EPA wants Glocks


PDA






Slater
July 30, 2007, 10:34 AM
http://www.fbo.gov/spg/EPA/OAM/HQ/RFQ%2DDC%2D07%2D00273/SynopsisP.html

Protection for the Environmental Protectors :D

If you enjoyed reading about "EPA wants Glocks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dave Dembinski
July 30, 2007, 10:52 AM
What sort of dangers do the EPA face? I'm honestly clueless here.

kellyj00
July 30, 2007, 11:48 AM
I dunno. They shut down my town a few weeks ago because a chemical plant was burning. There's no worse feeling than being told by a highway patrolman on the way into town "you can't go there, it's not safe". I lit up a marlboro and told him he had my word I was just going to get my dog and leave. My wife eventually went in from the other side of town and got a hold of a veternarian who was helping folks retrieve their animals from this "deadly" environment....and he was the only fella with a pass into town. The police were "too busy" to escort folks home, and they didn't trust us not to stay there and kill ourselves in this "deadly" atmosphere. The cops had the guns...so I guess my dog was just left to sit around breathing the "deadly" fumes. By the time my wife retrieved our 7 lb Papillion around 8pm, he was thirsty but otherwise unaffected by breathing "deadly" fumes all day long, that the EPA told the media "would kill a 180lb man in 6 hours of exposure" and "eats paint off of cars left in the fallout from the smoke"

When I was a kid, they told everyone to stop bathing in, let alone drinking, well water in my area (Riverview, KS).... so the city of Wichita brought municipal water to the area and added specials to all the houses in the area, plus you had to pay a plumber to hook up to the water. A tanning factory was to blame for the chemical pollution of the well water, and was long since out of business. Nobody left to sue, but property values dropped by thousands if you didn't hook up to the city water. EPA should have at least subsidized the price to bring water out to the area.

EPA doesn't do anything but fine businesses and leave homeowners to fend for themselves, at least they're doing something, but Lord knows where all the business fines go, it's not to the families that they hurt. I'm glad they're taking these fines to buy Glocks to protect themselves against the folks they're kicking out of their homes. Now that you've heard my rant, you can understand how they make people angry. I was angry at the EPA, not the police for keeping me from my home. We were reimbursed $70 for the "hardship" of being kept out of our home for one night (or more if you had any reciepts for lodging), as long as we signed away our legal rights. I signed and took the $70, because the "deadly" fumes that "take paint off of cars" soon became a note on the public service channel of "wash your garden vegetables with water before you eat them"

fletcher
July 30, 2007, 11:51 AM
I read an article last week about how a number of goverment agencies are seeking approval to carry weapons, whereas they haven't had them in the past.

The Lone Haranguer
July 30, 2007, 02:11 PM
:confused: I recall reading at least ten years ago about EPA armed agents (they do have some, perhaps 200 IIRC) selecting the Glock 19. Why they would need armed agents is probably best for the L&P section. :rolleyes: Probably to take down the shade tree mechanic dumping oil in his back yard. ;)

gbelleh
July 30, 2007, 02:28 PM
Shouldn't they select a more environmentally friendly pistol that doesn't have a tennifer slide?

lee n. field
July 30, 2007, 02:45 PM
I read an article last week about how a number of goverment agencies are seeking approval to carry weapons, whereas they haven't had them in the past.

The "gunning up" of all varieties of federales has been going on for at least a decade. I too remember reading about this, back when we thought Bill Clinton was our biggest problem.

xd9fan
July 30, 2007, 11:14 PM
What sort of dangers do the EPA face? I'm honestly clueless here.
Well...its called Big Govt and its all the rage.

Who the hell is going to tell them no? The american people? haha

Bezoar
July 30, 2007, 11:32 PM
they wanna play cop. How many older people, and people with mental challanges have been trained to the following conditioning:

man/woman in some kind of authority with weapon = cop
cop= person to be obeyed at all times

and dont forget this, they can now use the threat of force to make you obey their ridiculous conclusion that public sewer is better then septic tank as well as public water supply that is always being contaminated every week with god knows what kind of toxic bacterium.

gudel
July 30, 2007, 11:54 PM
What sort of dangers do the EPA face? I'm honestly clueless here.

I said the same thing about postmasters carrying HK in HK board. I got flamed for that, a guy went all postal about that on me.
I guess they need protection against their coworkers in case they go postal. :eek:

Euclidean
July 31, 2007, 12:45 AM
Another useless government agency arming itself in the interest of totalitarianism.

For the record I'm all for any government worker being able to carry a personal gun at their job, as long as that means all Americans can do the same.

Frog48
July 31, 2007, 12:57 AM
Tell the EPA treehuggers to buy their own guns...

Norm357
July 31, 2007, 12:59 AM
Whole heap of ignorance in this thread.:rolleyes:

woo18
July 31, 2007, 10:01 AM
Almost every federal agency has a division/department whose employees are authorized to carry guns. To name a few: HUD, NRC, and US Agency for International Development. Most of the time these employees work in the Inspector Generals division or provide some sort of oversight.

Joe Demko
July 31, 2007, 10:46 AM
Unauthorized waste disposal is a big illegal business. Guys who have been glorified in The Godfather and The Sopranos run that business. If it were your job to deal with such folks in an investigatory capacity would you want a gun?

hso
July 31, 2007, 11:05 AM
The vast majority of folks at the EPA are scientists and engineers, but the EPA has had armed Special Agents in their law enforcement division for years (Criminal Investigation Division). They handle criminal investigations and arrests of the worst criminal polluters and like any other federal law enforcement officer they're armed. They're not the folks that show up for accidental spills. Instead they're the folks that pursue criminals running illegal wast incinerators with protection from organized crime and corrupt politicians or the creeps running a "business" dumping toxic waste into streams and lakes.

BTW, THR has members in very good standing that are part of that group.

budney
July 31, 2007, 11:15 AM
I hate to say it, but this is a strong case in favor of "reasonable restrictions" on firearms. While I agree with Jefferson et al that citizens should be well-armed and well-trained, I think it's reasonable and necessary to keep weapons out of the hands of government employees. They're already too dangerous as it is.

--Len.

Dave Dembinski
July 31, 2007, 11:26 AM
Thanks for the info Joe Demko, hso. Like I said, I really had no idea what the EPA did that would necessitate its agents being armed. :)

Joe Demko
July 31, 2007, 12:35 PM
Lots of govt. agencies have armed agents that at first appear absurd; then you find out what those agents actually do and it makes perfect sense to arm them.

kungfuhippie
July 31, 2007, 12:57 PM
Haven't you ever watched Captain Planet? Those evil capitalists are dangerous!

Scorpiusdeus
July 31, 2007, 01:19 PM
Having dealt with the EPA and they way they treat you, I can see why they feel the need to be armed. If I treated people with the same lack of respect, I'd want to be armed as well.

xd9fan
July 31, 2007, 07:36 PM
Whole heap of ignorance in this thread
Please enlighten us meer subjects:rolleyes:

I hate to say it, but this is a strong case in favor of "reasonable restrictions" on firearms. While I agree with Jefferson et al that citizens should be well-armed and well-trained, I think it's reasonable and necessary to keep weapons out of the hands of government employees. They're already too dangerous as it is.

right now in america the tail is wagging the dog.
Govt gets what Govt wants
and it is "we the peolpe" that have "reasonable restrictions"

gezzer
July 31, 2007, 11:16 PM
They have no need to be armed IMHO

Euclidean
July 31, 2007, 11:32 PM
Unauthorized waste disposal is a big illegal business. Guys who have been glorified in The Godfather and The Sopranos run that business. If it were your job to deal with such folks in an investigatory capacity would you want a gun?

The vast majority of folks at the EPA are scientists and engineers, but the EPA has had armed Special Agents in their law enforcement division for years (Criminal Investigation Division). They handle criminal investigations and arrests of the worst criminal polluters and like any other federal law enforcement officer they're armed. They're not the folks that show up for accidental spills. Instead they're the folks that pursue criminals running illegal wast incinerators with protection from organized crime and corrupt politicians or the creeps running a "business" dumping toxic waste into streams and lakes.

BTW, THR has members in very good standing that are part of that group.

My criticism of this whole debacle is simple. While I personally can make an excellent argument that the state does have authority to police improper waste disposal, where in the Constitution is that power granted to the federal government? I don't see it in my copy of the document.

Thus Point 1: The EPA is nothing more than an example of the federal government overextending its authority beyond its legal boundaries.

Point 2 was summarized nicely earlier in the thread and I repost it here:

I dunno. They shut down my town a few weeks ago because a chemical plant was burning. There's no worse feeling than being told by a highway patrolman on the way into town "you can't go there, it's not safe". I lit up a marlboro and told him he had my word I was just going to get my dog and leave. My wife eventually went in from the other side of town and got a hold of a veternarian who was helping folks retrieve their animals from this "deadly" environment....and he was the only fella with a pass into town. The police were "too busy" to escort folks home, and they didn't trust us not to stay there and kill ourselves in this "deadly" atmosphere. The cops had the guns...so I guess my dog was just left to sit around breathing the "deadly" fumes. By the time my wife retrieved our 7 lb Papillion around 8pm, he was thirsty but otherwise unaffected by breathing "deadly" fumes all day long, that the EPA told the media "would kill a 180lb man in 6 hours of exposure" and "eats paint off of cars left in the fallout from the smoke"

When I was a kid, they told everyone to stop bathing in, let alone drinking, well water in my area (Riverview, KS).... so the city of Wichita brought municipal water to the area and added specials to all the houses in the area, plus you had to pay a plumber to hook up to the water. A tanning factory was to blame for the chemical pollution of the well water, and was long since out of business. Nobody left to sue, but property values dropped by thousands if you didn't hook up to the city water. EPA should have at least subsidized the price to bring water out to the area.

EPA doesn't do anything but fine businesses and leave homeowners to fend for themselves, at least they're doing something, but Lord knows where all the business fines go, it's not to the families that they hurt. I'm glad they're taking these fines to buy Glocks to protect themselves against the folks they're kicking out of their homes. Now that you've heard my rant, you can understand how they make people angry. I was angry at the EPA, not the police for keeping me from my home. We were reimbursed $70 for the "hardship" of being kept out of our home for one night (or more if you had any reciepts for lodging), as long as we signed away our legal rights. I signed and took the $70, because the "deadly" fumes that "take paint off of cars" soon became a note on the public service channel of "wash your garden vegetables with water before you eat them"

The EPA is not only unlawful, it is inefficient, insensitive to the needs and wants of the people it is supposed to serve, and in some cases directly harmful.

I have nothing against anyone being armed on the job, however I am outraged by this for the same reason I'd be outraged if the government bought 20 staplers for EPA employees. They are taking my money from me, by force, to fund an inefficient and potentially harmful agency which is illegal to begin with.

Autolycus
July 31, 2007, 11:46 PM
Do we need more guns in the hands of the government is my question? When they need to investigate can't they have the locals or the FBI make the arrest? We dont need more government.

Autolycus
July 31, 2007, 11:47 PM
Do we need more guns in the hands of the government is my question? When they need to investigate can't they have the locals or the FBI make the arrest? We dont need more government agents who have guns.

Sodbuster
July 31, 2007, 11:59 PM
it makes perfect sense to arm them
So they don't do SWAT-type no-knock raids at the wrong address? That's nice to know.

strat81
August 1, 2007, 12:27 AM
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen so many THR members calling for LESS guns.

HSO has it right: a ton of federal agencies have Special Agents designated to carry firearms: Defense Logistics Agency, US Army Criminal Investigation Command, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Forest Service, Dept. of Justice Office of The Inspector General, Internal Revenue Service, Postal Service...

You guys get pissed when an anti calls gun-owners "redneck baby killers" or something to that effect. However, you're all quick to judge federal employees as being the anti-christ. Shame on all of you.

And no, I don't work for the .gov.

Autolycus
August 1, 2007, 12:38 AM
Well will it allow me to carry a firearm? IF government employees can carry guns why cant those of us in Illinois?

wooderson
August 1, 2007, 12:51 AM
The way some folks talk about the Constitution around here always reminds me of the old line about statistics, drunk men and lamp-posts.

jkomp316
August 1, 2007, 01:04 AM
we need the EPA armed, so when the "terrorists" poison our water supply. they can shoot anyone who tries to drink it.

really though, i dont see the need.

hospital security guards dont carry guns. nor do parking lot security. i would say they need one more than an EPA agent. but they arent "federal".

IA_farmboy
August 1, 2007, 01:20 AM
Do we need more guns in the hands of the government is my question? When they need to investigate can't they have the locals or the FBI make the arrest? We dont need more government agents who have guns.

I think I have an answer to your question. Take that thought to its logical conclusion. Why does the Secret Service have guns? Can't they just ask the FBI for some people when they arrest some dudes printing money in their basement? BATFE? They can go to the FBI too. Same with the CIA.

Suppose the FBI is tasked with providing armed people with badges every time a federal agency wants to make an arrest. There's a practical problem of training. Each law enforcement group does things a little differently. Something as simple as who to take orders from can get fuzzy real quick and that is how cases get lost and how people end up dead.

There is also more mundane matters. Who signs those people's paychecks? If the FBI is providing gun toting people to other agencies all the time are they really working for the FBI any more?

Ask the local law enforcement then, you might say. Well suppose one of these now unarmed law enforcement agencies that are tasked with arresting some well armed thugs that happened to be hiding out in some normally sleepy little town. Quick, go get Sheriff Taylor from his fishing trip! I hear Deputy Fife is hanging out at the barber shop, get him! We need to get those thugs before they kill somebody!

I mean no disrespect to small town law enforcement but they are not trained, armed, or funded to handle every situation that comes their way. That is why we have agencies like the FBI, and the EPA, armed.

I believe federal agencies do ask local law enforcement to participate in arrests that occur in their jurisdiction. Not doing so would, at a minimum, be quite rude and disrespectful. It would also raise too many questions if they did not such as: Why would they not inform local law enforcement? Was the arrest legal? Are the feds trying to get away with something? Do they think our local cops are incompetent? Or "dirty"?

I think it is well within the rights of the federal government to regulate the quality of our natural resources like air, water, and land. I've heard the term "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". I think an analogy can be drawn, "your right to dump your waste ends at my faucet". There is big money in pollution. With that comes people that won't stop with a "pretty please" but will with a Glock.

GRIZ22
August 1, 2007, 07:25 AM
When they need to investigate can't they have the locals or the FBI make the arrest? We dont need more government agents who have guns.



Local police have no jurisdiction in most Federal law smuggling, interstate crimes, immigration etc.

The multitude of Federal agencies all have jurisdictions in different laws and a few common ones. If you are going to arrest someone for a violation you have to have knowledge of the law. If we were to have "Federales" with jurisdiction in all Federal law the training period would probably have to be 5 years.

The guns EPA is looking for are for criminal investigators. They deal with bad people. There are no goverment agents running around with guns that don't have a need for them.

budney
August 1, 2007, 07:27 AM
BATFE? They can go to the FBI too.

I think I hear ghostly voices in Waco saying, "Hey, it's worth a shot!" Maybe the FBI would hesitate to slaughter innocents in a grand-standing play to justify more funding (http://www.skepticfiles.org/waco/reports.htm) for the then BATF.

Recall, however, that the FBI was originally about investigation--that's what the "I" meant, you know--with no powers to arrest and no firearms until 1934 (http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/historicdates.htm). The reason was simple: federal law enforcement (http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-22.html) was not authorized in the Constitution, and before the 1930's, which also gave us the NFA, the government actually hesitated (briefly) to do unconstitutional things.

We basically have Roosevelt to thank for the armed FBI, the NFA, and the extinction of any federal scruples about obeying that quaint old Constitution. It's no coincidence that the same man who took a major step toward disarming the populace, also began the tradition of arming more and more government employees. Disarmed citizens become slaves only if their masters are well armed.

--Len.

GRIZ22
August 1, 2007, 08:42 AM
The reason was simple: federal law enforcement was not authorized in the Constitution

Article II, Section 3 says the president "...shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...".

That sounds like federal enforcement to me.

1789, US Marshal Service, 1789 US Customs Service, 1790 Revenue Marines (forerunner of USCG), 1865 US Secret Service, 1904 Mounted Inspectors (Immigration), 1924 US Border Patrol.

I'm no fan of FDR of it seems like federal law enforcement was well established before him.

Blackbeard
August 1, 2007, 10:59 AM
I never thought I'd see the day when a THR member suggested someone shouldn't have a gun. Why would you say any person, government or otherwise, doesn't need a gun? Such an argument weakens our argument that our guns are for self-defense.

Now, maybe we can take this to the logical conclusion and say that EPA agents may be armed only in states that allow citizens to carry. That might make 'em think twice.

Probably not.

budney
August 1, 2007, 07:49 PM
I never thought I'd see the day when a THR member suggested someone shouldn't have a gun. Why would you say any person, government or otherwise, doesn't need a gun? Such an argument weakens our argument that our guns are for self-defense.

The founders' writings on RKBA make it very clear that the whole point was for citizens to be better armed than government. They were even violently opposed to a standing army.


Now, maybe we can take this to the logical conclusion and say that EPA agents may be armed only in states that allow citizens to carry. That might make 'em think twice.

I think that's a great idea. With one stipulation, though: armed government agents should also have no extra powers with respect to deadly force. The problem isn't the gun itself: it's the fact that a civilian who uses a gun faces a presumption of guilt; but an official who uses a gun is presumed innocent.

Your logical conclusion is indeed logical and solid. So let's take it one step further: if all citizens, including government employees, have equal rights to keep and bear arms, then the civilians outgun the government if and only if they outnumber government. In this day and age, it's actually foreseeable that government employees will outnumber citizens in the private sector. Food for thought.

--Len.

budney
August 1, 2007, 07:52 PM
Griz,


Article II, Section 3 says the president "...shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...".

That sounds like federal enforcement to me.

It does indeed. Except for one vital difference: the set of "federal laws" to be enforced was amazingly tiny. Collection of import duties, and corresponding measures against smuggling, were almost the whole of federal law. That has metastasized into something the founders wouldn't recognize, but would draft a fresh declaration of independence over.

--Len.

Joe Demko
August 1, 2007, 10:50 PM
So just how do you see, sans armed enforcement agents, apprehending Fat Tony and associates for disposing of pollutants and toxins in illegal ways? Especially address, if you would, how you see this being handled when the actors involved cross multi-jurisdictional and state lines in the process of committiing the offenses?

obxned
August 1, 2007, 11:32 PM
Tyrants have reason to fear their subjects, so the EPA may feel a very, very strong need for those guns.

Logos
August 1, 2007, 11:54 PM
From the rants on this thread it sounds like the EPA needs more than Glocks.

Knee-jerk tree-killers should tone down their crazed babbling.

budney
August 2, 2007, 12:02 AM
So just how do you see, sans armed enforcement agents, apprehending Fat Tony and associates for disposing of pollutants and toxins in illegal ways? Especially address, if you would, how you see this being handled when the actors involved cross multi-jurisdictional and state lines in the process of committiing the offenses?

I can answer that question, but it would take us off-topic. The basic answer is that "law enforcement" can, and should, be fully privatized, and private property rights absolutely respected. "Fat Tony" isn't allowed to put waste on anyone else's property; if he puts it on his own property, that's one thing--but he isn't allowed to let it escape onto anyone else's property. Any violation can, depending on the circumstances, be met with lethal force, or else result in "Fat Tony" being compelled to clean up his mess.

But let's please not sidetrack the thread into the topic of libertarian law enforcement. Suffice it to say that lots of thought has indeed gone into this subject, and your initial surprise at such a "crazy" suggestion is a perfectly natural reaction when someone has only ever seen things done one way.

(If we had socialized milk, people would sincerely argue that only a fool would imagine that free markets can supply milk.)

--Len.

GRIZ22
August 2, 2007, 12:12 AM
It does indeed. Except for one vital difference: the set of "federal laws" to be enforced was amazingly tiny. Collection of import duties, and corresponding measures against smuggling, were almost the whole of federal law.

Article I, Section 8 says, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The "general welfare" clause has got out of hand but seems to allow Congress to pass a law for what they consider "general welfare".

I will agree there are too many laws. At least 90% of the gun laws are not needed. Do you think we would be better off if you could rob a bank, cross the state line and not have to worry about being arrested as it used to be?

Especially address, if you would, how you see this being handled when the actors involved cross multi-jurisdictional and state lines in the process of committiing the offenses?
/I]

This is what most Federal laws deal with. I agree Congress is notorious for tacking things on. They want a national 55 mph speed limit or .08% DWI, tack it on to Federal Highway funding legislation.

[I]There is only one gun law in this country, the 2nd Amendment. All else is bureaucratic nonsense that I choose to comply with or not at my discretion.


This is the kind of stuff antigunners love to see and want to perceive all gun owners like this. It does hurt our arguments.

budney
August 2, 2007, 12:18 AM
The "general welfare" clause has got out of hand but seems to allow Congress to pass a law for what they consider "general welfare".

The founders claimed that "general welfare" covered no more nor less than the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The anti-federalists who wanted it left out, for fear it would become an open-ended source of federal power, have turned out to be right.


Do you think we would be better off if you could rob a bank, cross the state line and not have to worry about being arrested as it used to be?

When did it used to be that way? (Hint: never.)

--Len.

GRIZ22
August 2, 2007, 01:16 AM
The founders claimed that "general welfare" covered no more nor less than the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Source?

When did it used to be that way? (Hint: never.)


Fugitives in the 1800s didn't have much to worry about if they left the state where they commited their state crime. LE in other states had no authority to arrest someone for a crime commited in another state. If you had enough money you could pay a bounty hunter or Pinkerton. Extradition was virtually non-existent in those days. Even in the early 20th century extradition was a big deal until the law making interstate flight to avoid prosecution came to be.

Never say never.

budney
August 2, 2007, 06:43 AM
The founders claimed that "general welfare" covered no more nor less than the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Source?

Federalist 41. Excerpt:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

History has had the last laugh on Madison. Today the "common welfare" clause is generally referred to as the "elastic clause" by traitors to the Republic (including pretty much everyone in the legal profession).

--Len.

nemoaz
August 2, 2007, 07:35 AM
What sort of dangers do the EPA face? I'm honestly clueless here.

They have very, very few armed Special Agents. It's not your average Al Gore wannabe who is toting around a firearm. They have decontamination teams that are often the first to enter the building at drug lab sites. The dangers are pretty obvious here. They also investigate certain environmental crimes, which sometimes involve violent people particularly with the fringe loonies. But any time you slap a set of handcuffs on somebody and tell them you intend to put them in jail or prison for a long time, the threat should be obvious.

I said the same thing about postmasters carrying HK in HK board.

Postmasters are not armed. Postal Service Special Agents are. And they investigate some very complex crimes and apprehend some very dangerous people, sometimes including postal employees.

If you enjoyed reading about "EPA wants Glocks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!