Militarization of the ABC agencies continues

[KeithKSR]

USDA advertising for "submachine guns" according to what they have advertised.


The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, located in Washington, DC, pursuant to the authority of FAR Part 13, has a requirement for the commerical acquisition of submachine guns, .40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot burts trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsilbe or folding, magazine – 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation. NO SOLICITATION DOCUMENT EXISTS. All responsible and/or interested sources may submit their company name, point of contact, and telephone. If received timely, shall be considered by the agency for contact to determine weapon suitability.

Why does our government suddenly need weapons in the hands of all these agencies that have not needed such weapons in the past?

[Darrell KSR]

Bizarre and frightening at the same time.

[suncat05]

It does make a reasonable person wonder "why?", doesn't it? If it was just the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, the DEA, and/or the Treasury Dept., I'd certainly have less questions. Even a lesser entity like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I can see the possible need on occasion. But I don't see the need for every single federal alphabet agency to have need of weapons of that type.
We've discussed this here before, several times. We don't all agree on this 100%, but aside from certain agencies that have a law enforcement mission as their predominant focus, and other entities that do have a limited enforcement mission, I really see no need for most other federal agencies to need these kinds of tools, especially when there are sister agencies that can supply the necessary personnel, equipment, and knowledge needed for a law enforcement operation of limited scope. JMHO.

[suncat05]

But the Department of Agriculture? C'mon, not buying that they have a legitimate need for such hardware. Again, JMHO. Yours may differ.

[UKHistory]

The Office of Inspector General, which every cabinet agency has, does have investigative units who have staff that armed.

Personally I think even sidearms for these agencies is ridiculous. Building security is most likely contracted out. Agency secretaries have secret service protection if requested or necessary.

There is no reason for any federal agency other than a law enforcement agency to have its own SWAT team or police force.

Any situation that would require such type of assistance should come from the FBI or state troopers or in the worst possible scenario the national guard.

I want to know how often are these units deployed. Under what circumstances? What type of legal authority do these units operate under? And lastly I want a justification as to why having these units are more cost effective than relying federal, state, or local law enforcement that would have jurisdiction in the area where US citizens have allegedly committed a crime.

[KeithKSR]

IG's are lawyers, not LEOs. Those guys have done a poor job investigating their own agencies, which is their primary focus.

Is the USDA going to use a weapon with two round bursts to crack down on someone selling poorly stamped or inspected beef?

[CitizenBBN]

But the Department of Agriculture? C'mon, not buying that they have a legitimate need for such hardware. Again, JMHO. Yours may differ.

I'll go much farther than a JMHO, it's absurd that such an agency needs full auto class III weapons. That's crazy on multiple levels.

First they simply don't need that kind of firepower. If something rises to the level of needing full auto spray and pray or combat level engagements you really want it to be people from the USDA or Dept. of Education behind the triggers? It's now a MUCH bigger issue than enforcing laws on a poultry rancher isn't it? FBI/State police level stuff, and they can handle it.

the tactics of a full auto engagement are totally against the civilian goals of minimizing ALL casualties and diffusing situations. Full auto military weapons are for KILLING people efficiently, not for civilian law enforcement where you try to just arrest people.

Second, there are MULTIPLE examples of these guns being stolen and misplaced when given out even to LEOs and ATF much less to these quasi-paramilitary wannabes. The military has strict rules about storage and handling of these weapons and they are on isolated bases, far too often these guns are lost out of someone's vehicle or simply gone from inventory. If there are any full auto weapons out there in criminal hands, and there aren't many, they were stolen.

Lastly, this is the absolute wrong mentality even for armed agents. Now they walk in with their full auto penis substitutes and body armor, how is that going to diffuse a situation or serve the public?

If it's risen to the point you have to show up to enforce the law with body armor and full auto weapons it's time to call the police and FBI to enforce it, not some wing of the Social Security Administration.

[KeithKSR]

The only people these weapons can possibly be used against are U.S. citizens.

[suncat05]

The only people these weapons can possibly be used against are U.S. citizens.
That is the one thing many people are concerned about. And especially if you've been watching the timing and the manner of procuring these items. What is being done, and HOW it's being done only makes a reasonable person all that much more suspicious of the need for these weapons and ammunition.

[kingcat]

I would assume the request is tied to 49 U.S.C. 5123(a), subparagraph (2) and/or 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1) and lesser violations in aviation commerce as it relates to the transportation of hazardous materials.
Air transport of tainted foods maybe?

Still it seems the current FAA and CBP could handle the heavy lifting in most cases.

As for seaports, the The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforces USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations at all ports of entry.