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


Rex B
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3574
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: DFW

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

#16

Post by Rex B » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:22 pm

Mojo, your concerns are well stated, and I share them. It's not just the MRAP, but all that goes with them.
SWAT teams are trained in the same techniques that we teach soldiers that were sent to clear Iraqi cities - overwhelming force. That mindset is inappropriate to the arrest of citizens for anything less than violent crime and imminent danger to others. Yet we see abuses all over the country, and citizens dying needlessly.
Right now we are somewhere between Mayberry and 1984, and much closer to the latter.
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch

User avatar

Syntyr
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

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

#17

Post by Syntyr » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:12 pm

"...weapons of war have no place on our streets, or in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers. Our law enforcement officers should never be out-gunned on the streets." Barack Obama


I am a big supporter of our various pds. However, this seems to be a little over the top. Maybe drop of few of these at our national guard units... Send them to the border... Maybe something else but in our streets? When was the last time that local pd had to worry about ieds or land mines? When was the last time they had to deal with incoming directed fire?

I have seen multiple occasions where leos took hostile fire from people they had pulled over. Maybe a better idea would be to invest in some up armor and bullett resistant windows for cruisers... Make a difference to the guys and gals pulling duty day in and day out. This just seems to be a huge toy for the various swat teams. When you have a hammer everything starts to look like a nail. I just think this sets the wrong precedent or mind set to the guys that already fancy themselves as a para military force.

And as far as high risk warrants... You still have to get out of that tank when you roll up to the house to serve that warrant... And they sure will see you coming in that! Unless you plan on pulling up to the house and getting on the pa and telling everyone to come out and surrender before we roll through your house...
Syntyr
"Wherever you go... There you are." - Remo Williams
"Inconceivable!" - Fizzinni

User avatar

AEA
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5110
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 12:00 pm
Location: North Texas

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

#18

Post by AEA » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:15 am

who's driving these things? Are they trained/qualified?
Alan - ANYTHING I write is MY OPINION only.
Certified Curmudgeon - But, my German Shepherd loves me!
NRA-Life, USN '65-'69 & '73-'79: RM1
1911's RULE!


philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 10852
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

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

#19

Post by philip964 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:49 am

Its illegal to use the military against citizens - The Posse Comitatus Act

What I didn't understand was why it was enacted. Apparently the Republican Rutherford B Hayes did not get the popular or electorial majority. A Democrat Samuel J. Tilden from New York did. For some reason 20 electorial votes were disputed. Republicans agreed to end the occupation of the South after the civil war, if the Democrats would support Hayes as the new president in the unwritten Compromise of 1877.

With the troops in the South gone, all elections from then to modern times were won by Democrats.

And here I thought the election of George Bush over Al Gore was tense.

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

#20

Post by texanjoker » Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:36 am

mojo84 wrote:
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;

How is providing a surplus unarmed armored carrier using the military to enforce local laws? Now if they were passing out M1 tanks then I would have a concern. They have had the program for years where LE agencies can obtain surplus equipment. I have personally been there picking up fall sorts of items for our dept. One of the best set of items we got were the used camo, boots, ect that were great for various units like the K9 unit I belonged to. We used those items while training as it is very dirty and you ruin a lot of clothes. Why not use their used clothing vs spending tax payer money on new items to destroy? The best items we got were the boonie hats and gortex rain gear. They were great when you spent hours on a k9 search in the sun and/or rain :thumbs2:

Everybody gets so worried with the buzz word "militarization" of the police. Go deal with a barricade armed suspect, start taking rounds, work an active shooter, ect and you will see that LEOs are facing combat like situations on American soil. The days of a six gun with a dump pouch for reloads are gone. My generation started out with .357's with speed loaders before moving onto semi autos. Why not use the best equipment and tactics to get the job done? If the populace is going to have AR's and semi auto handguns don't you think LE should have the same?

Look back at the now infamous LAPD shootout with the 2 wackos at the bank. The suspects were armed with automatic weapons, dressed head to toe in body armor. LAPD had to go commander some AR15 type rifles. They also took over a armored bank truck to do rescues of the 9 plus officers down and many citizens that were also shot. That one incident was a big precursor for departments going above 9mm for handguns and obtaining rifles. LAPD had 600 rifles right after that incident and allowed officers to purchases 40's and 45's if they desired. I'll bet LAPD wished they had one of these armored vehicles.

User avatar

CowboyEngineer
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:11 pm

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

#21

Post by CowboyEngineer » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:01 pm

Nothing is really illegal when the constitution is ignored. If/when they decide to use the military against a civilian population they will. I do believe that police militarization is a real and growing problem. When swat teams with smg's raid Amish dairy farmers and guitar makers something is definatly out of whack.
NRA Life Member
Glock 23
Tucker Gunleather "The Answer" IWB


philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 10852
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

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

#22

Post by philip964 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:03 pm

CowboyEngineer wrote:Nothing is really illegal when the constitution is ignored. If/when they decide to use the military against a civilian population they will. I do believe that police militarization is a real and growing problem. When swat teams with smg's raid Amish dairy farmers and guitar makers something is definatly out of whack.
:iagree:

User avatar

VoiceofReason
Banned
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: South Texas

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

#23

Post by VoiceofReason » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:18 pm

texanjoker wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
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;

How is providing a surplus unarmed armored carrier using the military to enforce local laws? Now if they were passing out M1 tanks then I would have a concern. They have had the program for years where LE agencies can obtain surplus equipment. I have personally been there picking up fall sorts of items for our dept. One of the best set of items we got were the used camo, boots, ect that were great for various units like the K9 unit I belonged to. We used those items while training as it is very dirty and you ruin a lot of clothes. Why not use their used clothing vs spending tax payer money on new items to destroy? The best items we got were the boonie hats and gortex rain gear. They were great when you spent hours on a k9 search in the sun and/or rain :thumbs2:

Everybody gets so worried with the buzz word "militarization" of the police. Go deal with a barricade armed suspect, start taking rounds, work an active shooter, ect and you will see that LEOs are facing combat like situations on American soil. The days of a six gun with a dump pouch for reloads are gone. My generation started out with .357's with speed loaders before moving onto semi autos. Why not use the best equipment and tactics to get the job done? If the populace is going to have AR's and semi auto handguns don't you think LE should have the same?

Look back at the now infamous LAPD shootout with the 2 wackos at the bank. The suspects were armed with automatic weapons, dressed head to toe in body armor. LAPD had to go commander some AR15 type rifles. They also took over a armored bank truck to do rescues of the 9 plus officers down and many citizens that were also shot. That one incident was a big precursor for departments going above 9mm for handguns and obtaining rifles. LAPD had 600 rifles right after that incident and allowed officers to purchases 40's and 45's if they desired. I'll bet LAPD wished they had one of these armored vehicles.
Well to begin with it appears the military budget is too high, or so it appears if they can give away this kind of equipment.

My tax money paid for this stuff. Where’s mine? Just box me up an M16A2 and a couple cases of ammo and I will come by to pick it up.

A lot of police are adopting the military mindset “capture the objective kill the enemy” and this type of equipment just adds to that mindset.

Go back and look at the video of the killing of Jose Guerena. When the officers saw a gun, they all stood in the doorway and opened up on him, riddling him and the house with bullets. I believe I read that at least one bullet ended up in a neighbor’s house. One officer initially retreats then goes back to the door to get in a few shots.

Personally, if I had been one of the officers, my reaction to seeing a gun would have been to take cover. In the minds of the officers the “objective” was drugs and evidence. Jose Guerena and anyone in the house that resisted was the “enemy”.

The image of law enforcement in general is starting to decline. This picture of Elián Gonzalez made national news. I would have bet that if two guys with Kevlar vests under their business suits knocked on the front door and produced identification, the family would have surrendered the child.
Elian-Gonzalez.jpg
Of course this would have denied the officers the opportunity to dress up like solders and kick in a door but “hey, maybe next time.

When I was with the SO we wore light tan uniforms, a clip on tie and a grey Stetson in the winter. In summer we changed to a nice looking straw hat.

We treated the people that deserved it with respect. I only had to draw my gun once the whole time I was there and I don’t remember even one officer involved shooting. We must have been doing something right, The Sherriff has been in office over 25 years.

In my opinion, it is not so much the equipment as it is the mindset and image that go with it.

By the way, the LAPD would not have had to go searching for rifles if they had long barrels and slugs in the trunk for the shotguns they carried. With some shotguns, the barrels can be changed out in seconds and even with the body armor, slugs would have knocked them down. They also make teargas rounds for the 12 Ga.
Why not use the best equipment and tactics to get the job done?


In some cases, a couple of well placed mortar rounds would
get the job done
. Do you think the police should use them?
God Bless America, and please hurry.
When I was young I knew all the answers. When I got older I started to realize I just hadn’t quite understood the questions.-Me

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 19
Posts: 9005
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

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

#24

Post by mojo84 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:15 pm

I wonder who she thinks paid for it.

“The vehicle was obtained at no cost to tax payers [sic].”

I guess you ignored my first comment in my second post. I am all for them/you having the proper weapons and do not want them/you outgunned. I also believe they should have armored vehicles. Just not military war fighting weapons and equipment. Law enforcement is not at war with American citizens.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 2778
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

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

#25

Post by E.Marquez » Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:53 pm

mojo84 wrote:I wonder who she thinks paid for it.

“The vehicle was obtained at no cost to tax payers [sic].”

I guess you ignored my first comment in my second post. I am all for them/you having the proper weapons and do not want them/you outgunned. I also believe they should have armored vehicles. Just not military war fighting weapons and equipment. Law enforcement is not at war with American citizens.
So you are against a department having the most secure and safest vehicle then can obtain to safeguard the citizens and fellow officers they are sworn to protect.

:banghead:

Well at least your honest with your opinion.. I think that's a stand up thing, even if I disagree with your opinion and position. :tiphat:
Companion animal Microchips, quality name brand chips, lifetime registration, Low cost just $10~12, not for profit, most locations we can come to you. We cover eight counties McLennan, Hill, Bell, Coryell, Falls, Bosque, Limestone, Lampasas
Contact we.chip.pets@gmail.com


gringo pistolero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:49 pm

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

#26

Post by gringo pistolero » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:03 pm

philip964 wrote:
CowboyEngineer wrote:Nothing is really illegal when the constitution is ignored. If/when they decide to use the military against a civilian population they will. I do believe that police militarization is a real and growing problem. When swat teams with smg's raid Amish dairy farmers and guitar makers something is definatly out of whack.
:iagree:
Welcome to The Obamanation.
I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended by suggesting the Second Amendment also applies to The People who don't work for the government.

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 19
Posts: 9005
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

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

#27

Post by mojo84 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:19 pm

E.Marquez wrote:
mojo84 wrote:I wonder who she thinks paid for it.

“The vehicle was obtained at no cost to tax payers [sic].”

I guess you ignored my first comment in my second post. I am all for them/you having the proper weapons and do not want them/you outgunned. I also believe they should have armored vehicles. Just not military war fighting weapons and equipment. Law enforcement is not at war with American citizens.
So you are against a department having the most secure and safest vehicle then can obtain to safeguard the citizens and fellow officers they are sworn to protect.

:banghead:

Well at least your honest with your opinion.. I think that's a stand up thing, even if I disagree with your opinion and position. :tiphat:
If only it was a "safe vehicle" that was being discussed. You are not seeing the big picture.

Just curious, how many police vehicles have been blown up by running over an IED or encountered an rpg or taken .50 cal fire?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 2778
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

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

#28

Post by E.Marquez » Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:29 pm

mojo84 wrote: If only it was a "safe vehicle" that was being discussed. You are not seeing the big picture.

Just curious, how many police vehicles have been blown up by running over an IED or encountered an rpg or taken .50 cal fire?
Actually that IS what this thread was discussing before a few blew it out of proportion.
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.

Let me ask you a question... If your mother, daughter or wife was shot and trapped by an active shooter.. would you request the police not use the most secure vehicle they had available to rescue her because of your personal belief that no law enforcement agency "needs" or should have such a vehicle?

Department has.. NO bullet resistant vehicle department is offered an excess military vehicle that is bullet resistant... Your stated position is they should turn down that offered vehicle ?
Companion animal Microchips, quality name brand chips, lifetime registration, Low cost just $10~12, not for profit, most locations we can come to you. We cover eight counties McLennan, Hill, Bell, Coryell, Falls, Bosque, Limestone, Lampasas
Contact we.chip.pets@gmail.com

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 19
Posts: 9005
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

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

#29

Post by mojo84 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:57 pm

You are missing the big picture.

Actually, I would like for Seal Team 6 be called in to do the extraction since they are the highly trained professionals in that type of operation. Am I going to get my wish?

Using my mom, wife or daughter to help justify this kind of thing is pretty elementary when many of the people requesting these equipment "gifts" are really wanting them for the same reason as this guy. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/ ... ded-again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 2778
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

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

#30

Post by E.Marquez » Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:24 pm

mojo84 wrote:You are missing the big picture.

Actually, I would like for Seal Team 6 be called in to do the extraction since they are the highly trained professionals in that type of operation. Am I going to get my wish?

Using my mom, wife or daughter to help justify this kind of thing is pretty elementary when many of the people requesting these equipment "gifts" are really wanting them for the same reason as this guy. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/ ... ded-again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Your lack of response to the question, deflection and attempt to belittle is likely more telling then anything your otherwise willing to post.

I had hoped for an honest response so we could discusses.
I'll leave this thread to you now.

:tiphat:
Companion animal Microchips, quality name brand chips, lifetime registration, Low cost just $10~12, not for profit, most locations we can come to you. We cover eight counties McLennan, Hill, Bell, Coryell, Falls, Bosque, Limestone, Lampasas
Contact we.chip.pets@gmail.com

Post Reply

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