Strip BLM & Forest Service of LEO authority?

[Marnoot]

Representative from UT to introduce a bill next week that would do just that:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38810837&nid=148&title=rep-chaffetz-take-guns-away-from-blm-forest-service-agents

He did mention in a radio interview I caught part of that the bill would allow them to keep defensive sidearms, but would strip their law enforcement authority and heavier weaponry. I've heard plenty about the issues locals run into with the BLM. What sort of issues has the Forest Service been causing? It's unclear to me whether the intention would be that local Sheriff departments would take over fish & game enforcement, I guess they'd have to.

I don't expect this bill will go anywhere, but it's an interesting one.

[Ben]

A CA Sheriff did something similar a couple of years ago. Sorry, with a quick and dirty search, I only have the fringe website, but the story did make the mainstream at the time. It was also discussed in depth at Calguns, and though this story mentions "multiple rangers", on Calguns they named names and it was mostly one ranger that was going way over what the law allowed, and specifically singling out gunowners.

Here in the West, this kind of thing is becoming a bigger issue because Forest Service, BLM, NPS, etc. are all using the law to force particular agendas, whether it's anti-gun, anti-fishing, anti-hunting, anti-ATVing, anti-horseback riding, anti-mountain biking... The list goes on.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/why-did-this-california-sheriff-strip-the-us-forest-service-of-their-authority/

[AJ Dual]

IMO, except for primary Law enforcement Federal agencies, and the FFDO pilots, I think all other agencies with arrest powers should be stripped of it, and it all gets put under the U.S. Marshals and when they need to arrest someone, serve a warrant or whatever, they can call the Marshals and have some armed officers sent along.

There's zero reason for the IRS or Dept, of Education etc. to have armed officers who've gone through FLETC.

Some BLM goon wants to "arrest" some ATV'ers or target shooters for something, and they're long gone by the time he radios for some U.S. Marshals to come make the collar?

Boo hoo.

[brimic]

IMO, except for primary Law enforcement Federal agencies, and the FFDO pilots, I think all other agencies with arrest powers should be stripped of it, and it all gets put under the U.S. Marshals and when they need to arrest someone, serve a warrant or whatever, they can call the Marshals and have some armed officers sent along.

There's zero reason for the IRS or Dept, of Education etc. to have armed officers who've gone through FLETC.

Some BLM goon wants to "arrest" some ATV'ers or target shooters for something, and they're long gone by the time he radios for some U.S. Marshals to come make the collar?

Boo hoo.

That.
There are way too many alphabet agencies with police powers that shouldn't have them. Narrow it down to a very small and limited handful. As far as bureaucrats carrying sidearms- I'm ok with that so long as they follow all applicable state and federal laws- just like everyone else. If this makes it too dangerous for bureaucrats from the batfe to open criminal enterprises to try to entrap people, tough noogies http://m.jsonline.com/news/crime/atf-agents-in-botched-milwaukee-case-get-slap-on-wrist-b99321207z1-269280831.html

[Ben]

IMO, except for primary Law enforcement Federal agencies, and the FFDO pilots, I think all other agencies with arrest powers should be stripped of it, and it all gets put under the U.S. Marshals and when they need to arrest someone, serve a warrant or whatever, they can call the Marshals and have some armed officers sent along.

There's zero reason for the IRS or Dept, of Education etc. to have armed officers who've gone through FLETC.

Some BLM goon wants to "arrest" some ATV'ers or target shooters for something, and they're long gone by the time he radios for some U.S. Marshals to come make the collar?

Boo hoo.

I'd be happy with that.

Alternately, I'd also be happy if they completely overhauled fine structures for most of these agencies. Too many times, LE "overreach" is encouraged for fine collection for the agency. Some of these agencies have up to $100,000/day or per incident fines. It's like a forest full of speed traps out there. If you took away the monetary incentive that pads budgets, you'd likely see less, and less forceful LE presence. Though those with political agendas, like the ranger mentioned in my post above, would still be a pain, but at least that's an individual(s) versus an agency-wide agenda.

[Marnoot]

Yep. Anyone have any idea what armed Department of Education folk claim to be needed for? I can't even fathom a reason.

The IRS special agents are literally armed accountants that are also sworn LEOs. Never understood that one. Have a forensic accountant find the evidence, defensive sidearm fine (but then I'm fine with that for everyone), but when it comes time to serve warrants and arrest people? Bring in an FBI agent or a federal marshal.

[AJ Dual]

Yep. Anyone have any idea what armed Department of Education folk claim to be needed for? I can't even fathom a reason.

The IRS special agents are literally armed accountants that are also sworn LEOs. Never understood that one. Have a forensic accountant find the evidence, defensive sidearm fine (but then I'm fine with that for everyone), but when it comes time to serve warrants and arrest people? Bring in an FBI agent or a federal marshal.

Investigating fraud with DOE funds or materials. I dunno, some school administrator who got a bunch of money from the DOE to buy books, but instead embezzled it, and he decides to shoot when they come serve him a warrant. Similar reasoning for the armed EPA investigators.  Someone spills oil in a river, and decides to shoot their way out of paying for a superfund site or whatever.

[MechAg94]

Investigating fraud with DOE funds or materials. I dunno, some school administrator who got a bunch of money from the DOE to buy books, but instead embezzled it, and he decides to shoot when they come serve him a warrant. Similar reasoning for the armed EPA investigators.  Someone spills oil in a river, and decides to shoot their way out of paying for a superfund site or whatever.

You are talking about court directed fines and such.  The EPA doesn't come in and force you to clean up a spill at gun point.  They make a finding and take you to court.  You either agree to settle and comply with their requirements or go to court.

I know if we were to refuse to let the EPA on the site, they will return with law enforcement and shut down all operations while they get things settled.  

(but I guess you knew all that.....)

[MechAg94]

I'd be happy with that.

Alternately, I'd also be happy if they completely overhauled fine structures for most of these agencies. Too many times, LE "overreach" is encouraged for fine collection for the agency. Some of these agencies have up to $100,000/day or per incident fines. It's like a forest full of speed traps out there. If you took away the monetary incentive that pads budgets, you'd likely see less, and less forceful LE presence. Though those with political agendas, like the ranger mentioned in my post above, would still be a pain, but at least that's an individual(s) versus an agency-wide agenda.

Not sure about other states, but that is partly how Texas dealt with local counties/cities.  They forced them to send fine revenue to the state general fund rather than keeping it locally.  Took away with the incentive to hit people with certain fines. 

A reserve deputy I once knew said a local judge once told them not to do DUI arrests, but just cite them for public intoxication or something like that as that fine would go to the local budget. 

[brimic]

You are talking about court directed fines and such.  The EPA doesn't come in and force you to clean up a spill at gun point.  They make a finding and take you to court.  You either agree to settle and comply with their requirements or go to court.

I know if we were to refuse to let the EPA on the site, they will return with law enforcement and shut down all operations while they get things settled.  

(but I guess you knew all that.....)

Then they have no reasons whatsoever to carry guns.

[RevDisk]

Not sure about other states, but that is partly how Texas dealt with local counties/cities.  They forced them to send fine revenue to the state general fund rather than keeping it locally.  Took away with the incentive to hit people with certain fines. 

A reserve deputy I once knew said a local judge once told them not to do DUI arrests, but just cite them for public intoxication or something like that as that fine would go to the local budget. 

DUI can destroy your life. Granted, I'm not for letting seriously intoxicated people off the hook but some places are...  er, 'generous' in what constitutes a DUI. Buddy of mine got a DUI for operating a wheelchair under the influence. According to the police theory, that meant he was unable to have any alcoholic beverage while operating a wheelchair. Lawyer sorted it out, but it did cost him a couple hundred.

[KD5NRH]

DUI can destroy your life. Granted, I'm not for letting seriously intoxicated people off the hook but some places are...  er, 'generous' in what constitutes a DUI. Buddy of mine got a DUI for operating a wheelchair under the influence. According to the police theory, that meant he was unable to have any alcoholic beverage while operating a wheelchair. Lawyer sorted it out, but it did cost him a couple hundred.

Had a friend who got picked up for DUI because he was working on his truck in his own garage while drinking a few beers on a Friday night.  Didn't even have the driveshaft reconnected yet, but the cop got him because he started the engine a few times during the process of getting everything put back together.  Prosecutor told the cop no way he'd touch a DUI on a guy not only on his own property, but inside his attached garage, but that was Monday morning after he'd spent a couple nights in jail, missed Saturday with his family, etc.  Took a fight to get the truck out of impound too.

[Hawkmoon]

Had a friend who got picked up for DUI because he was working on his truck in his own garage while drinking a few beers on a Friday night.  Didn't even have the driveshaft reconnected yet, but the cop got him because he started the engine a few times during the process of getting everything put back together.  Prosecutor told the cop no way he'd touch a DUI on a guy not only on his own property, but inside his attached garage, but that was Monday morning after he'd spent a couple nights in jail, missed Saturday with his family, etc.  Took a fight to get the truck out of impound too.

And cops whine about why they have to have an "us vs. them" mentality. Cps are like lawyers ... 98 percent of them give the rest a bad name.

[dogmush]

Had a friend who got picked up for DUI because he was working on his truck in his own garage while drinking a few beers on a Friday night.  Didn't even have the driveshaft reconnected yet, but the cop got him because he started the engine a few times during the process of getting everything put back together.  Prosecutor told the cop no way he'd touch a DUI on a guy not only on his own property, but inside his attached garage, but that was Monday morning after he'd spent a couple nights in jail, missed Saturday with his family, etc.  Took a fight to get the truck out of impound too.

Shakes head.  

A similar, but appropriate, thing happened to me.  I routinely work on my vehicles in the driveway into the evening, while having a beer.  Apparently someone called into the sheriff that I was messing with my truck with an open beer.  Deputy swung by, introduced himself, explained the situation (Sighting of guy in truck with beer) and asked what I was up to.  I explained I was changing the oil, and troubleshooting an electric fan issue.  He asked if I was going anywhere or planning a test drive, I said no, just letting it idle till the fan came on.  Then we BS'd about homebrews and trucks until it overheated and dumped coolant on the driveway.  (Fan issue was NOT solved). Done deal.

Sometimes law enforcement does the right thing.  Worth remembering.


ETA:  On the OP, *expletive deleted*ck 'em.  We have plenty of Law Enforcement agents.  BLM, DOE, IRS, EPA, OSHA and the rest don't need guns and tac teams.  Let them call in the professionals if they need firepower.  Hell at this point I could probably be convinced to support disarming the ATF and DEA until they learn not to be such asshats.

[charby]

For the USFS, need to go back and amend the Transfer Act of 1905.
Excerpt from said act:

All persons employed in the forest reserve and national park service of the United States shall have authority to make arrests for the violation of the laws and regulations relating to the forest reserves and national parks, and any person so arrested shall be taken before the nearest United States Commissioner (magistrate), within whose jurisdiction the forest or national park is located, for trial; and upon sworn information by any competent person any United States Commissioner (magistrate) in the proper jurisdiction shall issue process for the arrest of any person charged with the violation of said laws and regulations; but nothing herein contained shall be construed as preventing the arrest by any officer of the United States, without process, of any person taken in the act of violating said laws and regulations.

Not sure about BLM via Department of the Interior.

[RoadKingLarry]

Had a friend who got picked up for DUI because he was working on his truck in his own garage while drinking a few beers on a Friday night.  Didn't even have the driveshaft reconnected yet, but the cop got him because he started the engine a few times during the process of getting everything put back together.  Prosecutor told the cop no way he'd touch a DUI on a guy not only on his own property, but inside his attached garage, but that was Monday morning after he'd spent a couple nights in jail, missed Saturday with his family, etc.  Took a fight to get the truck out of impound too.

Had that happened to me I would have been out of a job right then and there. Doesn't matter if no charges were ever filed or were dropped. In my job if we get a DUI/DWI ticket you are terminated.
I would not be "satisfied" with being "let go" and getting my vehicle back.

[K Frame]

You're all wrong.

Of course these people need full gov LE powers.

The Federal Refuse and Recycling police NEED to be able to arrest neer do wells who put their aluminum cans in with their regular trash. Because, as we all know...

[Firethorn]

Had a friend who got picked up for DUI because he was working on his truck in his own garage while drinking a few beers on a Friday night.

With the driveshaft not connected, I'd say that it's a verified disabled vehicle.  From my amateur reading of DUI law, it has been determined that you cannot convict a person of DUI for a vehicle that is affirmatively in a state where it can't move under it's own power.  I won't guarantee that it will hold true for any state.

One case involved a vehicle that was up on blocks - no wheels were attached.  Another involved a guy in a vehicle at a convenience store, who, having discovered his vehicle wasn't starting anytime soon, decided to crack open his beer while waiting for the tow truck.  The cops were nice enough, during the arrest, to document that nope, they couldn't get the truck started either.

Not something I'd want to prosecute either.  Case law is against them.

[Brad Johnson]

Had that happened to me I would have been out of a job right then and there. Doesn't matter if no charges were ever filed or were dropped. In my job if we get a DUI/DWI ticket you are terminated.
I would not be "satisfied" with being "let go" and getting my vehicle back.

If it'd happened to me I'd be on the line with one of the most bottom of bottom-feeders in town. Drivng Under The Influence has one critical and defining element... driving. Stationary in your own driveway does not, under any form of legal boundary I know, meet that criteria. From then on a day at work would be walking out the mailbox for my check.

Brad

[dogmush]

If it'd happened to me I'd be on the line with one of the most bottom of bottom-feeders in town. Drivng Under The Influence has one critical and defining element... driving. Stationary in your own driveway does not, under any form of legal boundary I know, meet that criteria. From then on a day at work would be walking out the mailbox for my check.

Brad

That is not a true statement.  In many (I would even say most) jurisdictions there is no requirement to be driving to be guilty of DUI.  The normal standard is "In control of the vehicle".  So, for example, sitting on the tailgate of a truck that's radio is on, while your DD runs to the bathroom?  DUI.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

That is not a true statement.  In many (I would even say most) jurisdictions there is no requirement to be driving to be guilty of DUI.  The normal standard is "In control of the vehicle".  So, for example, sitting on the tailgate of a truck that's radio is on, while your DD runs to the bathroom?  DUI.

Yup

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Brad Johnson]

That is not a true statement.  In many (I would even say most) jurisdictions there is no requirement to be driving to be guilty of DUI.  The normal standard is "In control of the vehicle".  So, for example, sitting on the tailgate of a truck that's radio is on, while your DD runs to the bathroom?  DUI.

In those jurisdictions is it required the vehicle be on public roadways?

Edit to add... Well whaddaya know, checked Texas law and it reads "... operating a vehicle in a public place" (emphasis mine). Seems court decisions over the years have bastardized it to the piont that anywhere could be considered a "public place" for purposes of prosecution.

Nice. 

Brad

[MikeB]

In those jurisdictions is it required the vehicle be on public roadways?

Edit to add... Well whaddaya know, checked Texas law and it reads "... operating a vehicle in a public place" (emphasis mine). Seems court decisions over the years have bastardized it to the piont that anywhere could be considered a "public place" for purposes of prosecution.

Nice. 

Brad

Well they did need to find a way to prosecute those who figured out they may have had to much to drink and decided to sleep it off in the car. Can't have anyone deciding to be somewhat responsible after making a bad decision don't you know. Might as well lower the BAC too again, gargling mouthwash before driving isn't illegal yet.