When I was in 4th or 5th grade, I remember hearing the news on the radio that Congress had decided to give the FBI permission to carry firearms. I’ve looked for confirmation of this memory on the web, but nothing is there. I suspect the only validation would come from a search of the Congressional Record from 1962-1964. I remember when I heard it that I thought it was a bad idea.
I don’t think the Founders were enthused by the idea of a Federal police force (we were studying American History in school at the time), and yet almost every federal agency has armed police in their employ. I would very much like to see the Government disarmed.
Obviously, not every agency should be disarmed. The Secret Service protective details, the US Marshalls Service, the Military … we obviously can’t disarm the entire Government, but come on, 80+ Thousand ARMED IRS agents? The FBI has shown several times that it should not be trusted with guns (Waco, Ruby Ridge, raids against parents who go to school board meetings, et cetera). There is no reason they shouldn’t have the local sherriff do their arresting for them.
Does the CIA really need weapons? Their history is also pretty checkered. How about the ATF?
I would greatly appreciate it if President Trump could go through all the Government agencies and disarm every one of them that does not have a valid need for firearms, and those that do have a need should expect to seriously justify their use. “I feared for my life” doesn’t cut it anymore. Qualified immunity also needs to be looked at and body cam usage is a must. When a citizen is involved in a shooting, they get to go through a very intense process. I don’t want to see any Government employee to be treated differently.
What to do with all the guns and ammo? Give them to the people. We paid for them, we want them back.
I love this idea, but I feel like only some Government agents should carry firearms. Not every Government agent needs a gun, but some should still carry incase someone is indeed doing something illegal and is dangerous. I’m not sure if you are including the police and SWAT but they definitely do need to be armed at all times!
Well, I’m against Federal SWAT teams, but all police forces and SWAT teams are local, so they would not be included in this. Even the Capitol Police are a local law enforcement unit, even though they are Federal in nature. They should probably answer to the mayor of DC instead of Nancy Pelosi. What’s to keep her from ordering the arrest of any Trump elector? That’s how much I distrust her, anyway, but that’s beside the point. I’m not sure what this idea would look like as a policy. Any ideas?
Secret Service, which is part of the Treasury, US Marshals, Border Patrol, Maybe some in the Homeland Security and Federal Park rangers should be armed as far as federal agencies. All others that need to use armed force should be able to call on additional support from one of those agencies and only then with the permission of the local US Attorney for the area. All other cases should be required to obtain assistance from the Local Sheriff or State Law enforcement.
The IRS should have access to Secret Service agents as needed not their own armed agents.
Military should not be considered in this proposal.
I don’t like the idea of IRS agents using federal police to arrest a US citizen. Or any other agency doing so, for that matter. This leaves sheriffs out of the loop. Sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement officer in any county, and as such, I believe they have the final say in the arrest of citizens. The whole Waco disaster could have been avoided if the sheriff had been in the loop. I think Waco was the result of an ATF investigation, but it could just be the FBI acting on it’s own. That was a long time ago, but I still remember the Michael McNulty videos about it.
Granted, sometimes park rangers may have need of a firearm to maintain order, stop illegal activity, etc. and they are on federal land, or state land as the case may be, but state police are not federal police, so state parks would be in a different category.
I’m not opposed to requiring a US attorney to approve the use of force, but the final say has to rest with the sheriff. Then again, the more people advocating for the use of force, the more likely the sheriff is to capitulate, so maybe the sheriff should have an attorney present, too. So we end up with law enforcement by committee. Well, maybe no snap decisions that way.
Basically, I agree with you that some fed agencies need to be armed, and you have a decent list. I just want the authority deciding on the use of that force to be local, not federal, when dealing with US citizens. Foreign citizens are a different kettle of fish, but even then the sheriff needs to be kept in the loop. Perhaps more than anything, the government needs to recognize the sovereignty of sheriffs.
The FBI was originally intended to support local and federal law enforcement in investigating and providing scientific assistance on evidence. They were not armed and required local officials to help arrest people.
Unfortunately corrupt Sheriff’s often informed the law breakers of pending raids.
Federal agents are the correct ones to use for federal crimes, that’s why secret service is part of the treasury department to catch violent counterfeiters, and bootleggers who did not pay Federal taxes on alcohol. Not a responsibility of the states.
Waco was caused by federal agents looking to make an impression to push additional gun laws, The local Sheriff was friendly with the leaders of the Branch Dravidians, and the federals thought they would be warned.
That and Ruby Ridge, plus Elian Gonzalez in Florida, was Bill Clinton and the feds pushing for gun control.