Shawnee
member
from the Hillsboro (Ohio) newspaper...
12/1/2008 9:00:00 AM Email this article • Print this article
Towns line up for military surplus
Bill Horne
College Professor
Folks, every once in a while I run across something that I believe needs the light of day. Or, maybe it is possible that I am the only one that wasn't aware of an issue.
Anyway, I recently read that a sheriff of a county in South Carolina acquired a tank-like vehicle from the U.S. Department of Defense. This armored personnel carrier comes equipped with a .50-caliber machine gun.
I don't know what kind of crime the sheriff has to go up against down there, but this weapon ought to do the trick. Homeland Security will help law enforcement agencies by providing grants for purchasing military equipment. This is supposedly to fight terrorism. Local law enforcement agencies are provided the opportunity to receive surplus equipment very cheaply and in some cases even free.
When I researched this program, I discovered that our governments had established a whole new bureaucracy to promote, sell and distribute the surplus equipment, which is mostly outdated or broken.
Not only does the federal government have a department, but the states must have a matching agency also.
States are required to have a designated person known as the State Point of Contact. And, I will bet a milkshake that the state has to pay for this person. It certainly looks like another unfunded federal mandate. In other words, the federal government tells our state what to do and then requires the state to pay for this new service.
This program to distribute slightly used military equipment all across our country is called the 1033 Program. Its mission is to support law enforcement agencies in obtaining surplus military property for law enforcement use.
For the past few weeks, we have been hearing a lot about the Second Amendment and the rights it grants to our citizens. And that also includes this columnist. Maybe now it is time to revisit the First Amendment.
The reason I bring up the First Amendment is because I am having a hard time envisioning using a tank and machine guns or helicopter gunship - yep, these are for sale also - on just one potential criminal. I can easily see this heavy artillery being used for what someone may deem riot control.
The First Amendment, after protecting our right to exercise our religious beliefs, and the press, states that there is the "right of the people peaceable to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances."
We have been losing our right to peaceful assemble whenever a big-time politician or a big-time organization like the World Trade Organization is in a town. Protesters are herded into free speech zones.
These zones are sometimes barbed wire enclosures and sometimes they are fenced-in areas like local baseball parks. My point is that little by little our right to protest is being taken away. And I am certain that a machine gun would disperse a crowd very quickly.
We need to protect our citizens' right to protest even when we don't agree with their position. We have a tendency to use derogatory adjectives when we don't agree with protesters and superlative adjectives when we do agree with them.
So, why doesn't every city, town and village have tanks and helicopter gunships? The good news is, or the bad new depending on your personal beliefs, that this government program is a typical government agency. It has become weighted down with bureaucratic forms and regulations.
There are at a minimum now three agencies that must approve any purchase. Along with this stumbling block, there is the normal amount of government paperwork. Then, there are the regulations. For example, after a village receives its tank, it has one year to repair and make useable the equipment.
The local law enforcement agency must maintain and use the equipment for at least one more year before it can dispose of it. And of course, there is another ton of paperwork to accomplish this.
To repair and make this government stuff useable, the local community must go through the whole paperwork procedure once again to obtain the parts. The only good thing about this is that new companies have sprung to life to sell the parts and help repair the equipment.
I wonder if there are also new government jobs for auditors and inspectors just to check on everyone up and down the supply line to make sure that no one is cheating.
When I was young, cereal companies would put "secret decoder rings" in the box. The hype was "be the first on your block to have the ring."
This same thinking could now apply to tanks and helicopter gunships. Any town could choose to be the first in any area to have its own army.
Bill Horne is a professor of economics at Southern State Community College and a columnist for The Times-Gazette.
____________________________________________________________
If anyone thinks this equipment won't be used against We, the People, they are insane.
12/1/2008 9:00:00 AM Email this article • Print this article
Towns line up for military surplus
Bill Horne
College Professor
Folks, every once in a while I run across something that I believe needs the light of day. Or, maybe it is possible that I am the only one that wasn't aware of an issue.
Anyway, I recently read that a sheriff of a county in South Carolina acquired a tank-like vehicle from the U.S. Department of Defense. This armored personnel carrier comes equipped with a .50-caliber machine gun.
I don't know what kind of crime the sheriff has to go up against down there, but this weapon ought to do the trick. Homeland Security will help law enforcement agencies by providing grants for purchasing military equipment. This is supposedly to fight terrorism. Local law enforcement agencies are provided the opportunity to receive surplus equipment very cheaply and in some cases even free.
When I researched this program, I discovered that our governments had established a whole new bureaucracy to promote, sell and distribute the surplus equipment, which is mostly outdated or broken.
Not only does the federal government have a department, but the states must have a matching agency also.
States are required to have a designated person known as the State Point of Contact. And, I will bet a milkshake that the state has to pay for this person. It certainly looks like another unfunded federal mandate. In other words, the federal government tells our state what to do and then requires the state to pay for this new service.
This program to distribute slightly used military equipment all across our country is called the 1033 Program. Its mission is to support law enforcement agencies in obtaining surplus military property for law enforcement use.
For the past few weeks, we have been hearing a lot about the Second Amendment and the rights it grants to our citizens. And that also includes this columnist. Maybe now it is time to revisit the First Amendment.
The reason I bring up the First Amendment is because I am having a hard time envisioning using a tank and machine guns or helicopter gunship - yep, these are for sale also - on just one potential criminal. I can easily see this heavy artillery being used for what someone may deem riot control.
The First Amendment, after protecting our right to exercise our religious beliefs, and the press, states that there is the "right of the people peaceable to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances."
We have been losing our right to peaceful assemble whenever a big-time politician or a big-time organization like the World Trade Organization is in a town. Protesters are herded into free speech zones.
These zones are sometimes barbed wire enclosures and sometimes they are fenced-in areas like local baseball parks. My point is that little by little our right to protest is being taken away. And I am certain that a machine gun would disperse a crowd very quickly.
We need to protect our citizens' right to protest even when we don't agree with their position. We have a tendency to use derogatory adjectives when we don't agree with protesters and superlative adjectives when we do agree with them.
So, why doesn't every city, town and village have tanks and helicopter gunships? The good news is, or the bad new depending on your personal beliefs, that this government program is a typical government agency. It has become weighted down with bureaucratic forms and regulations.
There are at a minimum now three agencies that must approve any purchase. Along with this stumbling block, there is the normal amount of government paperwork. Then, there are the regulations. For example, after a village receives its tank, it has one year to repair and make useable the equipment.
The local law enforcement agency must maintain and use the equipment for at least one more year before it can dispose of it. And of course, there is another ton of paperwork to accomplish this.
To repair and make this government stuff useable, the local community must go through the whole paperwork procedure once again to obtain the parts. The only good thing about this is that new companies have sprung to life to sell the parts and help repair the equipment.
I wonder if there are also new government jobs for auditors and inspectors just to check on everyone up and down the supply line to make sure that no one is cheating.
When I was young, cereal companies would put "secret decoder rings" in the box. The hype was "be the first on your block to have the ring."
This same thinking could now apply to tanks and helicopter gunships. Any town could choose to be the first in any area to have its own army.
Bill Horne is a professor of economics at Southern State Community College and a columnist for The Times-Gazette.
____________________________________________________________
If anyone thinks this equipment won't be used against We, the People, they are insane.