The idea that agencies are empowered to effectively create their own laws and go out and enforce them with armed federal agents should be alarming.
A report issued last year by the watchdog group Open The Books, “The Militarization of The U.S. Executive Agencies,” found that more than 200,000 federal bureaucrats now have been granted the authority to carry guns and make arrests — more than the 186,000 Americans serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. “One hundred three executive agencies outside of the Department of Defense spent $2.7 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between fiscal years 2006 and 2019 (inflation adjusted),” notes the report. “Nearly $1 billion ($944.9 million) was spent between fiscal years 2015 and 2019 alone.”
The watchdog reports that the Department of Health and Human Services has 1,300 guns including one shotgun, five submachine guns, and 189 automatic firearms. NASA has its own fully outfitted SWAT team, with all the attendant weaponry, including armored vehicles, submachine guns, and breeching shotguns. The Environmental Protection Agency has purchased drones, GPS trackers, radar equipment, and night vision goggles, and stockpiled firearms.
A 2018 Government Accountability Office report noted that the IRS had 4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition in inventory at the end of 2017 — before the enforcement funding boost this year. The IRS did not respond to requests for information, though the IRS’s Criminal Investigation division does put out an annual report detailing basic information such as how many warrants the agency is executing in a given year.
Somebody should tell The Federalist that the anti-federalists were right.
Cascade County [Montana] Sheriff Jesse Slaughter on Saturday broke up an investigation carried out in apparent coordination between federal and Canadian authorities at a Great Falls gun show, saying those agencieshad not contacted his office beforehand.
Although state law does not require federal investigators to obtain approval from local law enforcement to conduct operations, the agents left the fairgrounds “reluctantly” and without issue. Slaughter has positioned himself as a “constitutional sheriff,” which theorizes sheriffs are the ultimate authority in their county — above local, state and federal officials — raising questions in this incident about possible friction between layers of law enforcement.
Theorizes? No, a Constitutional Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in the county. And that includes any invited or uninvited law enforcement from outside the county and local police departments.
According to a Sept. 24 report compiled by the Cascade County Sheriff’s Office, Slaughter and a deputy responded to a complaint that a man at the Montana Expo Park was acting suspiciously by taking photographs of vehicles. According to the fairgrounds director, the man was driving around the property in a black SUV with Canadian license plates, but never entered the show.
According to the report, Slaughter questioned Howe on why his office wasn’t contacted about the investigation; Howe said he had made contact with city police. The fairgrounds however are under the county’s jurisdiction. Howe added the person they were investigating was an American who did not have a federal firearms license to sell guns, according to the report. Slaughter noted this was a different reason than that provided by the Canadian police officer.
After a discussion under the fairgrounds’ grandstands, Slaughter “informed them they had to leave, to which they did.”
[…]
Slaughter said he had several concerns after learning of the investigation underway at the fairgrounds, primarily a public safety concern that if the federal or Canadian authorities were to use force in any way, they might be mistaken as a citizen assaulting another citizen. Citizens, local law enforcement or the agents involved could have been injured “if something went awry,” he said.
The sheriff also said he has constitutional questions about the legality of the investigation.
“I don’t know what their investigation was, it’s important that you print that,” Slaughter said, noting again the two investigations he was told about; looking for Canadians smuggling guns to the north, and investigating an American who was not licensed to sell firearms.
Slaughter said that had the federal and Canadian agencies contacted his office prior to Saturday’s incident, he would have been able to call off questions of who the agents were, or what they were doing, allowing the investigations to proceed.
Asked Thursday if drawing attention to the federal agents put those law enforcement officers in jeopardy, Slaughter said their police work outed themselves.
That’s funny.
“We don’t know they’re undercover,” Slaughter said. “We don’t know who they are, but we have them acting suspiciously.”
Slaughter said he expects next legislative session, which begins in January, to see passage of a bill that would require federal agencies to make contact with local law enforcement before launching an investigation on the ground. Such a law would further validate his stance as a “constitutional sheriff.”
Such proposals, known previously under the banner of “Sheriffs First,” have failed to pass muster in the state Legislature before. In 2011, a Republican state Senator from Thompson Falls introduced a bill that would have subjected federal agents to kidnapping or trespassing charges if they failed to obtain permission from the local sheriff to effectuate an investigation. Supporters said the legislation would prevent the bloodshed seen in episodes like the 1993 federal raid in Waco, Texas.
These proposed laws are an increment but remain weak because almost all local law enforcement submits to federal authority. We’d like to see a lot more of this but for the right reason: ‘get out of my county, you have no authority here,’ would be a good way to handle these situations. If state legislatures had any Tenth Amendment guts that also would help.
My family and I had a pretty wild encounter with a deputy sheriff last year. The legal case has ended and I guess I can share the story with people now.
Every year my father in law sets up a legal dove hunt on opening weekend. This is private land in an extremely rural county. While the field last year was setup only about 1/2 mile from a road, the land is part of a fairly large cattle farm and we were over a mile away from the nearest neighbor.
We didn’t have that many birds coming in, but we were having a good time when at about 7:30AM a deputy sheriff pulled into the field with his lights on. He rolled down his window and said the hunt was over and we needed to pack up and leave.
My father in law said that we wouldn’t be doing that and asked if he was lost. The deputy went on to be a smart ass and then said that he would take everyone to jail if we didn’t leave. A few more words were exchanged and by this time myself and my husband had walked up to his window. The deputy proceeded to get out of his car and ordered my father in law to put his gun on the ground (it was a o/u with the beach open). When my father in law refused the deputy reached for his pistol. The sound of the safety clicking off on my husband’s Citori stopped the deputies hand immediately and my stomach knotted up.
My father in law knew his son would pull the trigger if the deputy threatened his life. I knew he would, and I’m pretty sure the deputy figured that out as well. To de-escalate a extremely tense situation my father in law wisely said we would leave.
Later, a game warden became involved. Visit the reddit/firearms link to see what happened. Also check out the comments.
One thing is for sure. At number one on my list of people I don’t want as enemies is game wardens.
Concerning this article, I sent the authors a short note as follows.
Gentlemen,
So here is an important question about your coverage of the happenings in Charlotte. I follow this sort of thing and have ascertained that more often than not, when the NG is deployed, they aren’t under “arming orders.” This was true of the NG deployed to the Mexican border (they mostly sat in offices and aided with paperwork as they had no ammunition given to them for their weapons), and was true of the NG deployed in Ferguson. Issuing arming orders is a big deal, involving training, requalification by the riflemen, issuing “rules for the use of force” that have been reviewed by the lawyers, etc., etc.
But they rarely listen to a blogger, so you might ask the question of the officials. You might catch them flat footed and they will likely refuse to answer you because it might show the world that deploying the NG is just window dressing and none of them have ammunition.
If you ask and they answer, I’d appreciate attribution please.
David Codrea has an interesting post on police and their view of assault weapons.
State Police Supt. Col. Steven G. O’Donnell said Monday they’d like to see a reinstatement of the ban on the sale of assault weapons…O’Donnell said assault weapons have one purpose, to kill people in war. He says civilians should not have assault weapons. [More]
So that’s why you guys have them, Steve? To have your standing army make war onand kill“civilians”?
Yet another indication of this elitism is seen up North.
The head of the NYPD’s largest police union yesterday called for an ”absolute ban” on assault weapons — except for cops and members of the military.
“There is no legitimate reason for an assault weapon with their high capacity magazines to ever be in the hands of a private citizen,” said Pat Lynch, head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.
[ … ]
“There’s no reason for anybody to have those type of weapons,” he added.
Lynch’s comments echoed those of Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.
If there is no reason for anyone to have these weapons, and if their only purpose is in making war, then why do the police need them? Ah. Here is a key point. The Supreme Court decision in Tennessee versus Garner clearly decided that law enforcement doesn’t have the right to enforce the law by the power of arms. They can only shoot in self defense. If that’s the case – and it is – then why do the police get to defend themselves with their choice of arms and I don’t?
Here is the backdrop. The Philadelphia police spy someone legally engaged in open carry, accost the citizen, and later find out they are being recorded (it’s too bad that we have no video, this is audio only).
Can someone tell me why this is okay? I don’t see any reason for this being acceptable behavior for any police officer, anywhere. It’s not acceptable for an officer not to know the constitution, it’s not acceptable for a police officer not to be cognizant of his own department’s policies, and it’s not ever acceptable for a police officer to verbally abuse someone.
Or perhaps Philadelphia wants to be known as “The city of brotherly get the fuck on your knees and shut the fuck up,” especially if you aren’t one of the few in a city of around 1.5 million people who are personally known by a police officer?
2 years ago
