[chrisb507]

Interesting reading...

Agents, firearms makers and Congress members are nervous about a new deal to outfit the Homeland Security Department with sidearms.

www.govexec.com/features/0604-15/0604-15s1.htm (http://www.govexec.com/features/0604-15/0604-15s1.htm)

[clipse]

Interesting............

[geekWithA.45]

Well, if they had properly fostered the independent posession of, and proficiency with firearms as per the Founders, they'd not have to wring their hands, or spend our money over this.

:neener:

[Bruce H]

Give them an ammo allowance and test frequently for proficiency. Let them carry what the are comfortable with and can use best. Make it a requirement that the employee supply his or her own pistol or revolver and authorize a set ammount of ammo. Problem solved. Now if they can all pass the instacheck.

[R.H. Lee]

More armed federal agents does not sound good to me :uhoh:

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Right, 45,000 more guns in Federal Agents hands.

Another government entity, "Investigations and Criminal Enforcement", it sounds less ominous with the "Immigration and Customs" as well as the old moniker being atleast the belief of enforcing immigration laws.

Ought to be a solid all American product purchase regardless. Also a caliber rather than a mm.

Couple this with the national CCW for retired LEO's.


"ICE'em Dano"

He's been ICE'ed.

He/she/it is on ICE

Such a cold acronym for a well meaning agency.

Vick

[chink]

I don't understand why it was even brought up that the .357 sig is a faster bullet than a 9mm. I mean does that fraction of a second really even matter?

[Average Guy]

Man, there's a lot of BS in that article. But what really caught my eye was this:

"It's a very emotional issue."

Emotional? What does emotion have to do with it?

Bah.

I'm in the hiring process for CBP right now, but if this portends what's in store for me, I may just stay where I am. (.75 miles from home.) :)

[wasrjoe]

I don't understand why it was even brought up that the .357 sig is a faster bullet than a 9mm. I mean does that fraction of a second really even matter?

Well, velocity matters a LOT. I think they just didn't understand what the bullet traveling faster meant, or something... hell, I don't know what reporters understand.

[4v50 Gary]

Darn. I thought I was going to supply atlatls and slings.

[Travis McGee]

Just what we need. Tens of thousands of more armed federal agents. In a decade, they'll all be packing MP-5s in their cars, and we'll be down to slingshots.

http://tomeaker.com/2a/snakelogoavataryellow4.jpg

[dukeofurl]

If they go 357 sig, I can stubbornly say that 357 sig is here to stay. I'm sick and tired of the naysayers mouthing off about how its a wildcat round and will go the way of the 10mm, 41 mag, and others.

[c_yeager]

I think it already has gone the way of 10mm and 41 mag. Its readily available in your BETTER gunshops and enjoys a cult following just like the other two. I cant get ANY of them at walmart anyhow.

[ScottsGT]

Aw heck, give 'em all 1911a1's loaded with the good old .45 ACP Worked good for the US Army for how long?

[Benjamin]

More armed federal agents does not sound good to me \

I thought it was the same number of agents, but all thrown into a new agency. This is just a question of what sidearm they'll be issued.

Would you please explain how switching 10,000 agents from Sigs to Glocks (or the other way) sounds bad to you?


Besides, 'the largest handgun purchase in history' will probably make a bit of a splash in the secondary market, don't you think?

[RON in PA]

Thank you Benjamin for being the only one that posted and understood the article. It's only a matter of finding a common weapon for one agency created from three old agencies and most of the commotion is similar to the same type of "buzz" you see on these boards, ie, what's the best pistol, what's the beat caliber?

[sturmruger]

I don't see how you can read that and think that there are 45K new people with guns. All of the agencies they talked about in the story all ready carry guns. You guys are reading it wrong. They aren't handing out guns to all of the janitors and cafeteria people they are simply looking for a new gun for the people that all ready carry a gun every day as part of the job.

[R.H. Lee]

I thought it was the same number of agents, but all thrown into a new agency. This is just a question of what sidearm they'll be issued

and

I don't see how you can read that and think that there are 45K new people with guns. All of the agencies they talked about in the story all ready carry guns. You guys are reading it wrong. They aren't handing out guns to all of the janitors and cafeteria people they are simply looking for a new gun for the people that all ready carry a gun every day as part of the job

Uh, right from the DSH website:

Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Fact Sheet

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Press Office
February 3, 2003
For Immediate Release

The President has requested a budget which reflects his clear commitment to supporting the priorities and the mission of the Department of Homeland Security. The Fiscal Year 2004 budget supports the Department's effort to implement the objectives outlined in the President's National Strategy for Homeland Security including:

Preventing terrorist attacks within the United States;
Reducing America's vulnerability to terrorism; and
Minimizing the damage and recovering from attacks that do occur.

The Department will move forward with a sustained and cohesive strategy in key areas such as improving security at the nation's borders, implementing grant programs to ensure that first responders are properly trained and equipped, decreasing the vulnerabilities of the nation's critical infrastructure, protecting against bio-terrorism, advancing research in science and technology aimed at countering terrorist attacks, improving intelligence analysis and coordination and recapitalizing the Coast Guard.

The budget seeks to maintain funding for critical operations of each of the Department agencies and organizations since their individual missions will enable the Department to achieve its overall vision for securing the homeland.

The Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security is 36.2 billion. This represents a 7.4 percent increase in funding over FY2003, and a 64 percent increase ($14.1 billion) over FY2002, with over 60 thousand staff added to protect our country. The consolidation of these entities into the new Department is the largest federal reorganization in more than 50 years.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=12&content=431&print=true

[sturmruger]

ok so those extra 60K people don't have guns right now and now they are going to get them?? IS that what you are saying RileyMc? I read most of the story in the link at the top of the page and it didn't sound like there were new people that we now going to be issued guns. It sounds like it was mostly people that all ready have them.

[R.H. Lee]

ok so those extra 60K people don't have guns right now and now they are going to get them?? IS that what you are saying RileyMc? I read most of the story in the link at the top of the page and it didn't sound like there were new people that we now going to be issued guns. It sounds like it was mostly people that all ready have them.



I don't know. You said there will be no increase in armed federal agents. Yet there is a 60,000 increase in federal employees, for a HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT. Are you saying they are all just paper pushers?

Again, I don't know. I'm just asking the question.

[sendec]

The Department of Homeland Security barely exists, so to speak. It is just like DoD and is an umbrella, and has relatively few staff of its own. I think that many of these heads are being counted twice: ie a CPB agent could be construed as working for both ICE and DHS. People are being "added" to DHS because it is eating their agencies.

[Benjamin]

I'm going to have to be a jerk about this and re-state my question.

Why is this a bad thing?

Despite all the ills associated with it, and similar programs, I think that having armed air marshalls qualifies as a Good Thing.

Am I missing something tremendously obvious here?

[Blue Line]

This is just bring all the employees from several agencies under on Homeland Security Dept. Just like they moved ATF to Justice from Treasury. This was just as the article says a consolidation. Nobody got more people, but yes the Dept. of Homeland Security was created so they have to have paper pushers. The agencies brought under one roof have no more gun carriers than they did before.

They should all have the same gun and at the very least the same caliber. I can't think of too many larger department or agencies either local state or federal that anyone has to buy thier own gun or ammo. Everything has to be standardized for LEGAL reasons and training simplicty.

I have my doubts that there will be any increase in the used market when they do select a new weapon becuase when we changed nobody got to keep thiers. So where did they go, meltdown or some forgien govt or sold in a secondary market, I don't know.

[R.H. Lee]

Why is this a bad thing?

More government employees is not a good thing IMO. More ARMED government employees is even worse IMO. More ARMED American citizens who are NOT government employees is a good thing IMO.

Just my opinion. YMMV.
:)

[Blue Line]

aren't the employees Americans Too?

[R.H. Lee]

aren't the employees Americans Too?

I would hope so, if they are on the Federal payroll. The point is, as a law abiding taxpayer, I'm not real anxious to see a huge spike in government employment, especially armed government employment.

Just my opinion. Yours may vary.

[Dienekes]

My old agency got incorporated into DHS which is just a make-do consolidation for all practical purposes.

I was a firearms instructor for a good many years. In olden times the agency issued your basic .38/.357 DA revolver--M10, M19, Rugers, etc. Other revolvers and semiautos were allowable if .38 cal or over, American made, and if the owner could and would qualify with them--providing his own ammo as necessary. That took care of the average troops and let the pistoleros, of which there were more than a few--do their own thing. I carried a LW Commander .45 until an administrative weenie wet his panties because I didn't have official, documented training with it. Things went downhill from there as far as I was concerned.

I said to hell with it and went to a good wheelgun. A few years after that there was a gradual shift to semiautos gathered steam; and with it, the search for the '"perfect gun". In the meantime personally owned Glocks and SIGs came into use, and training and ammo issue got a little more complicated. The Beretta 96D got picked about the time I retired, and everyone was supposed to get one. Soon after that the H&K .40 was also adopted as an alternative. And so on and so forth.

Personally I carried a good wheelgun for most of those years and was still carrying it when I had the option of the Glocks and SIGs. Being a retired CCW I can carry anything I want and, guess what, it's the same revolver. Too many years invested in muscle memory to throw away.

I'm all for the best equipment I can get, but this search for the ultimate bullet launcher gets pretty silly. My preference is for decent body armor and a long gun of some sort if things get sticky.

I am also very skeptical of all the experts and bean counters that get involved in the process. The same people chose our vehicles and most of they time they weren't anything you'd want in your garage.

Oh, well.

[twency]

Put a group of gun experts in a room, and the debate over the best caliber and manufacturer will rage late into the night.

But the folks here wouldn't know anything about that, would we? :)

If they detect bias, gun manufacturers are not shy about contacting Congress. Already, legislators have weighed in on the ICE procurement. In March, House Small Business Committee Chairman Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., and Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., whose district includes the headquarters of SigArms, expressed concern that the solicitation lacked protections for U.S. manufacturers, known as Buy American provisions.

What at odd formulation. As proof that members of Congress are acting vigilantly to ensure there is no bias in the formulation of the purchasing requirements, the story gives an example of how a couple congressman weighed in with a "concern", later addressed, that there was no bias in favor of American-manufactured guns.

-twency
___________
So: 9mm or .45?
[PLEASE DON'T ANSWER THAT - I can do a search just as easily as the next highroader. :) ]

Airplane Pictures (http://www.cloud9photography.us/)

[Benjamin]

Thank you, I think I understand better.

However, I still appreciate an article about a major government contract that's currently held up by the ever popular "Should I get a glock, a sig, or are H&K better?" :o