Tell your kids they bettr not cheat at school

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since the shotguns are going to Chicago, I figured it was because they couldn't have handguns.

As far as I can tell, every branch of the U.S. government has an armed force of some sort. There's even a FBI Police Dept. And here I thought the FBI was a police force.
 
I would not say I am anti government. A legitimate law enforcement agency needs guns. i would not expect any cop to hit the street unarmed. I do however question the need for every department in the federal government to have it's own police force. Seems to me the FBI was created for just that reason.
 
Fun new game!

I have a fun new game: Name ONE Federal agency that isn't a law enforcement agency with ninjas with short barreled shotguns and machine guns.
 
danparker and dan wailen,

I'm simply trying to state what mcdonl and TexasRifleman are saying... "THEY AREN'T OUT TO GET US." There is no conspiracy going on here... that's ALL I'm saying.... sounds like the Brady's invaded this forum. haha
 
Ah, the hypocrites of THR are rearing their ugly heads. If this were ANY NON GOVERNMENT GROUP they would be applauded, and the discussion would be around the purchase of the guns, how they would be deployed, training, etc...

But because it was the Government buying the guns it turns into politics. I cannot believe this thread has not been shutdown yet.

Paranoid is more then a cool Black Sabbath song.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite, I think this is merely you demonstrating that you believe the government is always in the right, and could never possibly do anything wrong, wasteful, or just plain silly.

As I posted earlier, I can understand the purchase of 14" shotguns by an agency with normal law enforcement activities and a reasonable prospect of encountering bad guys. I do not see the Dept. of Education (btw to all, DOE usually means Energy) having anything close to normal law enforcement functions or having any real chance of actually encountering bad guys. Sending a letter that a school district is out of compliance with some 10,000 page regulation is not the same as ordinary law enforcement.

So, as I also already stated, the problem is that the purchase of these shotguns does not appear to have anything reasonable, or dare I say even rational, to do with the known purpose and mission of the Dept. of Education.

Rather, it reminds me of a range visit I had a year ago where I encountered two ninja-wannabe security guards who had M4geries that looked like Magpul demonstrators. All so they can be more intimidating when they called actual LE to deal with a parking violation or something equally serious.
 
THEY AREN'T OUT TO GET US." There is no conspiracy going on here... that's ALL I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Cops love to have the coolest and latest toys just as much as we do. The only difference is they are using taxpayer money and they don't have the legal restrictions that we do.

That, of course, is what the whole "in common use" thing in Miller was to be about.

I have no problem with government agencies having these types of firearms, I have a problem with that same government telling me I can't.

This, or something like it, is going to eventually be the kind of opportunity we have to challenge some of the NFA stuff. Scalia indicated in Heller that the door was open to some of that, based on the "in common use" stuff.

So, an agency that clearly doesn't have law enforcement as it's primary objective is buying NFA weapons.

That shows that the things have both a military and a non-military application, which helps us if we can take advantage of it.
 
Enachos

Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get us. Seriously, I just find it odd that with their supposed function that they need any firearms. If they don't need them, then they need to stay out of my pocket book for the money for them.
 
So...doesn't the misuse/appropriations of education funds (i.e. fraud, embezzlement, etc) already fall under the jurisdiction of the FB freakin I? You wonder why the gubmnt is bankrupt?! We have a DOJ and FBI.

Yes it does fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI. The FBI will have jurisdiction in whatever they choose to. Espionage is about the only crime the FBI has complete jurisdiction in and there can still be overlaps. The FBI decided they wanted to do drug investigations in the early 80s so they did. There already was a DEA for about 10 years. The drug business was so big by the late 80s, early 90s, the Customs Service went back into the drug business full time. You have to remember the FBI is relatively new compared to some other Federal LE Agencies. US Marshals and Customs were first in 1789 and about the only two Federal LE Agencies for a long time. New agencies were craeted to meet different threats. The Coast Guard evolved from the Revenue Marines which started in 1790, the Secret Service dates to 1865, etc. A separation of powers in law enforcement is not a bad thing.

Concurrent jurisdications is not a bad thing. Currently, CBP, ICE, DEA, and FBI all do drug smuggling to some degree. If you have a crooked agency one of the others has a chance of catching them. If one agency did everything that probably wouldn't happen.

We also have a number of state and local LE agencies perfectly capable of making arrests and investigation. Would it not be best to give firearms, training, and funding to a SINGLE law enforcement agency in the government not 700 of them?
__________________


State and local agencies have no jurisdiction in almost all Federal laws. This has become an issue in many areas regarding the illegal alien problem. If they did give state and local agencies jurisdiction and responsibility in all Federal Laws the first thing that comes to mind is Constitutional issues and "unfunded mandate". Who does the Federal Government think they are telling my state they have to enforce Federal law and give us no money for it?

There is also need for different agencies due to the complexity of many laws. Try reading Title 8 of the US Code (Aliens and Nationality) and just pick out the ways someone can derive US Citizenship. Add to that special legislation that creates more ways citizenship can be derived. You would think there would no illegal alien problem because there are so many ways to get citizenship.

Also consider the fact if one agency is doing it all you would need a few years to train every investigator all the laws and they would never be very proficient in understanding all of them. You would also wind up with about the same number of people to enforce those laws if they were all in one agency.

ps There are about 90 Federal LE Agencies.
 
Last edited:
There is an absolute alphabet soup of federal agencies who have an armed LEO unit of some kind or another. Even the Library of Congress has a police force. Ridiculous? Maybe. I honestly don't have an opinion. But they're only buying like 27 shotguns. Undoubtedly because the DoE IG armed unit is probably maybe 200 officers for the whole country.
 
This is in case a 6 y.o. makes his finger into a "gun" and has to be arrested, or in a really bad case, makes a chicken nugget into a gun and creates a "hostile learning environment."
 
I think each Department has its own Office of the Inspector General charged with investigating fraud. I can imagine the need to send an armed force to investigate certain fraud and also to served an armed subpoena to confiscate documents and computers.

It would, however, be more efficient for the FBI to keep swat/armed teams at their local offices who could be used by each department. Sort of like the Marines guard all the U.S. embassies around the world and each emabassy does not need its own private armed force.

Not every Department needs a swat/armed team each day, and all the department buildings could be guarded by the Federal Marshall Service.
 
Last edited:
Every department of the executive branch has an OIG, which consists of an audit and a law enforcement function. The agents are fully qualified LEOs and are trained at one of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (http://www.fletc.gov/).

They have jurisdiction over crimes involving their agency, such as fraud by employees, contractors and bidders, and also investigate general crimes--like thefts, assaults and murders--on areas within their agency's control. Like most LEOs they occasionally find themselves in situations where it is prudent to have sufficient firepower--serving warrants and subpoenas, executing arrests, etc.

Over the years I've worked pretty extensively with OIG agents from a number of agencies, and I've found them to be intelligent, dedicated and very capable. As a taxpayer, I think it's a good thing they're there--they are very serious about safeguarding the integrity and security of their agencies and work very hard to ferret out fraud.

If you have a problem with the mission or power of the executive agencies themselves, I can understand that perspective (I don't always agree with that viewpoint, but I understand and respect it). But, as a whole, the agents who work in the various OIG offices are dedicated and professional. And they do face the same challenges and dangers that other LEOs encounter.
 
Over the years I've worked pretty extensively with OIG agents from a number of agencies, and I've found them to be intelligent, dedicated and very capable. As a taxpayer, I think it's a good thing they're there--they are very serious about safeguarding the integrity and security of their agencies and work very hard to ferret out fraud.

If you have a problem with the mission or power of the executive agencies themselves, I can understand that perspective (I don't always agree with that viewpoint, but I understand and respect it). But, as a whole, the agents who work in the various OIG offices are dedicated and professional. And they do face the same challenges and dangers that other LEOs encounter.
Click to expand...

I would not expect anything less from the dedicated LEO's at the Federal Agencies. And a good point about making arrests, but isn't the heavy lifting a job for the FBI? The Attorney General, to whom the FBI reports, is the Country's "Top Cop". Separate Federal Law enforcement agencies that do not report to the Attorney General do not make sense (unless, of course, they are investigating the Attorney General!)

The question, I guess, is why does each Agency need its own armed investigation force?

It's bad enough when you have turf wars between the local cops (God Bless all of them) and the Feds (God Bless them too). To compound the turf battles by having multiple Federal investigatory units seems to me to not make sense. But what do I know, I am only a taxpayer.
 
Last edited:
I would not expect anything less from the dedicated LEO's at the Federal Agencies. And a good point about making arrests, but isn't the heavy lifting a job for the FBI? The Attorney General, to whom the FBI reports, is the Country's "Top Cop". Separate Federal Law enforcement agencies that do not report to the Attorney General do not make sense (unless, of course, they are investigating the Attorney General!)

The question, I guess, is why does each Agency need its own armed investigation force?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm at a pay level a bit below that where these decisions are made, but I can give you some practical perspective. You'll have to decide if it makes sense.

First, I'd reiterate that each OIG office has a dual function--audit and investigation. They often work together, particularly when audits trigger suspicion of criminal acts. I'd opine that it's always a good idea for a federal agency to have an internal auditor, as a very basic guarantee against fraud and waste (yeah, I know, but it does seem to work).

There are a couple of arguments for agency-specific LEOs: First, the FBI is spread very thin and they have a huge range of statutes and programs within their jurisdiction. My experience is that the amount of attention they can give to a particular "program area" is subject to wide variation. For instance, after 9/11 white collar crimes fell off the radar and it was like pulling teeth to get FBI support for those investigations. When agencies have their own criminal investigators, you can be reasonably certain that they will continue to focus a fair amount of effort on the crimes that would otherwise drop off the FBI's radar screen.

Also, there's something to be said for having agents who are specifically assigned to the programs and products that fall within an agency's purview; at the onset of any investigation there can be a huge learning curve. If a DOT agent, for instance, is familiar with how highway construction works and knows the types of fraud that are often perpetrated, it can result in a more efficiently-run investigation with a higher likelihood of catching the bad guys.

Anyway, my personal experience has been that it works. I recognize that overlap is not always a good thing, and that there are contrary opinions. Whatever your opinion on whether these agencies are wasteful, I can tell you that my experience is that the OIG agents are pretty uniformly excellent (as are the FBI types with whom I've worked).

(BTW, none of what I say constitutes the "official opinion" of my employer; these are just my personal observations and opinions . . . as is the case with everything I post in these forums).
 
One Law enforcement agency like the FBI or the CIA or whatever else cannot tackle every crime. that's why they have different units within that agency to deal with specific crimes. white collar crimes, gun crimes, special victims, ect...
and sometimes a crime industry can get so huge that they will create a whole new agency for those crimes like border patrol and many others that need to be there for a sake of keeping the LE local, so you don't have an FBI agent in Washington DC controlling a crime investigation in Nevada. sometiemes I wonder if they should do this with legislation...
but back to the point, I don't think we have to worry about any school's law enforcement officers shooting down kids. They probably just want a new toy (Who doesn't?)
 
Sort of like the Marines guard all the U.S. embassies around the world and each emabassy does not need its own private armed force.


Many embassies in high risk areas also have civilian contract security forces who do the run of the mill security duties.

Not every Department needs a swat/armed team each day, and all the department buildings could be guarded by the Federal Marshall Service.


Agents having shotguns does not equate to a SWAT team. A large majority of the members of this forum will say a shotgun is the best home defense weapon. I can't see any reason to deny a shotgun to any LEO when making arrests.

99%+ of the arrests made by Federal Agencies (or any LE agency for that matter) are not made by SWAT teams but regular working agents. This includes a lot of violent, armed felons. Just because the guy may be armed is no reason to call a SWAT team. Agents are all trained in conducting raids, serving warrants, and making arrests at FLETC in Georgia in Basic Criminal Investigator School (except FBI and DEA who go to Quantico). Secret Service, Agriculture, ICE, Dept of Energy, Forest Service, IRS etc all criminal investigators get the same basic training.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top