I'm for more gun control (Farah calls for disarming those attempting to monopolize armed force)

WND ^ | March 17, 2013 | Joseph Farah

[Perseverando]

The federal government bought firearms in the U.S. and sold them to the Mexican drug cartels – guns that ended up killing American law enforcement officers and an untold numbers of civilians in the U.S. and Mexico.

The Department of Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, including hollow points – a supply that, according to some sources, should be enough to last 100 years.

The Department of Homeland Security has ordered thousands of automatic weapons already banned for sale to U.S. citizens.

Nearly every federal agency – from the Environmental Protection Agency to FEMA – arms its field personnel, often with firearms unavailable to the citizenry.

For decades, the civilian side of the federal government has been purchasing military-style weaponry without any explanation to the citizenry as to why this is necessary.

Barack Obama now famously remarked during his first campaign that he wanted to build a “civilian national security force” as well-funded as the Department of Defense.

It is with all this and more in mind that I now proclaim my 100 percent support for stricter gun control laws – laws that would effectively disarm the civilian side of the U.S. government, other than legitimate police agencies such as the FBI and Secret Service.

The next time you hear an elected or appointed federal official suggesting further restrictions on firearms and ammunition purchases by citizens, understand what is happening. The federal government is attempting to monopolize armed force in America. This is directly contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

America’s founders were not attempting to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen when they ratified the Second Amendment. Their intent was clear: Like almost everything else they wrote in the Constitution, it represented a check on the tendency of

[Perseverando]

Here's a somewhat appropriate DHS/Janet Napolitano graphic. Thanks to Pookie18's "Today's Toons."

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I would call this The Federal Government Disarmament Act, which specifies first of all, that only US military and federal police may use arms in the conduct of their duties.

Second, that federal police agencies would be consolidated from the current 100+ into a limited number: The FBI, the Secret Service, US Marshals, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Bureau of Indian Affairs Police, United States Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol and ICE, Federal Protective Service, Federal Air Marshal Service, and several others. Note: NOT the BATF&E or the DEA.

Third, the restoration of the Posse Comitatus Act, and the creation of the Sheriffs First Act.

[Cheerio]

The Department of Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, including hollow points – a supply that, according to some sources, should be enough to last 100 years.

I want someone to point me to the exception used by DHS to get around the The Bona Fide Needs Rule
B. 1. Background
a. Introduction
Page 5-11

Over a century ago, the Comptroller of the Treasury stated, “An appropriation should not be used for the purchase of an article not necessary for the use of a fiscal year in which ordered merely in order to use up such an appropriation.” 8 Comp. Dec. 346, 348 (1901). The bona fide needs rule is one of the fundamental principles of appropriations law: A fiscal year appropriation may be obligated only to meet a legitimate, or bona fide, need arising in, or in some cases arising prior to but continuing to exist in, the fiscal year for which the appropriation was made. Citations to this principle are numerous. See, e.g., 33 Comp. Gen. 57, 61 (1953); 16 Comp. Gen. 37 (1936); B-289801, Dec. 30, 2002; B-282601, Sept. 27, 1999; B-235678, July 30, 1990.

My experience in Government contracting leads me to believe the purchase of this ammo is mostly of a Commercial Item nature and therefor a Multi year Contract would not be appropriate. When the Government purchases supplies and services that are available off the shelf, you only are allowed to purchase for the needs of the current year. What type of funding are they using that would allow a 50-100 year purchase? When I think ammo I think of O&M funds which can only be used in the current GFY and cannot be carried over. R&D and Procurement funds can be carried over as long as the delivery is in subsequent years(s) - i.e. payment made to the contractor for F-35 Fighters. In the case of F-35 the contractor is probably being paid progress payments, against funding that may have been appropriated by Congresses years past. Paper, paper clips, copiers, ammo would be purchased as required. For the military there could be a DPAS emergency action to require the contractor to move the DoD's deliveries ahead of commercial deliveries, BUT I KNOW OF NO SUCH EMERGENCY OVER AT DHS.

I sure wish someone working in the contracting community would fill out a FOIA request and see what type of funding is being used for the purchase of 100 years of ammo (IMHO it is breaking the law). But what the heck, Zero has no more respect for the law than Big Sis or Holder have.

[Victor]

"...I would call this The Federal Government Disarmament Act...."

What a great idea....I wonder if the new breed of conservative politicians (Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc) are considering this.

If not, this needs to be put out there in the public discourse...

[T-Bird45]

IDIQ - you could look it up.

[concerned about politics]

Have you guys ever thought that maybe all those arms are being shipped to the middle east? All Americas financial resourses are. (BTW, what's up with Bengazi? Why the cover up?)
Obama's Israel

[GraceG]

Here is a list of some agencies that DON’T NEED GUNS!!!! EVER!!!!!

The FDA
The Dept of Education
HUD
The IRS
The EPA
The FHA

I could go on, but pretty much any agencies that doesn’t DIRECTLY deal with law enforcement activities on a federal level and SOME of those should be disarmed as well.

If the FDA needs firepower they can make their case to the agencies at a state or county level that are allowed to carry arms!

[Cheerio]

Very familiar with IDIQ contract but that "contract: is NOT an order for supplies and services - it is only a contract vehicle for future orders placed one at a time called Delivery Orders. The DO is where the appropriation must be cited. I want to see what funding source is funding the purchase of 100 year supply of ammo. That's all.

IF journalists are running around writing stories that DHS is purchasing 100 year supply of ammo, when in fact an IDIQ contract has been let with a max amount of 1.6 Billion rounds, then these are false articles - the IDIQ contract can be issued with ZERO order or in some cases depending on whether it was competed or not, may have a minimum order quantity (again placed via a DO, not the IDIQ contract itself. Been there done that.

Many IDIQs are let for a five year period, but again all DOs would have to have appropriation citations that would come from future congresses, and is not an ORDER today.

[GraceG]

“...I would call this The Federal Government Disarmament Act....”

What a great idea....I wonder if the new breed of conservative politicians (Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc) are considering this.

If not, this needs to be put out there in the public discourse...

Call it the:

“The Federal Gun Control Act”

An use that name to re-direct ALL of the hollywood anti-gun hype in a MORE POSITIVE DIRECTION!!!

[raisetheroof]

The federal government is attempting to monopolize armed force in America.

If people read Dianne Feinstein's own "assault weapons ban" bill, they'd discover that the intent isn't limited to the federal government, but government in general.

S.150 Section 3 Paragraph 4 Subparagraph (A) reads that the ban "shall not apply to the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State"

[golux]

I appreciate Farah’s getting a little more respect on FR lately. Regrettably it’s because we have Mr. Mombasa in the White House. The minute we get another Republican, faux, nouveau, or otherwise, Farah’s constitutionalism will have him branded persona non grata in these parts.

[Travis McGee]

[Travis McGee]

MRAPs in action.

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/reichssicherheitshauptamt-follies/

Did you know that the FBI is now an irrelevent junior agency? Have you heard of the SRT, part of the HSI (Homeland Security Investigations), part of ICE, part of DHS?

When and how was this national paramilitary force authorized and created?

[bert]

There is a humvee equivalent of the vehicle depicted top center. In recent days I have seen lots of them on flat bed trailers headed north on I 81

They are apparently headed somewhere for rework and perhaps new paint to cover the faded desert tan

[Travis McGee]

The new face of federal law enforcement. (Except they are wearing masks.)

Is this federal eagle going to use that AR-15, or are they swooping in to take them away from Americans?

[Travis McGee]

Meet the new Boss in Town: ICE spawns… HSI Homeland Security Investigations

[MrB]

Does anyone remember the democrat that stated that

“the government SHOULD have a monopoly on the use of violence”

?

I’m not sure if it was a politician or some talking/empty head.

[Travis McGee]

Don't worry comrades, a police state is a safe state!

[USAF80]

These things are pretty cool. I got a chance to check out the first batch when they came over to the desert. This is what was needed instead of Humvees. We did not learn a lesson from the South Africans.