Disarm Forest Service Rangers and BLM officials?

utbagpiper · Mar 8, 2016

US Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT-R) is proposing a bill to remove arrest powers and firearms from Forest Service Rangers and BLM officials.

Utah TV station KSL is carrying a report on this

Some fair use excerpts:

"These agents are more Rambo and less Andy Griffith than I would like," he told the Deseret News Tuesday.

Chafftez, [would instead] set up a system of block grants to states with a lot of federal lands within their borders to augment local law enforcement response.

"Let's not kid ourselves. The blood pressure is running high, especially in southern Utah, and I don't want anyone to get killed," Chaffetz said, adding his bill has the endorsement of his Utah colleagues in the House.

Chaffetz said he also wants to issue subpoenas to the "out of control" federal agencies to learn why they want to purchase submachine guns. He said he has had repeated meetings and sent letters to the BLM's national director, Neil Kornze, with no satisfactory response to his questions.

...

In 2014, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, announced efforts to defund law enforcement functions of agencies that include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Education.

...

Both Chaffetz and Stewart say potentially volatile situations that merit law enforcement response are best left to the area's local sheriff's offices or police who are familiar with the topography and residents. If tensions continue to escalate — such as the armed ranchers' occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon earlier this year — the FBI should be called in.

Charles

color of law · Mar 8, 2016

No federal agency (other than military) should be allowed to possess any firearm that the general population is not permitted to poses. No federal agency can justify owning any superior firepower, except maybe border patrol. And then only on the border, not 100 miles inland.

Just say'n....

Jeff Hayes · Mar 8, 2016

color of law said:
No federal agency (other than military) should be allowed to possess any firearm that the general population is not permitted to poses. No federal agency can justify owning any superior firepower, except maybe border patrol. And then only on the border, not 100 miles inland.

Just say'n....

spot on +100

Jeff Hayes · Mar 8, 2016

utbagpiper said:
US Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT-R) is proposing a bill to remove arrest powers and firearms from Forest Service Rangers and BLM officials.

Utah TV station KSL is carrying a report on this

Some fair use excerpts:

"These agents are more Rambo and less Andy Griffith than I would like," he told the Deseret News Tuesday.

Chafftez, [would instead] set up a system of block grants to states with a lot of federal lands within their borders to augment local law enforcement response.

"Let's not kid ourselves. The blood pressure is running high, especially in southern Utah, and I don't want anyone to get killed," Chaffetz said, adding his bill has the endorsement of his Utah colleagues in the House.

Chaffetz said he also wants to issue subpoenas to the "out of control" federal agencies to learn why they want to purchase submachine guns. He said he has had repeated meetings and sent letters to the BLM's national director, Neil Kornze, with no satisfactory response to his questions.

...

In 2014, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, announced efforts to defund law enforcement functions of agencies that include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Education.

...

Both Chaffetz and Stewart say potentially volatile situations that merit law enforcement response are best left to the area's local sheriff's offices or police who are familiar with the topography and residents. If tensions continue to escalate — such as the armed ranchers' occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon earlier this year — the FBI should be called in.

Charles

Arrest powers ended yes, everyone should be able to keep and bear arms including Forest Service employees and BLM officials, the do not lose their rights because they work for a particular agency

MAC702 · Mar 8, 2016

Jeff Hayes said:
Arrest powers ended yes, everyone should be able to keep and bear arms including Forest Service employees and BLM officials, the do not lose their rights because they work for a particular agency

Pretty much my thoughts, actually, pretty dead on.

They don't need to be LEO's, but they still get to carry guns, same as everyone else, except they only get to use them for the same reasons I'd get to use one.

solus · Mar 9, 2016

http://tpwd.texas.gov/warden/connect/special_teams

take a look at texas' game warden 'teams'...with an armada.

they are more elite than the rangers.

ipse

edited...yes color for law you are absolutely correct in that statement.

Freedom1Man · Mar 9, 2016

color of law said:
No federal agency should be allowed to possess any firearm that the general population is not permitted to poses.

This is now the correct statement.

The military should not be able to own anything that the general population is barred from from owning. The military should be barred from owning many things that the general population should be able to own.

You've got your wires crossed

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

utbagpiper · Mar 9, 2016

Freedom1Man said:
The military should not be able to own anything that the general population is barred from from owning. The military should be barred from owning many things that the general population should be able to own.

Can we please avoid hijacking this thread with another round of who should be able to own nukes and other WMDs?

The thread is about the arrest powers and carrying of guns by Forest Service Rangers and BLM agents. Similar legislation has been previously introduced by another Utah representative to disarm and remove LEO powers from the Department of Education, EPA, etc.

There is plenty worthy of discussion within the topic of the thread of the proper limits of arrest powers and carrying arms (in an official capacity) of various federal employees and the accumulation of full auto machine guns among federal agencies. Please, not another round of WMDs and nukes.

Charles

utbagpiper · Mar 9, 2016

Jeff Hayes said:
Arrest powers ended yes, everyone should be able to keep and bear arms including Forest Service employees and BLM officials, the do not lose their rights because they work for a particular agency

MAC702 said:
Pretty much my thoughts, actually, pretty dead on.

They don't need to be LEO's, but they still get to carry guns, same as everyone else, except they only get to use them for the same reasons I'd get to use one.

I think this is correct with one minor correction. Such government employees working in Western States should be permitted to carry personal firearms for self defense under exactly the same terms and conditions as federal employees working in other parts of the nation.

Of course, I think most federal employees (excepting federal prison guards and similar) should be permitted to carry personal arms for self-defense just as most Utah State employees are allowed to do (and have been for about a decade now, with nary a problem reported).

I just don't think federal employees who have grown used to having arrest powers and working in Western States upon vast tracts of public land, should be given special consideration compared to say a park ranger working at Washington Monument in DC or at Faunal Hall in Boston. And I don't think any US Citizen visiting such locations should have any less legal ability to carry personal arms for self defense than do federal employees.

Charles

utbagpiper · Mar 9, 2016

solus said:
take a look at texas' game warden 'teams'...

How Texans choose to handle their own LEOs is an issue for Texans, and not relevant to this thread which is dealing with federal employees exercising police powers over vast areas inside Western States.

solus · Mar 9, 2016

utbagpiper said:
Can we please avoid hijacking this thread....snipp?

The thread is about the arrest powers and carrying of guns by Forest Service Rangers and BLM agents. Similar legislation has been previously introduced by another Utah representative to disarm and remove LEO powers from the Department of Education, EPA, etc.

There is plenty worthy of discussion within the topic of the thread of the proper limits of arrest powers and carrying arms (in an official capacity) of various federal employees.... snipp.

Charles

utbagpiper said:
snipp.

Of course, I think... just as most Utah State employees ....

I just don't think ....snipp ...any US Citizen ....snipp.

Charles

utbagpiper said:
How Texans choose to handle their own LEOs is an issue for Texans, and not relevant to this thread which is dealing with federal employees exercising police powers over vast areas inside Western States.

hummm, mate, how do you mean "not relevant" ...like the your mention of 1) another UTAH representative for Dept of Ed & EPA; 2) UTAH state employees; 3) any US citizen...

ok, mate you win, you're correct those topics aren't relevant...so why did you post irrelevant references??

never mind, i know why...

ipse

JoeSparky · Mar 10, 2016

Jeff Hayes said:
Arrest powers ended yes, everyone should be able to keep and bear arms including Forest Service employees and BLM officials, the do not lose their rights because they work for a particular agency

Nor do they automatically "get" to carry due to a specific employment!

MAC702 · Mar 10, 2016

JoeSparky said:
Nor do they automatically "get" to carry due to a specific employment!

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking and only half-articulated. Their gun shouldn't be a 'part of the uniform.' Just a tool they get to carry by virtue of being a relatively free American, like us.

OC for ME · Mar 10, 2016

Do ACOE get to carry a government gat? They might, I don't know. Never seen one though.

Heck BATF&E, DEA and other such derivative fed agencies should be stripped of their arrest powers and guns to be relegated to state/county/local advisory positions. Provide intelligence and other such mundane tasks. The locals are gunned up enough, we don't need feds screwing over our local yokels.

US Marshal Service and G-Men (FBI and SS) only to have guns.

Jeff Hayes · Mar 10, 2016

JoeSparky said:
Nor do they automatically "get" to carry due to a specific employment!

Exactly

since9 · Mar 11, 2016

Freedom1Man said:
The military should not be able to own anything that the general population is barred from from owning. The military should be barred from owning many things that the general population should be able to own.

That's a great way to render our military exceptionally ineffective, Freedom1Man. What's next? Sending our enemies engraved invitations to commit invasion?

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Personally, I have no problem with armed U.S. Forest Rangers. I've known a few. Met a few others, and run in to half a dozen in the woods over the years while we were both carrying. All have been perfect gentlemen.

As for the BLM, however, they were created -- un-Constitutionally -- to fill a power void that never should have existed in the first place. Commensurate with Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment, the feds are not authorized to own any land other than the specified "District (not exceeding ten Miles square)" and "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." Even then, the feds can only purchase such rather restricted lands "by the Consent of the Legislature of the State" in which that land might be. Federal ownership of vast swaths of land throughout the mid-West and West is patently un-Constitutional.

lockman · Mar 11, 2016

Carry fine. No deprivation of self-defense, but not government powers of arrest.

OC for ME · Mar 11, 2016

Nightmare said:
Well said!

While I was rock climbing in Yosemite in the Sixties, the NPS rangers visiting our Camp 4 would complain of having drawn the short straw and having to wear THE gun.

How true. Did a wee bit of hunting back in SC this past November. After taking a doe I returned to my truck to get my 4-wheeler and a game warden was waiting next to my truck. Good morning, I said, mornin he said. Been huntin? Yepper, I said...can ya give me a hand unloading my 4-wheeler? Sure? What? Hold my shotgun while I drop the ramps on the trailer...he declined and dropped the ramps.

Had a good conversation, shared some lukewarm coffee and a honey bun. When I got back with the doe he was still waiting, check my doe tag and went about his business. Nice fella.

color of law · Mar 11, 2016

In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The government, then, of the United States, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually granted, must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication. On the other hand, this instrument, like every other grant, is to have a reasonable construction, according to the import of its terms; and where a power is expressly given in general terms, it is not to be restrained to particular cases, unless that construction grow out of the context expressly, or by necessary implication. The words are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and not in a sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 US 304 - Supreme Court 1816

I have never found in the constitution where the Federal government has any police power. And you won't because federal regulation arises not under a police power, but under the authority to regulate interstate commerce. And the feds try to justify their actions under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. Remember, the USSC allows the feds to violate the constitution.

I'm just say'n....

Freedom1Man · Mar 11, 2016

since9 said:
That's a great way to render our military exceptionally ineffective, Freedom1Man. What's next? Sending our enemies engraved invitations to commit invasion?

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Personally, I have no problem with armed U.S. Forest Rangers. I've known a few. Met a few others, and run in to half a dozen in the woods over the years while we were both carrying. All have been perfect gentlemen.

As for the BLM, however, they were created -- un-Constitutionally -- to fill a power void that never should have existed in the first place. Commensurate with Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment, the feds are not authorized to own any land other than the specified "District (not exceeding ten Miles square)" and "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." Even then, the feds can only purchase such rather restricted lands "by the Consent of the Legislature of the State" in which that land might be. Federal ownership of vast swaths of land throughout the mid-West and West is patently un-Constitutional.

Oh, so where did you get the power to grant others powers you do not first have?

We the people are supposed to be better armed that any army that the government could call forth.

We are not to even have a standing army in the first place. So, how would my demand be so bad? How would having our citizens better armed that our military be inviting foreign invasion?
Or are you the type that believes that you can trust the government to take care of you?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Disarm Forest Service Rangers and BLM officials?

Banned

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Centurion

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

State Researcher

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member