Re: Ping: Jim (Napco PCI-Mini)

There's a reason they don't let 'em carry guns off post or only gave them limited authority over civilians.

I've been hoping that some of the more intrusive components of the patriot act would have been abolished by Obama - but he has fallen short there.

And the "his addendum" was tongue in cheek.

It was one of those base cops who ran straight toward the terrorist, firing at him even as he was shooting her. This woman deserves the Medal of Honor.

The bill in question isn't actually aimed at "base cops" but rather at wildlife and homeland security officers. These are people who have been tasked with upholding the law. They put themselves at risk for us. The least we can do is arm them and give them the authority to carry out their jobs.

I'm disappointed that we have not yet done several things that I believe can be accomplished by presidential orders without consent of Congress. I'd like an end to "don't ask, don't tell" so Leuck can sign up.

I'd also like to see the Patriot Act cancelled. It is anything but patriotic -- nothing more than the Bush Administration's attempt at an imperial presidency. That abomination, unfortunately, will take an act of Congress to remove. It's as awful as the Sedition Act.

His addendum???

I thought she was a civilian police officer.

And yes, she does deserve the medal.

No in this current political environment she needs to be arrested for interrupting someone expressing his religious beliefs

...and using a gun

Someday you might figure out that 99% the criticism Bush got for the last 8 years wasn't because of what he did but because he was Bush. That is the reason why O is doing many of the exact same things Bush did

Leuck couldn't sign up because he's colorblind not gay, you've got me confused with G Morgan again, or your brother

So awful that the Obama administration is fighting to keep it including defending those supposedly illegal wiretaps

Robert Le Ass wrote

No.

But she will likely receive the Medal of Valor from her dept.

Yep.

She's almost certain to receive it, given the incredible courage she showed. I read an article about her in the news and apparently she's saved another (much larger) officer's life on one occasion by tackling some big, nasty guy who was trying to get the cop's gun away from him. I never forgot something I heard a cop say one time during a TV interview. "If you lose a fight your pride is hurt and maybe you get a black eye. If I lose a fight it costs my life." These guys really do put it on the line for us. I'm sure there are a lot of soldiers who are glad she was there that day.

Its rather interesting you and everyone else on your side takes that "he's not a terrorist" line

"A top defense official said federal investigators didn't tell the Pentagon they were looking into months of contacts between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki. The imam knew three of the Sept. 11 hijackers and hailed Maj. Hasan as a "hero" after the shooting last week at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead."

I say, if the drill seargent can't pronounce the new recruit's name... he can kick him/her out, first day of basic. That's all we need, "sleeper cells" in our own military.

I didn't think you were being argumentative. You know more about this stuff than most of us, including me, due to your military service.

Wow! That last part takes care of Iraq. :(

I'm sure you're right. My remark was one of sentiment. She's one heck of a brave cop. I hope she recovers completely. Somebody ought to at least send her roses. Her home address is listed on various people search engines. Maybe we could start something nice here. Wouldn't that be a pleasant change?

Understood.

That may be a misconception, Joe. I'm fairly certain this does not apply to base police since they already have power of arrest and they obviously carry guns. Either way, the folks in the federal wildlife service are not about to be patrolling your local mall (unless you live in Wasilla, Alaska where moose are frequently seen lounging at the ice food court.

Any way, back to that idea of flowers, what do you think? Suppose several people each send just one rose and post it as a suggestion on Facebook, Twitter or something. Hmmm. :^)

The base (civilian) police carry guns while on duty, they can arrest military personnel but can only 'detain' civilians and turn them over to the local pd.

Back in the day they would turn their weapons in to the armory when they went off duty and had no more right to carry a gun off post than any other citizen.

What's this about game wardens carrying guns? They always have in TX for as long as I can remember. Or was the OP talking about federal park fish & game wardens?

The topic is a law aimed at arming federal wildlife enforcement officers and certain other federal law enforcement personnel.

HR 675: To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.

Note that this bill does not create any kind of new police department. A few nutty bloggers have made a stink about the bill "bypassing posse comitatus" (a phrase the crazies like because it includes the word posse, which feeds on their dreams of riding off into the sunset chasing Muslims, pistols blazing, etc.) . Many don't even know what the posse comitatus law is or why it's important. It's the prohibition on using the US military as a police force. HR675 does nothing to abridge posse comitatus but that doesn't slow the rhetoric. The thinking is that since this bill originated during Obama's presidency (it was actually under consideration for years by both Dems and Repugnants) it must therefore be stopped. :^)

Here's the text of HR675. Like most other bills, it's plain English and has no "hidden" text.

----------

H. R. 675 To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 26, 2009

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

A BILL To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR POLICE OFFICERS, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS, AND GAME LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO EXECUTE WARRANTS, MAKE ARRESTS, AND CARRY FIREARMS.

(a) AUTHORITY.-Chapter 81 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

(a) AUTHORITY. - The Secretary of Defense may authorize any law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense -

(1) to execute and serve any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United States;

(2) to make arrests without a warrant -

(A) for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of that officer; and

(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing the felony; and

(3) to carry firearms.

b) PERSONS TO HAVE AUTHORITY. - Subsection

(a) applies to any law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense whose duties include -

(1) enforcing laws enacted for the protection of persons and property;

(2) preventing breaches of the peace and suppressing affrays or unlawful assemblies;

(3) conducting, supervising, or coordinating investigations of criminal activity in programs and operations of the Department of Defense; or

(4) enforcing any rules or regulations with re1spect to Department of Defense property prescribed by duly authorized officials.

(c) GUIDELINES ON EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY.

- The authority provided under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary of Defense and approved by the Attorney General.

(d) DEFINITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

- In this section, the term 'law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense' means a civilian employee of the Department of Defense who is any of the following:

(1) A Federal police officer or detective as classified by the Office of Personnel Management

Occupational Series 0083 (or any successor to that series).

(2) A game law enforcement officer or special agent as classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 1812 (or any successor to that series).

(3) A criminal investigator as classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

----------

I can understand that anyone who has read some of the silly blog entries concerning this bill and has not actually seen the bill itself might genuinely believe it creates some sort of Obamastassi (as the OP of this meta-thread referenced it). That's an innocent mistake. The current problem with American politics is that extremists on both sides (well, actually all three sides now that we've got the "Tea Party") try to demonize everything they see the "other" side doing. No concern at all is given to how any bill will Americans.

Repugnants see it as their god (small "g") given responsibility to "STOP OBAMA" at every turn. Dems see it as their duty to shove the Repugnants back in their holes. So nothing gets done or whatever does get done becomes so watered down that it's close to useless. The tea bag idiots see it as their Palin-given responsibility to.... Hmm. Scratch that. Palin? Responsibility? Naah, that won't fit. These guys would be more useful if they'd just relax and smoke a little of that tea. :^)

I don't see a problem with that, if they are already LEO's.

I've seen the Federal Police in Social Security offices, Veteran's Hospitals, and at the Federal Reserve Bank. They look plenty qualified to me, (the reserve bank has it's own indoor shooting range). State game wardens already are armed in TX. And DoD investigators should have arrest and authority to carry weapons (since they put themselves in danger too).

A case could be made that it's an end around posse comitatus in that it does give DOD employees authority over folks they previously did not have. I don't quite buy that in that the Act is specifically aimed at active duty military personnel.

I've already detailed the problems I have with it. In fact, I would almost go so far to say that I would rather have a newly stood up national police force then give such authority to some of the clowns I remember.

Then again - I do hope it's different now.

I don't think such a case would be valid because the employees in question are not military. Posse Comitatus is not a general rule prohibiting federal personnel from having police powers. It is very specifically a ban on the military becoming the police. The ban exists to separate the military, which is not and of necessity cannot be a democratic institution, from policing the common citizens.

There's more to it, of course. Posse Comitatus also serves to preserve the separation (with it the balance) of powers which is a critical part of our system of government. If the military rules the streets, the president can by fiat control the entire country.

HR675 seeks only to better enable existing law enforcement personnel to do their jobs and to protect themselves and us. This would be considered a good thing. Of course, an action being good for the country is no protection against nutty attacks from those who see Marxist conspiracy at every turn. That's why God gave us Twitter though -- so folks would have someplace other than Usenet to complain. :^)

ABIK, the law has no impact on civilian law enforcement personnel on military bases. They already have power of arrest and they carry guns. I won't argue with you as to the caliber of most of those folks since I don't know anything about them and clearly you do. The only one I know of though, is definitely a hero. I hope she's not alone.

Most things do change and not always for the worse.

But as it stands they only have that authority on post. IIRC, they couldn't even "arrest" civlians - they could 'detain' them for the local PD, but not arrest them as they did with military members.

And when off duty - their guns were in the armory.

We always assumed that the limited scope of their authority was why the hiring standards were so much looser than with regular pd's.

Again - not that there weren't or aren't decent professionals on the forces, just that the it always seemed to me that the "ten percent" that broke from the norm were the "good" ones, rather than the bad ones.