It's illegal to use the military against citizens

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 19
Posts: 8232
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#1

Post by mojo84 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:27 am

So, miliarized the police. This is just what every police department needs. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... g-threats/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find it concerning the feds gave them this.


Zencyl
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Huntsville, Texas

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#2

Post by Zencyl » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:44 am

I read where Ohio State University police department also received one of these.

User avatar

texanjoker
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:18 pm

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#3

Post by texanjoker » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:15 am

I have no issue with the departments having one of these unarmed vehicles. We have had unarmed armored vehicles of this type for decades and they are needed in various situations to include hostage rescues; barricaded suspects, ect. I remember a time being hunkered down behind a boulder after a suspect shot at us. It was nice to have a armored vehicle drive up to recover us :thumbs2: .


Carry-a-Kimber
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:58 am
Location: Harris County

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#4

Post by Carry-a-Kimber » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:21 am

I don't have a problem with the police having APCs but I think this particular vehicle is a huge waste of tax dollars.

User avatar

E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 2633
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#5

Post by E.Marquez » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:25 am

mojo84 wrote:So, miliarized the police. This is just what every police department needs. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... g-threats/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find it concerning the feds gave them this.
And what in your opinion would be a better use of a vehicle no longer used by the military (they do not have needed protection)?

Looks like a GREAT vehicle to have on hand to safely extract a wounded civilian or officer in an active shooter event.. Or to get close to a Active shooter, hostage taker and negotiate from a safer position.

What specifically is your concern with a department having one of these vehicles...and why do you believe they should not have a safer way, method, option available to them, when it is there for the taking?

If you were the elected sheriff or were the local police chief...responsible for the citizens and officers in your district and a low/no cost piece of equipment became available to your department,, that would increase the safety of your officers and those you protect,, would YOU turn it down? If so,, Please tell us why and how you would explain your decision to your officers and the citizens. :thumbs2:
No words or opinions I post in this forum are intended to be offensive to any member here.

User avatar

Dragonfighter
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2284
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:02 pm
Contact:

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#6

Post by Dragonfighter » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:51 am

E.Marquez wrote:<SNIP>
If you were the elected sheriff or were the local police chief...responsible for the citizens and officers in your district and a low/no cost piece of equipment became available to your department,, that would increase the safety of your officers and those you protect,, would YOU turn it down? If so,, Please tell us why and how you would explain your decision to your officers and the citizens. :thumbs2:
I agree. There is MUCH more in the moves to militarize the police departments to get in a tizzy over than armored personnel carriers. Tactical service of low risk warrants for instance.
I Thess 5:21
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL
"There is no situation so bad that you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield, NASA ISS Astronaut

User avatar

Moby
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:41 pm
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#7

Post by Moby » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:46 pm

It's the frog in the water thing fella's.

COP's are not soldiers and citizens are not the enemy.

Yet it's sizing up that way.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=swa ... tedIndex=5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Be without fear in the face of your enemies.
Stand brave and upright that the Lord may love thee.
Speak the truth always even if it means your death.
Protect the helpless and do no wrong!

Image

User avatar

suthdj
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2258
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:49 pm
Location: North Ft Worth(Alliance area)

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#8

Post by suthdj » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:48 pm

These are designed more for mines and IED's a .50 may/may not take it out, as long as any fixtures used for combat op's are removed it is nothing more than an armored vehicle. If you want to know how to take it out see this link. That being said I think LE departments are getting more aggressive in their responses than compared in the past and that being said so are the criminals.

https://uscrow.org/2013/04/08/how-to-di ... -vehicles/
21-Apr-09 filed online
05-Sep-09 Plastic Arrived
09-Sep-13 Plastic Arrived

User avatar

E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 2633
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#9

Post by E.Marquez » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:49 pm

Moby wrote:It's the frog in the water thing fella's.

COP's are not soldiers and citizens are not the enemy.
And bad guys still shoot citizens and officers... when that happens, citizens throw there hands up in the air and proclaim COPS are not doing enough to get my little johnny out of the line of fire. They should just go get him... and they will... the difference is now, some departments can do that in a vehicle built to protect the extraction team, and the victim as well.

Simply amusing some would proclaim this is a bad thing... :headscratch
No words or opinions I post in this forum are intended to be offensive to any member here.

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#10

Post by JALLEN » Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:00 pm

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:I don't have a problem with the police having APCs but I think this particular vehicle is a huge waste of tax dollars.
As opposed to all the other things that government does.

Just remember, when you are spending someone else's money, there is no point in skimping.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

User avatar

E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 2633
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#11

Post by E.Marquez » Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:15 pm

JALLEN wrote:
Carry-a-Kimber wrote:I don't have a problem with the police having APCs but I think this particular vehicle is a huge waste of tax dollars.
As opposed to all the other things that government does.

Just remember, when you are spending someone else's money, there is no point in skimping.
:headscratch
The money was already spent,,, this was not NEW acquisitions,, but reallocation from a federal surplus to a state level need.

What are the better options? Give them to Egypt? Mexico? Now that would be a waste..
Let them sit unused in a Army Depot motor pool till they have only scrap value?

Or.. reallocation ... put them in the hands of folks that may one day have a need to get to a building to stage a forced entry on an active shooter holed up.. or Evac a wounded person, that is still under direct fire... ...


Im absolutely confused as to the objections posed here so far in this thread... :headscratch

Im in agreement, the over use of Special teams to execute common place warrants, or investigate alleged wrong does like,, say failing to pay a school loan is nuts and out of control in some areas..

But some here are starting to push a position not unlike the anti gun folks...... "Who needs a "high capacity mag" or "High power rifle" or anything else that some small un-involved group thinks they don't need it, so YOU should not either.

Item bought and paid for, and has no "resale value" to anyone one we really want to have it.
Scrap it?
Let it sit unused?
Reallocate to a group that can put it to use protecting lives?

Seems like a no brainer, yet, many keep pushing points that say otherwise. :tiphat:
No words or opinions I post in this forum are intended to be offensive to any member here.

User avatar

bizarrenormality
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:40 pm

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#12

Post by bizarrenormality » Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:59 pm

It's illegal to use the military against citizens in the same way NFA is illegal, i.e only for the real (constitutional) government of the United States.
"Also if you can not be trusted with a pistol after a few drinks you can't be trusted with a pistol period. Booze is liquid bad judgment no doubt but it shouldn't make you into a damn moron. If you are a moron sober I don't know what to tell you." - BurnedOutLEO

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 19
Posts: 8232
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#13

Post by mojo84 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:09 pm

First off, I am not for the police and other law enforcement officials being under-armed when it comes to enforcing the laws. However, I am opposed to them becoming semi-military forces. Some of the things I find concerning about this is the fact there is so much "surplus and excess" military equipment sitting around wasting away and becoming "scrap" if it is not GIVEN away. Do we know for sure this equipment was purchased, used and then decommissioned by the the military? Or was it purchased knowing it was excess equipment and would be transferred to local governments through the 1033 Program? There have been billions and billions of dollars of military equipment "given" to local law enforcement agencies in the name of not wasting the equipment. Why was the equipment purchased in the first place? Just think, the budget deficit is what it is, nearly $17 TRILLION, and there is billions and billions of dollars of surplus military equipment that has been given away or is sitting around ready to be given away. Interesting how the politicians and military personnel are crying about sequester and budget cuts when there has been so much spent on "excess and surplus" equipment.

I also don't believe the same tactics need to be used to fight domestic crime as what is being used to fight military wars. Therefore, I do not believe the same equipment needs to be utilized. Once local, not state as one asserted earlier, law enforcement agencies obtain this type of equipment, they immediately begin looking for opportunities to deploy it. This is evidenced by the numerous incidences of local law enforcement using such equipment and tactics when it is not necessary and is nothing but overkill. It's human nature. If I had such equipment, I would be tempted to find an opportunity to justify it's use. I know some cops and they have on numerous occasions spoken of how exciting it is to deploy the SWAT team with their "heavy" equipment. It's an adrenalin rush.

We are not a third world country and do not need martial law. Militarization of local law enforcement agencies is only a step in the direction of setting the stage for martial law if and when the federal government/president determines such is necessary to manage and control the citizens. As we continue down this road, the local law enforcement agencies will become only extended arms of the federal law enforcement and military.

Bottom line, I think it is a slippery slope. While some can't believe I have concerns about this, I can't believe some can't fathom why some do not think local law enforcement does not need to be militarized and supplied military equipment by the federal government. Rather than supply this equipment to LOCAL law enforcement agencies to control and police American Citizens, why not deploy the equipment to defend out boarders against the foreigners that are coming into our country illegally. For that matter, the equipment could also be utilized to fight the drug WAR at the boarder to stop foreigners from bringing drugs. Local law enforcement is not meant to fight wars and they do not need war fighting equipment.

http://www.ohiolibertycoalition.org/ohi ... g-vehicle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/cr ... d-military" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... nd-tactics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's nothing like spending other people's money to control the people that supply the money in the first place.


JP171
Banned
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:47 am
Location: San Leon Texas

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#14

Post by JP171 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:14 pm

Mojo, your thread heading is incorrect before you try and cite the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878(R 1981) you might want to read it. It is NOT now nor has it ever been Illegal to use the US Military within the borders of the United States even on civilian population. Nor is it Illegal to use the National Guard. It is according to the act Illegal to use Federal Troops to enforce state laws, but NOT federal laws US Military may be used to enforce federal laws and states of emergency, The National Guard may be used as the Governor of the state sees fit as NG troops are under the Authority of the Adjutant General of the State unless called to federal service.


The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws.

The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 19
Posts: 8232
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: It's illegal to use the military against citizens

#15

Post by mojo84 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:42 pm

JP171 wrote:Mojo, your thread heading is incorrect before you try and cite the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878(R 1981) you might want to read it. It is NOT now nor has it ever been Illegal to use the US Military within the borders of the United States even on civilian population. Nor is it Illegal to use the National Guard. It is according to the act Illegal to use Federal Troops to enforce state laws, but NOT federal laws US Military may be used to enforce federal laws and states of emergency, The National Guard may be used as the Governor of the state sees fit as NG troops are under the Authority of the Adjutant General of the State unless called to federal service.

I
The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws.

The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.
I am specifically talking about using the military to enforce local and state laws. I never said anything about the national guard. I am talking about the militarization of local law enforcement agencies.

Interesting read

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/docs/10-16/ch_11.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”