To prohibit certain Federal agencies from using or purchasing certain firearms, and for other purposes. More:

I support this bill I oppose this bill see voting resultssaving...
2 opinions, 0 replies
Add your opinion:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
1 vote
Sep 28, 2015

The text of this bill is very conservative, and well-done. It affects non-military federal organizations – meaning, this does not affect state police. Such federal agencies must clearly define the operational metrics regarding the use of military equipment. They are not barred from owning this equipment, nor forming 'SWAT'-like teams. This bill increases the oversight into how much money goes into these kinds of units — which may be used to quetion if such spending is appropriate.

By striking §6(e) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, it does seem that related federal agencies are barred from using the arms and equipment that they own. Such is the effect of Sec. 3 of the bill. Sec 2 mentions this, but the language is short.

My assessment of this bill:
Sec. 3 and the restrictive clause of Sec. 2 are placed to 'act as a duck'. They will be argued by the opposition, and removed as a compromise — without losing the language necessary for oversight. Also, to perform this oversight, more government employees will need to be hired, creating more jobs.

0 votes
Sep 28, 2015

We don't need a police state in addition to the nanny state we already seem to have.

Besides, there's pretty much a law against the military (or what could be the military except for a name) doing military things within the borders of this country.

Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
Invite your friend via email:
Share it: