LA Times:

After a lengthy hearing in Tijuana for a Marine reservist jailed since April 1 on weapons charges, a judge Wednesday declined to throw out the case as urged by U.S. politicians and instead scheduled another evidentiary hearing.

Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, 25,  who served two combat tours in Afghanistan, was arrested after crossing the border at San Ysidro with a rifle, shotgun, pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in his pickup truck.

[ … ]

Some 74 members of U.S. Congress have called on the Obama administration to work with Mexican authorities to gain Tahmooressi’s release.

On the eve of Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Nebraska) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California) wrote to the Mexican judge, Victor Octavio Luna Escobedo, reminding him that Tahmooressi is “a Marine Corps veteran who risked his life for his nation and his fellow Marines.”

His case, the two wrote, should be “favorably resolved on the basis that he made a simple mistake at the border.”

Mexican officials have stressed that while the Mexican judicial system is different from the U.S. system, it shares one key characteristic: Cases are not decided by political pressure.

Yea, let me tell you about a pressure that would in fact work.  Shut down the border to all commercial traffic and let that Mexican produce rot in the hot sun, while the Mexican truck drivers go unpaid.  Begin lining the trucks up at the border – Tahmooressi would be released within a day.

But Obama won’t do that, because he hates the United States Marine Corps.  The USMC does things like fight Islamic insurgents in the Anbar and Helmand Provinces, and fight piracy in the Gulf of Aden.  Obama hasn’t the least bit of interest in that sort of thing.

But he gets to double dip on this one.  Obama doesn’t believe that Sgt. Tahmooressi should be able to have those guns anyway, and he certainly won’t tell the Mexicans not to enforce their gun laws, mistake or not.  This isn’t about justice.  Besides, creating problems with the Mexicans would just get in the way of his plans to add voters to the rolls of the DNC and bring about the end of the middle class in America.

From Obama’s perspective, a Marine is on trial for having guns and his trial isn’t subject to the laws of America, which Obama hates.  What’s to dislike about this?

David Codrea:

“Are those urging the ignorant and inexperienced to handle guns in public offering training, just to make sure?” it asked.

Here we go again.  Listen, I’m harder on those in our camp who mishandle weapons than the police – and I’m hard on everyone who does so.  But don’t tell me the police are better off.  I know that to be false.  Moreover, do we see automobile turn-ins or buybacks because they can kill people, and do on a regular basis?

Kurt Hofmann:

… the fact that they supposedly lacked the resources to investigate problematic gun sales that were already happening makes the official explanation of Operation Fast and Furious just that much less convincing.

Like I’ve said, don’t ever get into a logical debate with Kurt.  He will remember what you said a long, long time ago, and it must be consistent with what you say today.  And as for combining the ATF with the FBI or any other agency, just don’t do it.  Let’s focus our efforts not on the scraps that fall from the master’s table, but in repeal of the onerous gun laws America already has.

Mike Vanderboegh: Holder Plays The Race Card – Again: Hell, I Don’t Care About His Skin Color.  I Do Care About His Criminal Brain.  Yes, but even if his brain was well functioning, it’s his evil soul that matters most.

Mike on the Citizen-Soldier in the Ukraine.

Military.com:

Many readers are under the impression that U.S. special operations forces have returned to using .45 caliber pistols since the adoption of the M9 9mm in 1985.

This has some truth to it, but in most cases SOF units use 9mm, experts maintain.

The Army’s Delta Force adopted .40 caliber, but the elite unit is having the same problems as the FBI – the heavier caliber is causing excessive wear problems in guns that were originally designed to be 9mm. Delta is now using 9mm Glock 17s, 19s and 34s.

We’ve all heard about active duty officers, currently deployed in Afghanistan, getting pink slips.  But if retaining good people isn’t a top priority for the Pentagon, it’s important to know what is.

The administration of President Barack Obama has been identifying Muslims in the military in an effort to encourage their presence.

Officials said the Defense Department has been keeping records and tracking Muslims. They said the administration sought to attract Muslims both to the military and to the Pentagon.

“Our nation and our entire military family remain stronger because of the service and sacrifice of people of all faiths, including the thousands of patriotic Muslim Americans who have served and still serve in this long period of war,” Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said last week.

And then there is this from Bill Gertz.

A former member of SEAL Team 6 has become the poster girl for a Pentagon effort to include transgenders — people who have undergone sex-change operations — in the ranks.

Kristin Beck, formerly Senior Chief Petty Officer Christopher Beck, spoke recently at several high-profile events at intelligence agencies and the Pentagon to promote the integration of transgenders.

If I tried to write parody I couldn’t make this stuff up.

We’ve previously discussed why you should never, ever talk to the police.  Unfortunately, we must add to the list of things not to do with the police.

Several Durham police officers lied about non-existent 911 calls to try to convince residents to allow them to search their homes, a tactic several lawyers say is illegal. The officers targeted residences where individuals with outstanding warrants were thought to be living, and told them that dispatch had received a 911 call from that address, when no such call had been made.

However, Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez says the 911 tactic was never a part of official policy. Last month, the department officially banned the practice, according to a memo from Lopez.

The tactic came to light at a court hearing on May 27, when a Durham Police officer testified it was part of official departmental policy. The hearing involved a defendant who had been charged with marijuana possession. (The INDY is not naming the defendant because the charges against her were dropped.)

In February, Officer A.B. Beck knocked on the door of the defendant’s home in South-Central Durham. When the defendant answered the door, Beck told her—falsely—that someone in her home had called 911 and hung up, and that he wanted to make sure everyone was safe. The defendant permitted Beck to enter her home, where he discovered two marijuana blunts and a marijuana grinder.

When Beck took the witness stand, he admitted to fabricating the 911 story in order to enter the house. Beck testified that his true intent was to serve a warrant, though he never produced the warrant in the courtroom.

Beck further testified that the 911 ruse was permitted under a department policy in cases where domestic violence is alleged, recalled Morgan Canady, the defendant’s lawyer.

During cross-examination, Canady quizzed Beck further.

Did you say there was a 911 hang-up? she asked.

Yes, he said.

But there was not a 911 hang-up?

No.

So you entered the house based on a lie?

Yes.

And this is your policy for domestic violence warrants?

Yes.

At that point Canady made a motion to suppress the marijuana evidence. Since the defendant’s consent was based on false premises, Canady reasoned, the consent was not informed and voluntary. Marcia Morey, chief district judge for Durham County, allowed the motion to suppress the evidence.

“You cannot enter someone’s house based on a lie,” Morey said from the bench during the hearing.

Without the evidence, the district attorney’s office dropped the charges.

The policy supported him in cases where domestic violence is involved.  Or so he said.  Perhaps it did.  This case had nothing to do with domestic violence, and so his justification was a misdirect to the court.

So the lesson is never to believe anything the police tell you.

Self defense against criminals or self defense against — criminals?  Kurt Hofmann asks the question:

But as a practical matter, does that really make much difference? When you defend yourself against an assailant who happens to be a common criminal, after all, you’re defending your rights from violation, no less than if your attacker–and aspiring rights violator–draws a government paycheck, carries a tax revenue-supplied firearm, and is acting on government orders. Likewise, in resisting a tyrannical government, you are defending yourself from that government–and the hired muscle of said government, from whom you are defending yourself, is no less criminal than the common street thug or rapist.

To claim a difference, other than one of scale, between a thug who rapes a woman, and a tyrant who rapes a nation, is to elevate the tyrant to something greater than the thug-writ-large he is.

Great point.  Consider for a moment gun control in Nazi Germany and what it did to the Jews.  It matters little (or not at all) whether the home invader is uniformed or not.  We must all ponder these difficult things.

Remember when you do ponder that we’re not the first to do so.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer decided – albeit a little late to the game – that he had to speak and act.  “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”  I claim that God has very specific requirements of us when we act.

So as to the question, the answer is not “either-or.”  It is “both-and.”

Kurt Hofmann:

Ludicrous indeed, but one wonders if a Maryland police chief would have found it so ludicrous for a non-“Only One” to be similarly disarmed. The surprising–and somewhat disappointing–aspect of this is that judging by some gun rights advocates’ Facebook posts, Ikea’s actions were more offensive than other establishments’ “gun free zone” endeavors, by virtue of the fact that they dared disarm an “Only One.”

This correspondent would argue, on the other hand, that Ikea’s willingness to be consistent, and apply its “disarmed victim zone” rules to everyone, even those bedecked in the trappings of government authority, is the one thing they got right. Well, except for the fact that it didn’t last …

Here are a couple of the salient problems.  First of all, folks like Ikea don’t think enough about the moral implications of self defense.  Second, they don’t consider the legal implicatiosn of self defense.  Most people are too busy lapping up the scraps their government feeds them to  ponder things like the Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee Versus Garner.  The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement officers carry weapons for exactly the same reason as anyone else – for self defense.  They aren’t supposed to use them for any other reason.

So what Ikea is saying by recognizing law enforcement officers and their right to carry is that they have a right to self defense, but the rest of us don’t.  Consider that the next time you think about buying from Ikea.  Another report was filed by Emily Miller.  The D.C. police are getting new patrol rifles.

WASHINGTON – FOX 5 has learned that D.C. police are getting new, modern rifles. It is part of the department changes after the Navy Yard shooting last September.

The first officers who rushed into Navy Yard were First District officers — who only had old rifles too long to get through the doors and narrow cubicles where Aaron Alexis was hiding.

So special operations and other law enforcement agents took over the chase with shorter, modern rifles. But we have now learned that all police officers will be armed with the new rifles.

[ … ]

“If I come in with this rifle, it’s too long so I can’t enter the door without lowering the barrel, so it puts me at a tremendous disadvantage,” said Harris. “With the M4, it’s a much shorter weapon. I can keep the muzzle up, I’m on point and I can clear the room.”

So, D.C. police decided to replace the old guns with brand new rifles straight from the manufacturer. No more hand-me-downs.

According to Colt, the Metropolitan Police Department bought the model LE6920 rifles in February. They are 5.56 caliber and can only fire semi-auto.

Police have started training with them, but have not put it in the field yet.

The new Colt rifle which the Metropolitan Police Department bought is based on the M4.

I don’t buy the notion that a few inches of barrel length made any difference.  My son cleared rooms in Fallujah with his SAW.  The D.C. police are just incompetent.  But I also don’t begrudge them the right to have good patrol rifles, as long as they use them as discretely as I use mine (when I open carry, I don’t carry a long gun, and I wouldn’t buy Colt).  Also, without honoring the right to privacy and safety in our own homes from SWAT invasions, they should have all of their guns taken away from them like the out-of-control children they are.  But I do indeed begrudge them the right to have something that others cannot.  Oh, and a quick note to Emily.  5.56 mm is not 5.56 caliber (caliber is by definition the diameter measurement in inches).

In another article David Codrea notes a two-fisted approach by one manufacturer.

Well, while the right hand is providing American riflemen (albeit well-heeled ones, if you take a look at some of their prices) a chance to apply for one of their limited supply systems, the left hand is urging the government to adopt its patented technology for the Holy Grail behind the ultimate purpose of so-called “smart guns,” the ability for “authorities” to turn them off. Automatically.  “TrackingPoint patents technique to disable guns near schools and ‘gun free zones…’”

They can keep their gadgetry.  I like the idea of learning to use a rifle scope old-school.  On one hand, I’m glad this came up so that we know.  On the other hand, may the makers of Tracking Point live with bed bugs, lice and scabies, and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest their armpits.

Related: Open Letter To COSTCO

The Small Wars Journal has a tradition of publishing white papers and opinion pieces on the relationship of counterinsurgency tactics to community policing, even advocating the use of regular U.S. military forces to couple with police in the States, and the latest is entitled Counterinsurgency and Community Policing: More Alike than Meets the Eye.

I won’t duplicate what ends up being a very long article here, since you can study it yourself.  But I will make several observations.  The first has to do with his MOS.  By training and trade the author is a LEO who apparently deployed as a Naval Reserve Intelligence Officer.  He wasn’t the pointy end of the spear as was my son and many others.

What you don’t get is the perspective of someone who had to engage in room clearing operations against people shouting Allahu Akbar, chopped boats and people to pieces with an M2 aboard a helicopter, who were boating across the Euphrates River after you had locked down Fallujah, or who constructed your FOB on your back handing sandbags over your head to the next Marine while you were being shot at.

I’m not recounting this brief history for fun – it wasn’t for my son.  I am mentioning it in order to explain what you do mainly get with this paper: happy face COIN, or the mythical story told to the masses in order to get them to support state-building across the pond.

The author sets up the article with this:

The term counterinsurgency has long been associated with military operations and soldiers.  It conjures visions of violent urban combat action, population relocation, social engineering, and a tool for dealing with foreign political emergencies.  These visions are not inaccurate as they represent some of the methods and strategies used in COIN operations throughout history.  But these methods and strategies do not encapsulate all aspects of COIN.  As COIN operations shift from combat to peace keeping and community-building they begin to resemble traditional community policing activities in which the public servant controls through education and raising ethical stature in communities.  It is in the transitional phase – when the soldier transitions into the policeman and community facilitator – that COIN and Community policing share the same strategies and tactics.

Part of the happy face is in his presentation of typical policing:

COIN is typically employed by uniformed soldiers, armed with assault rifles and supported by light and heavy armored vehicles and tactical air assets.  Community Policing is conducted by uniformed police officers, representatives of the community they serve, with a badge, a holstered pistol, and a number of less-lethal tools.  In COIN, soldiers control population movement and space through use of roadblocks, cordoning off, house to house search and clearing operations, and patrolling villages and neighborhoods in HUMVEE’s and Armored Personnel Carriers.  In Community Policing, police patrol neighborhoods in police cars, bicycles, foot beats, and horses, people are free to move about and there is no outward show of force.

He is intentionally ignoring the militarization of police in America, or perhaps better yet, he is attempting to show both the militarized presence and the so-called population-centric community building he believes police do.

He says “COIN and Community Policing are intrinsically linked,” and then makes this pregnant statement:

In addition to the non-kinetic imperatives mentioned above, similarities can also be found in traditional policing activities such as crime prevention, traffic control, crime investigation, and overall public safety.  In COIN operations powers of arrest are generally left to the police organizations of the host nation.  However, soldiers stand side by side with their host nation counterpart and provide assistance in the form of identifying and, when necessary, arresting insurgents.

As a successful COIN operation, he uses the British experience in Northern Ireland where British troops coupled with local police.  But it is important to get the thrust of his article in the alignment, or nexus, of tactics to achieve the overall strategy.  He ends with this:

Ultimately, the desired end state is a strategy that is seen as legitimate, employing social, political, economic, and security measures that meet the population’s needs, including adequate mechanisms to address the grievances that may have fueled support of the insurgency.

In his world, police become social planners, and employ various tools to meet the population’s needs and address grievances, while at the same time coupling with a more militarized presence to tamp down violence and insurgency.

This thinking isn’t foreign to American police.  They have been playing social planner and policy-maker for decades now, making better sense of the recent blame the Chicago chief of police laid with the availability of guns for violence in Chicago.

But heretofore, this thinking i.e., alignment of military with local police, was indeed foreign to military strategists.  With papers like this it is becoming more commonplace and when something becomes commonplace and worthy of consideration, it becomes easier to engage.

Take note of these things.  Not only are the police becoming more militarized, the armed forces is studying policy-making, trying to learn to employ the tools of social engineering and building human terrain systems, and talking about addressing grievances and meeting community needs.

It all continues a rich tradition of flirtation with treasonous theories at the SWJ.  After all, it worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan, why not try it in the United States?

Obviously I had let this issue slip my mind.  I lost attention to detail, a mistake I don’t like to make.  I should have cancelled my COSTCO membership when I found out that you wouldn’t let Erik Scott be – you had to call the police on him, ending with an unnecessary and thuggish cop shooting, and with Erik dead.  Do you feel good about that?  I hope not.  I hope that you feel responsible for it.

As I mentioned, I had let this slip my attention until today.  But David reminds me that you have been a busy bunch of folks.  First, you are removing D’Souza’s ‘America’ from the shelves.  Oh, I know that you’ve denied it has anything to do with your politics, but we both know that you’re lying.  Your co-founder is going to speak at the next DNC about his hero, Mr. Obama.  And my wife points out that you didn’t merely fail to make the book available, which she could have forgiven.  You made it available and then pulled it (wink … wink).  We all know what you meant to say by this action.

But then David reminds me that your policy is anti-gun.  My wife mainly does the shopping there, so I hadn’t thought much about it recently.  If I had wanted to carry inside COSTCO, I would have.  I couldn’t care less about your policy as it applies to me.  Your stupid policies won’t change my behavior one bit.  But I do want to reward those proprietors with whom I agree and punish those with whom I disagree.  You see, I have the ultimate power – that is, power over the purse.  I thought I would post my wife’s letter to you below, but before I do I wanted to mention one last thing.  I won’t patronize your store any more, but my AR-15 and those standard capacity magazines (what you might call “high capacity magazines”) sure look sexy in that gun safe you sold me, along with all of my other guns when I’m not shooting them or carrying them.  Let Mr. Obama know that you sold me a nice gun safe.

Now for my wife’s letter:

Dear Mr. Jelineck,

I have been a member of Costco since 2006 and I have always been a very satisfied customer.  However, I will not be renewing my membership.  Over the past few years I have observed how your political ideology has become more important to you than just simply supplying goods to a consumer like myself. I have always preferred Costco over Sam’s Club even though I have been aware of your political connection with the democratic party.  I have never let my political views get in the way of where I shopped until now. Your order to remove the book “America” from the shelves of your stores because you don’t like the subject matter is an act of controlling my right to “free speech” and I will not allow you to take away any of my constitutional rights.

Why couldn’t you just have agreed to disagree?

It is your store and you have the right to sell what you like but, in my opinion, your method of operating was deliberate.  You could have chosen not to sell the book at all but you waited until you had an audience so you could make your political statement.  Well, you have made your statement and I am making mine.

Publix is coming to my neck of the woods, and I like them better anyway.