Posted on 11/19/2015 7:16:54 PM PST by markomalley
Under orders from President Obama ,military surplus vehicles were seized from Calhoun County, Alabama Sheriff Larry Amerson Wednesday. For over 20 years, under the federal government’s 10-33 program, the Defense Department distributed military surplus equipment and vehicles to local law enforcement.
However, following the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, over local law enforcement controversies, President Obama halted the program through an executive order. All vehicles from the program that were deemed too “militaristic looking” were to be confiscated from local law enforcement all over the country.
“We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people the feeling like there’s an occupying force — as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them,” Obama said in May. He added that the equipment “can alienate and intimidate residents and make them feel scared.”
Sheriff Amerson returned 10-33 vehicles, which were first obtained after a mentally ill person shot three Anniston police officers in 2001 and other officers had no protection to remove the injured from the area, a statement from the sheriff’s office said.
The tracked armored vehicles were also used in a 2011 shooting of Anniston police officer Justin Sollohub when law enforcement found the shooter in a wooded area. The vehicle was also used during a search last September, as well as for transportation needs during ice storms, the sheriff’s office said.
Other Sheriff’s office are speaking up as well about the government confiscating their equipment. The Volusia County, Florida Sheriff’s office said on it’s Facebook page:
Without this equipment, people will die in the future. It’s that simple. Lives will be lost unnecessarily. Let’s not take away needed tools from our law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day to protect the public. Let’s not make their jobs any harder or any more dangerous. And let’s not hamstring law enforcement officers in their ability to effectively respond to emergencies, neutralize threats and protect the public and themselves!
Sheriff Michael Bouchard of Oakland County, Michigan, a member of the Major County Sheriffs Association, told The Daily Caller last month that the Obama administration’s new regulations leave many rural sheriffs without vehicles necessary to handle harsh terrain.
“Our belief is that [the administration] thinks they look to militaristic because it has treads, not wheels,” Bouchard said.
“A lot of rural sheriffs that have deserts or cold, deep snow areas. One of the vehicles they use for rescue or for emergency operations are tracked vehicles,” Bouchard said. “It is the only vehicle that can traverse the terrain whether it happens to be in an incredibly deep sand or incredibly deep snow. Well, the president decided that tracked vehicles look to militaristic. So they are not allowed.”
“Today is a sad and frustrating day at the Sheriff’s office. The federal government, the U.S. military, is withdrawing a piece of equipment we found extremely valuable for our purposes and that is a tracked armored vehicle,” Amerson said. “Tracked armored vehicles are defensive in nature. They have no offensive capabilities. This decision by our commander in chief, I don’t agree with it. This is the nation we live in. We are a nation of laws and we follow those laws.”
Amerson says he contacted Alabama Republican Rep. Mike Rogers and received assurance from Rogers that language will be introduced in the next funding bill that would allow local law enforcement to have the vehicles the government is seizing.
Where does the Constitution authorize fedgov to equip local police? Police should be funded by state and local governments, which keeps control where it ought to be - with state and local governments.
There are always strings attached to unconstitutional gifts from fedgov.
Where does the Constitution prohibit county sheriffs from acquiring milsurp equipment and putting it to use instead of scrapping it?
Nowhere that I can find.
Now, where does the Constitution authorize fedgov to supply local PDs?
The one that runs needs brakes bled and adjusted. 1/2 day or less. New nose (which is setting in the back) welded in. depending on skills and how pretty you want it, 2 hours to 2 days.
That one is already pretty much a "bug out vehicle" as the radio box is in fairly good shape. Just throw in you camping gear and grub and you're done.
The other one would need some type of lockable box bolted in the bed.
This was a county sheriff not a local PD.
Where does the Constitution authorize fedgov to supply local PDs or sheriffs’ departments, in your opinion?
Where is the FedMob prohibited from selling milsurp?
Amendment X =>
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
__________________________________________________________________
So which section of the Constitution delegates to fedgov the power to supply local PDs/SDs?
Amend. X authorizes the states and the people to buy milsurp.
After all the people paid for it.
This is about fedgov supplying state and local deparments, and not about states/localities buying equipment.
So far, you have not answered which section of the Constitution delegates to fedgov that power. Can I have an answer to that?
There's your problem. That is false.
1033 PROGRAMPROGRAM OVERVIEW
Sec. 1033. TRANSFER OF EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY TO SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
--(a) TRANSFER AUTHORITY. (1) Chapter 153 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2576 the following new section:
--2576a. Excess personal property: sale or donation for law enforcement activities
(a) TRANSFER AUTHORIZED. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and ammunition, that the Secretary determines is:
--(A) suitable for use by the agencies in law enforcement activities, including counter drug and counter terrorism activities; and
--(B) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense.
--(2) The Secretary shall carry out this section in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of National Drug Control Policy.
--(b) CONDITIONS FOR TRANSFER. The Secretary of Defense may transfer personal property under this section only if:
--(1) the property is drawn from existing stocks of the Department of Defense;
--(2) the recipient accepts the property on an as-is, where-is basis;
--(3) the transfer is made without the expenditure of any funds available to the Department of Defense for the procurement of defense equipment; and
--(4) all costs incurred subsequent to the transfer of property are borne or reimbursed by the recipient.
There's your problem. That is false.
No it is not. 1033 mentions sale or donation. The equipment mentioned in the article was donated by fedgov. Otherwise, they wouldn't be taking them back.
So where is fedgov delegated that power by the Constitution?
No doubt ;) Thanks for your reply.
County sheriffs are elected officials of the people. What they do is as representatives of the people. If your interpretation of the Constitution is true then all sales of milsurp arms and ammo to the people is un-Constitutional.
I don’t think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.