Armed EPA raid in Alaska sheds light on 70 fed agencies with armed divisions Read mo

[Arbo]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...cmp=latestnews

The recent uproar over armed EPA agents descending on a tiny Alaska mining town is shedding light on the fact that 40 federal agencies – including nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement -- have armed divisions.

The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

Though most Americans know agents within the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of Prisons carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board employing armed officers might come as a surprise.

If you have been paying attention to government gun and ammo buys and other stories out there, this is no surprise.

And of course most of the agencies that have 'police' do not need them, just more government overstep.

[fj1200]

I had a friend that worked for the FDIC back in the 80's when there were quite a few small banks going under and being taken over and he was telling me that they would usually go in at COB on Fridays and make the changes but that the armed folks would go in to make sure there were no confrontations. I don't recall if the FDIC had it's own security though.

[NightTrain]

The EPA thugs up here have created quite a controversy and behaving like that is going to create bloodshed. Chicken was only one of a few communities that it's happened in, the gang of the EPA wanna-be SWAT cops have descended on other mining communities as well.

I've heard of 3 other incidents like this here in AK on the radio, and after "securing" the area and investigating, they found nothing wrong... just some royally pissed off miners.

[logroller]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...cmp=latestnews



If you have been paying attention to government gun and ammo buys and other stories out there, this is no surprise.

And of course most of the agencies that have 'police' do not need them, just more government overstep.

they need them as much as anyone does; same as military style firearms and high cap mags, pistol grips, etc. if I want to go take soil samples with an ar and body armor, why not?
Of course, that's not how the government sees it, and that's the overstep IMO. Gander:goose.

[revelarts]

they need them as much as anyone does; same as military style firearms and high cap mags, pistol grips, etc. if I want to go take soil samples with an ar and body armor, why not?
Of course, that's not how the government sees it, and that's the overstep IMO. Gander:goose.

When I go into a store and "secure the area" before taking care of my "official business" then it's goose and gander.
when i can arrest some one, then it's goose and gander.
when i can walk onto others peoples property unannounced and uninvited without/or with warrants to make a sales call and tell everyone to do what i say at the point of my gun.

then it's goose and gander.

until then.
it's just goose stepping gov't goons log.

[logroller]

When I go into a store and "secure the area" before taking care of my "official business" then it's goose and gander.
when i can arrest some one, then it's goose and gander.
when i can walk onto others peoples property unannounced and uninvited without/or with warrants to make a sales call and tell everyone to do what i say at the point of my gun.

then it's goose and gander.

until then.
it's just goose stepping gov't goons log.

Pretty sure we're in agreement. In case you missed it, I said 'that's not how govt sees it', meaning we're not treated the same. Fwiw, you can do all those things, its just that some of them may be criminal if not executed properly. For example, you can arrest someone if you have probable cause to believe they've committed a felony. Of course this varies by state and local laws, so there's a burden that you'd be wise to consider before attempting such.

Reasonable suspicion is a lesser burden available to law enforcement but, myself in a suspicious circumstance, I'd be leaving another's property forthwith; cops don't necessarily have that option as its there duty to investigate suspicious circumstances-- Thus the lesser burden is necessary. Do you think that's unlawful?

[DragonStryk72]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...cmp=latestnews



If you have been paying attention to government gun and ammo buys and other stories out there, this is no surprise.

And of course most of the agencies that have 'police' do not need them, just more government overstep.

But are their guns carbon neutral?