Trump prepares to lift limits on military gear to police

[M-Quigley]

http://www.whio.com/news/national-govt- ... dUj42sDBN/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Trump administration is preparing to restore the flow of surplus military equipment to local law enforcement agencies under a program that had been sharply curtailed amid an outcry over police use of armored vehicles and other war-fighting gear to confront protesters.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press indicate President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order undoing an Obama administration directive that restricted police agencies' access to the gear that includes grenade launchers, bullet-proof vests, riot shields, firearms and ammunition.

[M-Quigley]

There's something I forgot to mention, and too late to edit the OP, but when I was in the army, I was training on repairing unarmed amphibious vehicles, even though the instructor said the army was getting rid of them. (mid eighties) They weren't going to sell them on the open market to civilians, they were sending them someplace to be destroyed, even though they worked perfectly. If they had been given to state or government agencies, they might've been useful as rescue vehicles in flood areas. The down side is the receiving agency would've had to upkeep them, so the better option would've been to sell them to anyone, and then if civilian volunteers would want to use them in rescues they could. (like what some are currently doing in Texas)

In addition, if a particular dept needs and could use protective gear or equipment, I don't see anything wrong with that aspect of it. I have mixed feelings however about other items.

[Bianchi?]

they were sending them someplace to be destroyed, even though they worked perfectly.

It's just tax money.

[TJW815]

I have no issues with police having military surplus gear. What I have a problem with is that we aren't allowed to have the same gear. I think it should be available to all law-abiding citizens.

[M-Quigley]

they were sending them someplace to be destroyed, even though they worked perfectly.

It's just tax money.

Yes I know, spending tax money to destroy something rather than make money to sell them on the open market. The strange thing is the government had been doing just that prior to this, without any harm to anyone. Plus, the army was spending money to teach soldiers to operate, maintain, and repair the vehicles, even though the army hadn't actively used them for decades prior, and had already sold most of their inventory of them. I think we might've been the last company to train with them prior to them being shipped off. So in effect, we were trained on something the army knew we were never going to actually use them.

[3FULLMAGS+1]

I have no issues with police having military surplus gear. What I have a problem with is that we aren't allowed to have the same gear. I think it should be available to all law-abiding citizens.

Because we're just peasants and peasants can't be trusted......in "their" eyes, that is.

I was thinking the same thing as you when I read the OP comment.

[bignflnut]

Here's Rand Paul's take:

Police work is unquestionably difficult — and often thankless. I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for those who put it all on the line to protect our communities, and I saw their bravery firsthand this summer when Capitol Police officers made all the difference during the attack on our congressional baseball-game practice.

To support our local police, we must first realize they aren’t soldiers. But today the line between the two is being eroded.

It’s no surprise you can find big government right at the heart of this problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies — where police departments compete to acquire military gear.

Plus, over a third of the “surplus” equipment is new, so it’s disingenuous to portray it as banged-up old stuff lying around the garage.

When we couple militarizing law enforcement with the erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury — national-security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction asset forfeiture — we see the magnitude of the problem.

SNIP

Ultimately, if we sacrifice the very nature of the institutions we have set up to enforce the law, what kind of law will we end up enforcing?

I recently spoke to a local veteran of who had served in Afghanistan. North Korea came up and, long story short, he was appalled at the concept of not having a standing army, but rather, having local militias defending local communities. I enjoy fellowship with this man and wasn't at all attempting to denigrate his service. But we've so internalized this lie that we should have a standing army that goes overseas to confront every dictator on the planet, that he couldn't even comprehend another route. He genuinely believes that he's defending the US and the constitution, though he's entirely ignorant of the 2nd Amendment's militias, which he passionately declares to be true and just.

To Rand Paul's point, we've accepted standing armies so fully, that we EXPECT weapons used by the military to be available to local PDs, without any thought of the mentality or the training that finds its way into our neighborhoods. We balk at holding the government accountable with these tools, and we emphatically accept their cries of fear when they use force in a questionable scenario.

The conventional wisdom in military theory is that, for effective defense, the military must be centralized and continually maintained in the form of a compulsory standing army. Even from supposed “small government” advocates, this notion is never contested. However, the evidence from the time suggests that had it not been for the decentralized and voluntary militia system, Lincoln himself may have had significantly more trouble at the beginning of the Civil War.

SNIP

On both sides of the war, it is also worth noting that the voluntary nature of the early regiments drove men to fight more bravely. Voluntary regiments, as Jeffrey Rogers Hummel notes, “were bound together by ties of community and sometimes kinship, which were only strengthened as they carried the same personnel from battle to battle. No modern bureaucracy callously transferred men in and out, ticket punching them through some idealized career path, and disrupting the unit’s hometown cohesion in the process.”

Modern military theory recognizes this. Men simply fight more courageously when they are fighting for friends and family, rather than some abstract cause put forth by politicians.

So the question is, why is this model not used today?

Because so few comprehend it, for one...

By delegating to the Militia—and to the Militia alone—the right, power, and duty to execute the laws, the Constitution solves the apparent paradox of “martial law” mentioned above. For, although the Militia are governmental institutions of the States, and permanent components of the federal system, they are not “standing armies”. Perhaps nothing makes this dichotomy clearer than Article 13 of Virginia’s original Declaration of Rights in 1776: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty”. Similarly, the Second Amendment declares “well regulated Militia” to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. So the “law” executed by the Militia, even in a “martial” fashion were the circumstances to warrant it, would always be executed by THE PEOPLE themselves for the ultimate purpose of securing their own freedom.

The problem which confronts America today is that, if constitutional “martial law” were ever needed in response to some major nationwide crisis, constitutional “martial law” could not be had. For the constitutional “Militia of the several States”, for all intents and purposes, do not exist—and therefore cannot be “called into the actual Service of the United States” in order “to execute the Laws of the Union”, or called forth to fulfill the analogous duty for their States. Some Americans have voluntarily enrolled in the National Guard, which a statute deceptively denominates as “the organized militia”, when actually it is no “militia” at all—whereas all other Americans who are eligible for service in the Militia have been consigned by that same statute to what it calls “the unorganized militia”. See 10 U.S.C. § 311. Relevant statutes of the States follow the same pattern. As the name implies, “the unorganized militia” is precisely that: unorganized, unarmed, undisciplined, untrained, and ungoverned. Contrast U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16. But, as American legal history proves beyond any possible doubt, an “unorganized militia” is as much of a contradiction in terms as a “square circle”—and therefore is a constitutional impossibility.

Just 2 cents (rounded up)...

[M-Quigley]

Obama's order prohibited the federal government from providing grenade launchers, bayonets, tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, and firearms and ammunition of .50-caliber or greater to police. As of December, the agency overseeing the program had recalled at least 100 grenade launchers, more than 1,600 bayonets and 126 tracked vehicles — those that run on continuous, tank-like tracks instead of wheels — that were provided through the program.

Trump vowed to rescind the executive order in a written response to a Fraternal Order of Police questionnaire that helped him win an endorsement from the organization of rank-and-file officers. He reiterated his promise during a gathering of police officers in July, saying the equipment still on the streets is being put to good use.

"In fact, that stuff is disappearing so fast we have none left," Trump said.

Regarding the bolded, I guess the old saying that even a stopped clock is right twice a day is true sometimes. If however you dare question something that is supported by the FOP, someone somewhere will say you are anti cop.

[TJW815]

I have no issues with police having military surplus gear. What I have a problem with is that we aren't allowed to have the same gear. I think it should be available to all law-abiding citizens.

Because we're just peasants and peasants can't be trusted......in "their" eyes, that is.

I was thinking the same thing as you when I read the OP comment.

I'm not saying I want a grenade launcher or anything crazy like that, but some quality body armor and a select fire m4 would be nice to have in the closet.. you know, just in case.

[TJW815]

Obama's order prohibited the federal government from providing grenade launchers, bayonets, tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, and firearms and ammunition of .50-caliber or greater to police. As of December, the agency overseeing the program had recalled at least 100 grenade launchers, more than 1,600 bayonets and 126 tracked vehicles — those that run on continuous, tank-like tracks instead of wheels — that were provided through the program.

Trump vowed to rescind the executive order in a written response to a Fraternal Order of Police questionnaire that helped him win an endorsement from the organization of rank-and-file officers. He reiterated his promise during a gathering of police officers in July, saying the equipment still on the streets is being put to good use.

"In fact, that stuff is disappearing so fast we have none left," Trump said.

Regarding the bolded, I guess the old saying that even a stopped clock is right twice a day is true sometimes. If however you dare question something that is supported by the FOP, someone somewhere will say you are anti cop.

No, Once they become political, they are fair game. While I am sure they do some good, as any union could, they tend to stick their noses in places they really don't belong. Bash away...

[schmieg]

they were sending them someplace to be destroyed, even though they worked perfectly.

It's just tax money.

Yes I know, spending tax money to destroy something rather than make money to sell them on the open market. The strange thing is the government had been doing just that prior to this, without any harm to anyone. Plus, the army was spending money to teach soldiers to operate, maintain, and repair the vehicles, even though the army hadn't actively used them for decades prior, and had already sold most of their inventory of them. I think we might've been the last company to train with them prior to them being shipped off. So in effect, we were trained on something the army knew we were never going to actually use them.

This type of destruction has been going on for quite a long time. My father used to tell a story about mounds of never issued fleece lined, leather, aviation jackets being doused with gasoline and burned at the end of WWII. Anyone that tried to liberate one was charged with theft and court martialed.

[M-Quigley]

This type of destruction has been going on for quite a long time. My father used to tell a story about mounds of never issued fleece lined, leather, aviation jackets being doused with gasoline and burned at the end of WWII. Anyone that tried to liberate one was charged with theft and court martialed.

And sometimes the disposal methods used comes back to haunt them with some things.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... /30415739/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Officials detonate WWII-era bomb found on beach

The reason? Millions of unused bombs, also known as unexploded ordnance or UXO, lie in the waters off the U.S. coast, dumped there by the military before the practice was banned in 1970 by the Pentagon, a move locked into law by the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act in 1972.

Many of the UXOs are from World War II. After the war, when defense companies pumped out millions of bombs, shells and other explosive devices, the Defense Department found itself with a huge excess of munitions, which it then dumped onto the seafloor, usually more than 50 miles offshore. The practice continued with ordnance from the Korean and Vietnam wars until the 1970 ban.

"The amount that has been dumped [is] unbelievable," former Texas A&M University oceanographer William Bryant told Fox News.

[3FULLMAGS+1]

This type of destruction has been going on for quite a long time. My father used to tell a story about mounds of never issued fleece lined, leather, aviation jackets being doused with gasoline and burned at the end of WWII. Anyone that tried to liberate one was charged with theft and court martialed.

And sometimes the disposal methods used comes back to haunt them with some things.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... /30415739/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Officials detonate WWII-era bomb found on beach

The reason? Millions of unused bombs, also known as unexploded ordnance or UXO, lie in the waters off the U.S. coast, dumped there by the military before the practice was banned in 1970 by the Pentagon, a move locked into law by the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act in 1972.

Many of the UXOs are from World War II. After the war, when defense companies pumped out millions of bombs, shells and other explosive devices, the Defense Department found itself with a huge excess of munitions, which it then dumped onto the seafloor, usually more than 50 miles offshore. The practice continued with ordnance from the Korean and Vietnam wars until the 1970 ban.

"The amount that has been dumped [is] unbelievable," former Texas A&M University oceanographer William Bryant told Fox News.

What the heck....it's only tax money, right?