaelogical resources crimes; officers along the southern border frequently contend with the effects of illegal border crossing and drug smuggling; officers in urban interface areas encounter a variety of trespass crimes to include arson and hazardous materials dumping; and officers in the northern states regularly deal with marijuana cultivation and illegal commercial outfitting activities.

BLM is a law enforcement agency tasked with managing federal lands. It's in their damn mandate. The only way to consider them accounts is to be the par for the course kind of uninformed that I've come to expect of too many people.

**Frazzled**

Surprisingly, the government is bound by law to provide a mail service.

That’s not law enforcement. That’s mail enforcement.

Yeah. And there are, shock put on your surprised face, laws about how land is mean to be managed, and BLM is mandated with enforcing those laws. Given that they often end up dealing with red necks, that they have their own armed division shouldn't a shock to anyone.Read your own link;

Yes and the average apartment manager has to enforce laws to. But they don’t get walk around in full riot gear with a SCAR. They have to call the attornies for civil issues and the PoPo for criminal ones. All we’re saying is every government agency should not have recourse to SWAT. Call the PoPo.

BLM is a law enforcement agency tasked with managing federal lands. It's in their damn mandate.

See above.
Now, I’ll grant they can be in the boonies, and make have some Park Ranger Rick laws to enforce so am more than ok with them being armed for personal protection. There’s a world of difference between that and the tacticool SWAT wannabees. And that’s the problem.

**d-usa**

Fething idiots showing up are a pretty good example of why the BLM needs to be armed themselves, not the opposite.

But pandering idiot politicians gonna pander.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Fething idiots showing up are a pretty good example of why the BLM needs to be armed themselves, not the opposite.

But pandering idiot politicians gonna pander.

BLM was armed first and they came heavy - again in SWAT formation.

Interesting that the elefties are ok with SWAT tactics in thsi context. Ok with SWAT tactics when they kick in your door looking for drugs and if you blink funny you're dead?

**Relapse**

Breotan wrote:
I agree, too. If some dept. or bureau needs paramilitary force, let them coordinate with the FBI. No need for each and every department in the government to have their own internal, dedicated SWAT team standing ready on a helipad somewhere.

But that's just me wearing rose tinted glasses.

I also agree with what you say here from the aspect of avoiding the nightmare of units that don't know each other or have recieved different training.

**d-usa**

Are the same people that always scream "we need guns because cops can't be anywhere and cops have no mandate to protect anybody anyway" now saying "people don't need guns, just call the damn cops"?

I don't know what I expected...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Fething idiots showing up are a pretty good example of why the BLM needs to be armed themselves, not the opposite.

But pandering idiot politicians gonna pander.

BLM was armed first and they came heavy - again in SWAT formation.

Interesting that the elefties are ok with SWAT tactics in thsi context. Ok with SWAT tactics when they kick in your door looking for drugs and if you blink funny you're dead?

If you think those were SWAT tactics then you must think that a real SWAT team is an extraterrestrial military commando squad...

**Relapse**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Fething idiots showing up are a pretty good example of why the BLM needs to be armed themselves, not the opposite.

But pandering idiot politicians gonna pander.

BLM was armed first and they came heavy - again in SWAT formation.

Interesting that the elefties are ok with SWAT tactics in thsi context. Ok with SWAT tactics when they kick in your door looking for drugs and if you blink funny you're dead?

Yep, when you put snipers on people recording their cattle being taken, that sets the pace.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

d-usa wrote:
Are the same people that always scream "we need guns because cops can't be anywhere and cops have no mandate to protect anybody anyway" now saying "people don't need guns, just call the damn cops"?

I don't know what I expected...

I'm seeing ALL the similarities

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Are the same people that always scream "we need guns because cops can't be anywhere and cops have no mandate to protect anybody anyway" now saying "people don't need guns, just call the damn cops"?

I don't know what I expected...

As Dogma would say, you're arguing against a strawman, and kicking its ass!

Not seeing where people are saying park rangers shouldn't have guns.

If you think those were SWAT tactics then you must think that a real SWAT team is an extraterrestrial military commando squad...

Body armor, assault rifles, tacticool clothing, covering fire tactics. Yep wannabe SWAT.

**d-usa**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Are the same people that always scream "we need guns because cops can't be anywhere and cops have no mandate to protect anybody anyway" now saying "people don't need guns, just call the damn cops"?

I don't know what I expected...

I'm seeing ALL the similarities

We need fething arsenals because a cop might be 5 minutes down the road, that's too long because "when seconds count the police are minutes away".

The BLM operating in BFE doesn't need guns because they can always just call the cops if they are needed and wait on an interagency response that is coming from who knows where because who knows where the closest FBI office is located.

If agencies that are tasked with the constitution to enforce the laws don't need guns (that they are allowed to have) then nobody needs constitutional guns.

The right bitches and moans about gun-free zones in one breath, then turns around and screams for gun-free departments before they even take another breath in.

I've had conversations with drunk and high schizophrenics that make more sense than you guys.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Are the same people that always scream "we need guns because cops can't be anywhere and cops have no mandate to protect anybody anyway" now saying "people don't need guns, just call the damn cops"?

I don't know what I expected...

As Dogma would say, you're arguing against a strawman, and kicking its ass!
Not seeing where people are saying park rangers shouldn't have guns.

If you think those were SWAT tactics then you must think that a real SWAT team is an extraterrestrial military commando squad...

Body armor, assault rifles, tacticool clothing, covering fire tactics. Yep wannabe SWAT.

You are describing what every single cop should be wearing and doing when dealing with a hostile situation.

This conversation is mind-blowing.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

d-usa wrote:
The right bitches and moans about gun-free zones in one breath, then turns around and screams for gun-free departments before they even take another breath in.

I've had conversations with drunk and high schizophrenics that make more sense than you guys.

Frazzled wrote:As Dogma would say, you're arguing against a strawman, and kicking its ass!
Not seeing where people are saying park rangers shouldn't have guns.

**Frazzled**

I've had conversations with drunk and high schizophrenics that make more sense than you guys.

Derp, haven't we all.

**Jihadin**

Remember the SWAT team charging in on Gibson Guitar for possessing illegal wood?