Hey! This is the same objection I have with the Feds funding the Sheriff to enforce seat belt laws. Dang, they ain't got time to do real work when enough of that control gets over all control. You may be catching on!
I'm not a military expert, so it's not a question of what frightens me to have in the hands of civilian police. But since we agree that some weapons shouldn't be given to local police (you used an M2 as an example), we agree that the federal government does have some role in deciding what surplus should and shouldn't be in their hands.
Absolutely not. I do not think the Federal government should play a role in what the Police use. That is a State issue period. Even if I agreed with limiting the use of this or that, it is a State issue to impose that limit, 50 times if necessary. Handing that over to Obama is pure folliy, especially after Ferguson this should be pain as day. Those people do not participate in their own fate as their voting record in the last race for Mayor shows, only 12% vote. Having the Fed make decisions for the whole dang nation because they didn't for themselves in their small communities is simply nuts in my view. People need to take control of their fate, handing it over to the Grand Pied Piper is biggest mistake that men can make. The Surplus program makes equipment available to communities at low cost. It is up to them to select wisely and benefit from the opportunity. Having the Federal government make the decision for them is not good for everyone just because some may not do it well enough.
Items inappropriate for local police (as determined by Obama's military advisers) should be taken out of local police hands. Everything else should be up to the states and the local police to decide on. That's my view. I'm comfortable with agreeing to disagree, though.
Some gun owners believe the second amendment is about arming the people so the government can't become oppressive. Not marazul. He wants to militarize the entire government. Give the cops tanks and drones and apaches and f35 raptors and destroyers and anything else they want. That can't possibly backfire. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the 2nd amendment says, the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. I suppose you could say that I think it follows, that the local control of the police and what we need to equip them with shall not be infringed either. But in this case we are free to choose our Police policies ourselves independent of the Federal government which respects the right of a free people to govern themselves in all matters not given to the Federal government by the Constitution with the consent of the governed.
You know I think I actually get where you are coming from now Mar, the problem is that its to much of a Utopian view of how the constitution is to work. Many ideas are great in complete principle but in practice not so much. To be a pure constitutionalist is akin to being a pure communist or pure socialist, they are all great on paper but there needs to be some flexibility in ideology for them to work in reality. When issues are completely left up to the state level, the peoples interest is often overlooked for various reasons, corruption being a big one. Ferguson is a good example, you are right they should get out and vote, but they dont because they feel so disenfranchised from the system already. Thats actually everyones problem, we should be looking for ways to involve them and get them interested in voting rather than focusing on more advance ways to keep them in line. I view the fed as the group that sets the baseline or rules of the game for everyone to play by, the states then operate within that framework. So with that it seems perfectly reasonable to dictate what is an acceptable war machine for local police to have, especially if the feds area paying for them, just like its perfectly acceptable for them to investigate the police to make sure they are policing fairly. For me though this whole issue is almost a side issue, police transparency is the real problem here. The latest police shooting was also questionable but no one rioted over them because it was all on camera and the chief properly addressed the situation. Camera's on cops for their safety and ours.
I agree with this, but who chooses to change the rules? If I remember correctly, direct changes that effect our rights are voted by the people (Senate, President and House), not the president currently in office. Allowing Obama to go against the constitution because he sees fit isn't the voice of the people. It's the voice of Obama. The fault is purely theirs. They have the voting right to make a big difference in the community. As the saying goes "You made your bed now lie in it". If we want to help them, then make a marketing campaign and educate them to vote. Rioting and Looting doesn't change shit. But that's not the Constitution. The Fed is in control of our union and the state governs their part of the union. I am missing the part where the police force has abused their right to protect the community? I remember the LA riots and without military force, even more businesses would be looted, innocent people killed and buildings would burn. The incident in LA sets a possibility in Ferguson could end up just like LA. I do agree with this statement.
State congresses and federal congress together can change the rules. The Supreme Court can adjust them via interpretation. But this isn't a Constitutional issue. The military surpluses belong to the federal government...it's their call how or if they're disbursed to the states or to local police forces. It's not a "states' rights" issue.
I would read this link to better understand the actual description of duties, powers and style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States
It can bleed into states rights because, what if the states can afford them? Do we let them have them then? The feds could offer them at great discounts also which could circumvent the cost vs gift issue also.
It doesn't bleed into states' rights. The fact that states can afford them isn't important. There's no Constitutional right that the federal government must sell states anything they can afford. Like any entity, it's up to the federal government what they do or do not sell.
"Specialized weapons[edit] Most large police departments have elite SWAT units which are called in to handle situations, such as barricaded suspects, hostage situations and high-risk warrant service, that require greater force, specialized equipment, and special tactics. These units usually have submachine guns, automatic carbines or rifles, semiautomatic combat shotguns, sniper rifles, gas, smoke and flashbang grenades, and other specialized weapons and equipment at their disposal. Some departments have an armored vehicle for especially dangerous work."
That's great. Still not relevant to whether Obama would be contravening the Constitution by not making federal military vehicles and arms available to states.
The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), the facilitators of 1033 program, originated from the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 (FY 97). This law allows for the office to transfer excess Department of Defense property to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories. Since its inception, the 1033 program has transferred more than $5.1 billion worth of property. In 2013 alone, $449,309,003.71 worth of property was transferred to law enforcement. If your law enforcement agency chooses to participate, it may become one of the more than 8,000 participating agencies to increase its capabilities, expand its patrol coverage, reduce response times, and save the American taxpayer's investment. Title 10 USC, Section 2576a This 1033 program is in our constitution no?
