Weaponizing the Small Business Administration and Railroad Retirement Board
Quin Hillyer discusses the increasing armed firepower of the federal government. Most people expect agencies like the FBI to be well armed for law enforcement purposes. But the Railroad Retirement Board? He reports that federal agencies far and wide now have armed agents, including the Small Business Administration. For what? To scare away phony 8(a) applications?? The United States Department of Education bought 27 Remington Model 870 12-gauge shotguns last year. Here is the request for proposals to sell the weapons. Perhaps the contracting officer, Holly Lee, knows why on earth the Department of Education needs a weapons arsenal. Maybe for the Department of Education SWAT team.
The answer, of course, is to ensure that students remain illiterate. The Dept of Ed reports that about 70% of 4th and 8th graders can’t read proficiently.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010458.pdf
Orwell’s…um, I mean the Dept of Ed’s long-range plan is succeeding! Once everybody is illiterate, total control will be possible. And for those outliers who still try to think…well, there’s those guns that need to be used to justify their purchase.
So long as weapons are obtained solely for on site defensive purposes, I see no reason to question the purchase. As any small business person can attest, there are plenty of dangerous people out there. Keeping a gun under the counter or within close reach makes perfect sense.
I don’t think the SBA will be “keeping a gun under the counter.”
Did congress give these agencies and Departments the authority to arm themselves and start their own militias? Or did they write a regulation giving it to themselves? Where is the SPLC? And Dave if you’re reading this. You. Are. Insane.
Government bureaucracies buy guns to use them to further their goal of growing their bureaucracy, not keep them under counters. This same reasoning is why governments want a disarmed populace. Disparity of force is always the goal for common thugs and politicians (redundancy of terms?).
And as a professionally trained member of the armed forces, I cannot be armed at my place of work despite the documented threats, internal and external to my worksite. It’s a shame I have to go to a war zone to exercise my OWN 2nd ammendment rights.
Having some armed guards to defend gov installations is one thing. That always exhisted for years, and is probebly not the cause of this recent fed gun increase. But when each fed agency insists on having their own heavily armed enforcement teams, with dept of education SWAT teams for God sakes, things have gone completely crazy. Any fed agency that needs armed law enforcers, ahould get a temp detail from the FBI or fed marshals, who have decades of experience in exercising at least some degree of restraint, Having their own armed enforcement teams just encourages bullying and power madness among fed agencies.
Seriously, “Dave?”
They ain’t for under the counter, heck, a person goes to jail if caught carrying a gun into a Federal Building.
Years ago I used to wonder what those “Interior Ministry troops” were, that you read about in reports from the USSR. Back then there wasn’t a Wikipedia to look it up in. Now you don’t need to look it up.
If these weapons are for building security and defense, then well and good. However after seeing the ridiculous swat nazi invasion of a private home NOT belonging to an offender by the so-called Dept. of Education, I am adamantly against this. The constant escalation of violence by government agencies against civilians is spinning out of control. The young Marine veteran gunned down in his own home by an incompetent bunch of cowboy cops is another example of the old addage – if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Enough already!
Federal courthouses already have armed security, staffed from the U.S. Marshals Service. Other federal buildings that need armed security get it, I would imagine, under contract managed by the GSA.
It’s hard for me to imagine the local USDA ag extension office needing an arms locker so its own staff can defend the building.
I remember my days in Dr. Iredell’s PoliSci class where he noted that most governments are kept in power by the fact that they hold a virtual monopoly on the means of violence in their society. Their “legitimacy” stemmed from the at least tacit compliance of those being governed which goes back to the whole weapons angle.
Do you reckon the bloated, unresponsive, increasingly tyrannical, and unelected federal government bureaucracy is having doubts as to its Constitutional legitimacy? I think the voters certainly are.
To put a fine edge on it, the SWAT raid was conducted by the US inspector general’s office. I have yet to understand what DoEd needs shot guns for.
Why does the the US inspector general’s office need a SWAT team, then?
All federal agencies have an OIG’s (Office of the Inspector General) office. They’re mostly paper-pushers investigating “fraud, waste, and abuse” within the federal government. And since they are sworn federal law enforcement, they are armed. It’s nothing new. Generally OIG offices are good things, as they are supposed to remain neutral from their respective agencies and keep their agencies in line. However, Obama has bucked the system and fired OIG’s who don’t support him, which is VERY dangerous.
Which begs the question as to WHY are they considered law-enforcement. Certainly, they could have set it up differently. And why do the places they investigate take care of arming them? Why is that in their budget?
Basically, the justification for these purchases is that the government set up the IG system wrong in the first place. Big government thinking.
Since when is the IG a law enforcement activity. THey essentially audit their various departments to make sure that civil servants are doing things according to Hoyle. If they run across anything that looks like illegal it gets turned over to the FBI or, if it’s in the military, over to the CID people.
Anyone who doesn’t believe America has become a police state is fooling themselves. America is supposed to be a place where the government doesn’t maintain teams of paramilitary thugs to intimidate the people.
There is never any justification for the violent bullying that is SWAT’s trademark.
I seem to remember an idea floated in 2008 about an internal security force separate from the military. It widely scoffed at as 1: illegal, 2: rhetorical and 3: too nazi-like. The bloggers called it the brownshirt movement. I guess this is the SWAT-shirt alternative.
That idea was floated by Obama himself in a much-ignored and very creepy speech.
Preparing for Carvill’s “civil unrest”?
While I understand the worry that federal agencies are arming their people, I think a little perspective is in hand here. There are perhaps 20 or 30 Education OIG Agents nation-wide. EPA-OIG has about 20 or so. Energy about the same. And it’s the same throughout the whole IG community. I haven’t seen any recent numbers but the total number of Agents in the OIGs and some of the other criminal divisions of traditionally non-law enforcement agencies totals about 2,000.
Hardly enough to take over the United States.
Also, most OIGs do have shotguns assigned to their offices. However, they are not normally carried by agents, and are only issued when the circumstances warrant – say a search warrant or arrest. I’m not aware of any OIG having a SWAT team, although I do know that HUD OIG did at one time work a lot of drug cases in federal housing developments with the DEA and local law enforcement. To my knowledge that program was eliminated though.
So assuming the 2000 number is still solid that means there are less than 40 OIG agents in every state, and since most of them tend to be in only a few offices in bigger cities (the travel to do cases in other states) most states probably don’t have any working there.
OIG Agents are their to help combat fraud, waste and abuse. They are trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Academy. And the fact is they run criminal cases on crimes that the FBI won’t touch due to their own priorities. So either you want these crimes investigated or you don’t, but if you do, then you need them doing it cause no one else is going to.
To sum-up, if you want to worry about something involving the government worry about over-spending or high taxes or us needing to get our butts out of Afghanistan. Cause worrying about OIG agents being armed and taking over the USA is pretty damn silly.
You brought up some idiotic strawmen, and ignored the real problem. Its not about these armed agency groups taking over the country, or even about wasting gov money on unecessary armed capability (although they clearly are). And you say the FBI refuses to do the investigation. You think that might be because that particular investigation was stupid, and not worth an investigation, and especially not worth a heavily armed team?
Its about these agencies using these armed teams in over the top raids, to bully citizens for what should be minor offenses, like that idiotic SWAT raid by the dept of education. These heavily armed agency enforcement teams are an invitation to bullying of citizens and abuse of power, and should all be abolished. If a fed agency needs armed muscle, let them get a temp detail from the FBI, fed marshals, or local law enforcement, where they have decades of experience in exercising at least some reasonable degree of restraint, and respecting citizens rights, and aren’t under the direct command of some power mad petty burocrat at the OSHA, EPA, Dept of Ed, or Railroad retirement, and wont waste their time in a BS burocratic idea of what deserves investigation.
Richard,
Did you even read my post? First, the OIGs don’t have SWAT teams. They are normally armed with a handgun. Shotguns are a rarity. The initial reports about an “Education SWAT team” were corrected. It was a few agents with identifying jackets and one local officer for support.
And those cases you seem to think are not worth investigating cost the tax payers billions a year. OIG’s were established by congress to work cases – both internal and external – that the FBI simply does not have the time and the specific expertise to touch. It’s not that they aren’t important.
Whitehall,
While OIGs are subject to bureaucrats just like the FBI is subject to them, they work with the DOJ on every case. AUSAs are assigned, judges issue warrants and subpoenas, etc. These agents do not work in a vacuum.
And btw, these agencies have been around for more than 30 years, armed all the time. This isn’t some new trend.
The problem isn’t just a few OIG agents.
The problem is that HUNDREDS of federal agencies have been armed since the 1990s.
That’s a lot of people. And they all believe THEY ARE the law.
I agree, Mariner, but I just don’t think the OIGs are an issue. The gigantic Homeland Security Department is the worry to me. And it’s not even the agents that worry me about them. It’s the regulations of that agency and others.
While TRO makes some logical arguments and contributes to the debate, I’m not persuaded of the need for armed Dept of Education etc agents. Site defensive security can and should be provided by GSA or federal Marshals.
Internal investigations will be largely white collar crime and green eye shades for their accountants are the more important tools than shotguns. If and when violent criminals are expected, they can go to court and get proper authorization. If the Justice Department (FBI) won’t support criminal investigations and apprehensions under legally issued arrest warrants, then Justice needs to be “motivated.”
The damager appears to be the threat of offensive force against the citizenry without our legal protections and at the whim of bureaucrats without law enforcement portfolio. If those portfolios have proliferated beyond limited and classic legal enforcement institutions and their checks and balances, then they need to be pared and reduced, if not eliminated.
Now retired, I spent 22 years as a federal LEO, much of it as a firearms instructor. Historically, there’s not much logic in firearms policies, which have swung wildly from irresponsible stagnation to irresponsible proliferation, with a fair amount of CYA and emotion in the mix. Too many Americans are virtual children, including “managers” at all levels.
What we need are grownups at all levels with some understanding of what government’s role ought to be and judgement. I was always more comfortable with seasoned people with military backgrounds, both on the range and on the street. Even in those days we had people at all levels who should NEVER have been armed. I suspect that is probably more so nowadays.
Heck, I’d probably be fired nowadays just for having opinions.
Richard40, re: “Its about these agencies using these armed teams in over the top raids, to bully citizens for what should be minor offenses, like that idiotic SWAT raid by the dept of education. These heavily armed agency enforcement teams are an invitation to bullying of citizens and abuse of power, and should all be abolished.” Very well-stated, sir. The government is praidly arming itself, even in areas of the public sector that have nothing to do with traditional law enforcement or paramilitary operations. There is absolutely no basis for allowing an agency like the DOE to have SWAT teams or similar. What possible legitimate reason can an office of railroad retirement have for needing armed officers, let alone special operations law enforcement personnel? We have become a police state, folks; these actions closely parallel what previous fascist and totalitarian governments have done in the past. Equally alarming is the fact that the typical police officer is so militarized. The typical LE officer nowadays looks and acts more like a soldier than a peace officer, which ought to concern every American. Their functions are very different; police ought not to be soldiers, and cannot be permitted to think of themselves that way. Want to be a soldier? Then join the military. LE agencies have bought into the cult of secret agents and commandos; everybody wants their own team of ninjas now. The recent shooting to death (more than 60 shots) of a USMC Iraq War veteran by a special tactics team of an Arizona Sheriff’s Dept., shows the degree to which this has gotten out of hand. The alleged suspect didn’t even fire upon the sheriff’s team. And whatever happened to non-lethal methods, such as tear gas or bean bags? For that matter, why didn’t they just cordon off the house and let cooler heads prevail. They probably could have talked the situation down and de-escalated… but they had to use their toys instead. A blatant miscarriage of justice, and misapplication of lethal force. Head should roll for this, but I am sure they won’t… this is the “new normal” in America. Why is government arming itself so quickly and so heavily? The answer is simple; they – the folks in power and desperate to hang onto it – know that the people are angry with them, and regard them as increasingly illegitimate to lead them, and they aren’t going to go quietly. Cooler heads had better prevail or this isn’t going to end well. Here’s a start: restore the republic, and adhere to the constitution for a change. That’s asking alot of our govt., since many in its employ have not even read that document, let alone understand it at an advanced level.
just examined the thread. great job.