Non-military federal agencies’ purchases of guns, ammunition, etc (2016)

https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf

by warsaw • 9 years ago

122 129 9 years ago

openthebooks.com

kodfodrasz2• 9 years ago

I would happily discuss the topic - if I could access the article :(

pmontra• 9 years ago

Click web above, then open in private tab.

andyjohnson0• 9 years ago

Link works ok for me. Chrome 55.0.2883 on Windows.

detaro• 9 years ago

Strange, works here (and I don't think it is supposed to be paywalled or something). Archive.org has a copy, does that work for you? https://web.archive.org/web/20170201035533/https://www.opent...

kodfodrasz2• 9 years ago

it didn't work for me on phone, the popup close button was off-screen, and site was not properly zoomable. On PC i could read the article.

yetihehe• 9 years ago

Hmm, FDA stockpiling weapons... It looks like it fits actions of food corporations in "Daemon" and "Freedom" by Daniel Suarez.

gerbal3• 9 years ago

Most of these agencies have some statutory responsibility to enforce law and investigate crimes under their purview. This includes enforcing court orders and arresting suspects in unknown and potentially dangerous situations. The report actually explains these things all the while sneering at the fact that these agencies need to employ investigative and enforcement personnel as part of their core mission.

Many of these agencies maintain large facilities to serve their core purposes and have to provide security for their facilities.

Little in this report is anywhere as alarming as the reports authors would like to make it out to be. OpenTheBooks.com seems to take the view that all government spending is wasteful, and by describing it out of context seeks to present it as abuse. For instance they present research grants to Ivy League schools as government subsidy of those schools [1] and The US Government employing a lot of lawyers as somehow suspect [2].

[1] http://www.openthebooks.com/openthebooks_oversight_report_%E...

[2] http://www.openthebooks.com/openthebooks_snapshot_oversight_...

Inconel2• 9 years ago

Regarding their contention that research grants to Ivy League schools are subsidies, aren't they exactly that? Don't get me wrong, those are definitely the kind of subsidies I think the government should be providing, but what is wrong with labeling them as such?

wallace_f5• 9 years ago

Most of these agencies have some statutory responsibility to enforce law and investigate crimes under their purview.

The report states spending jumped 106% from 55 million to 106 million over the period. I would like to know what benefit was garnered from doubling spending on arming these agencies with deadly weapons (and paintball guns, apparently).

DanBC3• 9 years ago

paintball guns,

Paintball guns are a less lethal weapon used by both border control agents and by animal control agencies.

2011: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011/04/border-patrol-re...

http://www.nelsonpaintball.com/animal-control/

I'm not sure how many paintball guns you get for $300,000.

The benefit is hopefully fewer incidents like this where US border agents shot across the border, killing a Mexican child in Mexico. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/12/us-border-patrol-age... (Throwing rocks at people is obviously illegal and needs to be dealt with. I struggle to understand why extra judicial killing is an appropriate punishment for this crime.)

huffmsa3• 9 years ago

As others have said, paintball guns are use to dispense pepperballs (mace filled paintballs), amongst other Less than lethal materials

nylonstrung2• 9 years ago

In addition to the aforementioned less lethal use case, paintball guns are also a training tool for police forces

mschuster91• 9 years ago

Most of these agencies have some statutory responsibility to enforce law and investigate crimes under their purview. This includes enforcing court orders and arresting suspects in unknown and potentially dangerous situations. The report actually explains these things all the while sneering at the fact that these agencies need to employ investigative and enforcement personnel as part of their core mission.

In Germany, we have solved this massive waste of money and resources by having police help other agencies. We call this "Amtshilfe". So for example if the tax office wants to raid a business in order to seize records, they request appropriate police assistance.

Basically we have three different kind of police: some "border cops" (former Bundesgrenzschutz, now Bundespolizei; these care about border protection and security on train stations/airports), a massive amount of state cops caring for literally everything from the ordinary bar fight to arresting terrorists, and in some rare cities there are "city cops" (Stadtpolizei) taking care about enforcing parking tickets and other city regulations.

But individual agencies do not have their own police powers (okay, maybe except the military - they have the Feldjäger, but these have only authority over military personnel and are rarely seen outside barracks).

mcguire6• 9 years ago

One question: are there police offices dedicated to particular agencies, or do the agencies rely on "general police" with no special experience with the laws and issues of the agency? If the equivalent of a National Park Service employee finds evidence of poaching, does she call in an officer with experience arresting poachers?

And do the majority of cities not enforce parking tickets?

DanBC3• 9 years ago

and arresting suspects in unknown and potentially dangerous situations.

This just leads to Alcohol Beverage Commission "agents" pulling guns on a young woman buying a crate of water.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/sideshow/uva-girl-water-bee...

It's fucking stupid for a gang of out of uniform people to approach her and pull guns, and then charge her when she panics.

Take the guns off those people. Give the guns to police. Give the police rigorous training to use the guns, but also a lot more training in de-escalation.

simonh5• 9 years ago

The fact is those girls could have had guns in their purses and it's entirely plausible that if so one of them might have reached for it in order to exercise her constitutional right to defend herself and 'stand her ground'. In a heavily armed society, the rational solution is that all government officials that might ever have to challenge the public need to be armed and assume hostile intent at all times. Hence pulling guns on kids buying water is the expected result. It's all for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.

simonh5• 9 years ago

Here in the UK many government agencies have investigation and enforcement responsibilities and personnel, but they are 'civilians'. There just isn't any expectation that these people are ever likely to get into a situation where they might need to be armed or ever even encounter someone who is armed. If they got into a potentially dangerous situation they'd run a mile and call the police.

The situation is a bit different in some places in continental Europe. Building security at several offices I visited in Italy were armed and when I first encountered that I found that quite shocking, but firearms are generally more available and of course they have a particular problem with organized crime.

pjc502• 9 years ago

Yes, European police are more likely to be armed. Italy has its Carabinieri as a national-level armed police in addition to a separate set of regular police.

The key to UK policing's low violence rate compared to the US is, bluntly, that people care when members of the public are shot by police. It's regarded as a failure of the alternative methods. Whereas in the US people go beyond merely defending the police into practically cheering the street execution of a "criminal".

lostboys67• 9 years ago

Even MI5 get the police to actually make arrests - there are a few other organisations are armed the Nuke police and I suspect MI5 and MI6 must have PPW.

beaconstudios2• 9 years ago

in the UK, when government agencies need to enforce a law under their purview, they defer to the court system and bring in a public prosecutor. This seems more sensible to me.

mcguire6• 9 years ago

The public prosecutor performs arrests?

(Dang it.)

stevew20• 9 years ago

I find the context in this report to be thorough enough to understand that a fair amount of the money being spent is entirely necessary. I'm intimately familiar with the costs of maintaining and upgrading military equipment and the costs of training (10 year USMC Box Kicker here). The amount of rounds a single person has to go through in order to stay sharp is insane.

However... The context in this report is also enough to highlight the obvious misspending and mistakes in reporting as well. The HHS being unable to account for ~6 million dollars labeled as military spending is scary. For 6 million dollars, someone could obtain some pretty nasty stuff. There are several more things that don't add up as well... If you look up the number of personnel authorized to carry firearms, and graph that against the number of rounds purchased, it's a fairly linear graph... Except for a few agencies, who are spending millions of dollars each year on ammo for a very small number of agents. It doesn't add up, and it's likely becoming pocket change for some Dick or Jane who's living high off of your tax dollars.

Reports like this are important because they take a pessimistic look at a budget (which is how you should ALWAYS look at a budget in business), and the inconsistencies rise to the top where we can all see them.

jlarocco• 9 years ago

Sounded suspicious until I saw the list on page 5.

The Department of State, FBI, prison system, DEA, secret service, ICE, customs/border patrol, etc. are all on the top of the list, and I'd expect them to spend a lot of money on guns, ammo, and "military-style equipment".

A few of them are higher than I'd expect, but most of them seem reasonable. Any agency that uses armed security guards is going to spend some amount of money on guns, ammo, training, etc.

wallace_f5• 9 years ago

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote controlled helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes, and more.

johnnyhillbilly• 9 years ago

Is that so strange?

gerbal3• 9 years ago

Take a look at that agencies responsibilities[1]. There's a lot there that could necessitate that sort of materiel. Including monitoring wildlife, enforcing bans in trade of various species, and enforcing animal welfare.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_and_Plant_Health_Inspec...

toomanybeersies3• 9 years ago

In their defence, it would appear on first glance at the sample purchases that a lot of the weapons purchased are hunting rifles and shotguns, useful for pest destruction/culling and putting down sick animals.

LP gas cannons are used for scaring birds and making them take flight, night vision equipment is very useful for culling animals, same goes for thermal cameras/scopes.

mason240• 9 years ago

Seems appropriate for an agency dealing with exotic animal smuggling.

wallace_f5• 9 years ago

I don't have the energy to get angry about this stuff anymore. I need to pay my bills and put food on the table, which requires me to work.

dmichulke• 9 years ago

which requires me to work.

...which will feed the government via taxes to sustain the lavish spending you object to.

Just pointing out that you'd have more time to read articles on misspending if your government wouldn't misspend so much money.

wallace_f5• 9 years ago

I know. Sad set of circumstances.

I feel humanity will always be riddled with the 'lowest common denominator' problem. I don't know if that's the best name for it, maybe there's another. It's the reason for this CGP Grey video(1). Current events at the moment really bother me. I don't know if I'm being cynical or if things are really as bad as they seem.

1-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

toomanybeersies3• 9 years ago

I feel like this is due to a peculiarity of how law enforcement works in the USA.

Every department and authority has their own law enforcement branch. You've got county sheriffs, state police, highway patrol, campus police, transport police etc. on a local authority level.

Then on a federal level, as the paper points out, everyone from the IRS to the Department of Education have their own law enforcement officers.

In the rest of the world, police is much more centralised.

Here in New Zealand (admittedly a small country), the Police are the only agency with general powers of arrest, and the only department outside the military with firearms.

The police don't have fancy equipment, if they need an APC, or helicopters or whatever (the police do have one), they'll borrow it from the Defence Force. It's not like they need to pay for and maintain their own stock to use once in a blue moon.

If an agency like the IRD (our tax department) need to raid or arrest someone, they'll get the police to do it.

I don't fully understand why the USA isn't like this. I understand why there's federal and local law enforcement, but if the FDA needs to raid and arrest people, why don't they second some FBI agents when they're needed?

mbrookes2• 9 years ago

campus police

This one I've always found bizarre. What is it about American university students in particular that requires there to be an on-site police force?

gerbal3• 9 years ago

Most large American Universities are not part of the surrounding town or city. They are in effect their own municipalities.

janvidar• 9 years ago

I've always found this bizarre too, but then all alcohol is prohibited until 21 quite unlike other places. I guess someone has to enforce that, too ?

afarrell2• 9 years ago

For universities in metropolitan areas, the advantage is in having police that are specialised to handling issues more common to universities (drinking/drug use), implementing policies like a good samaritan policy around drug overdose reporting, being a closer part of the community, and taking part in planning exercises for on-campus emergencies.

Source: When I studied at MIT, I volunteered with two different organisations that liaised with the police. I observed an active shooter tabletop roleplaying exercise. (no, it did not involve dice)

ptaipale• 9 years ago

Jurisdiction issues in America were already pointed out, but I'd also remind that in the Old World, universities and their campuses traditionally enjoyed certain kinds of autonomy. This could even extend to immunity from prosecution by regular authorities, with the university as its own jurisdiction handling at least some offences autonomically.

This is, I believe, now completely a thing of the past almost everywhere, but America being rather conservative, there could be echoes of it around.

julian_t• 9 years ago

The one that caused me to do a double take was the "postal police"... the postal service, at least in New York, appears to have its own police force.

wil4213• 9 years ago

Don't forget the Boston bombers ran to MIT and killed a security guard.

While this is an extreme case some University are in urban environments. Take GaTech for example, every year someone is robbed or even murdered walking near campus. The campus police usually have to fend off vagrants or drug addicts from nearby.

msimpson• 9 years ago

"Campus policing originated with the establishment of the Yale Campus Police Department in 1894. Yale, located in New Haven, Connecticut, began an agreement with the New Haven Police Department to have two of their officers assigned exclusively to the campus as a means to deter crime on campus, and to better student-police relations. Shortly thereafter these two officers were hired by Yale to keep law and order on the campus. It was not until 73 years later that most college and university security departments became police departments. With the protest of the Vietnam War, the Kent State incident, and crime increasing on college campuses all over America, most of the 50 states did not pass laws authorizing colleges to have their own campus police department until the late 1960's."

Davis, R. (1967). History Of Campus Policing. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.oocities.org/odupd/

tw04• 9 years ago

In general, it's not about the students, it's about the surrounding public. I know at my university there were several assaults over the 4 years I attended. Every last one was caused by someone from the outside coming onto campus to commit a crime.

If, for instance, sexual assault is your thing - a college campus is a pretty good place to find lots of young women who are potentially vulnerable (walking home alone/potentially inebriated). Furthermore, if you're in that approximate age range, it's pretty easy to get lost in the crowd.

washadjeffmad• 9 years ago

A university campus is like a microcity with thousands of people, its own economy separate from the surrounding area, facilities, and rules. Instead of sending off reports and requests to city police (and how many students, staff, and faculty are locals, again?), they can have a single, centralised, limited office to handle public safety and policing.

Put another way, it's so everything that happens within the university doesn't eat into municipal or county time and resources, but they can still interoperate with some parity.

Look into the Clery Act for more.

knz• 9 years ago

In the rest of the world, police is much more centralised... New Zealand (admittedly a small country)

The US is broken into "normal" country size blocks - i.e. States. Kiwis have a lot more faith in centralized government though. Many aspects of American society have significant duplication due to a perceived loss in autonomy if resources are consolidated. For example, I live in a metro area of 4 million people that has over 100 local government entities (each suburb has it's own council etc), most with their own emergency services, public works departments, and own set of regulations. It's insane.

The police don't have fancy equipment, if they need an APC, or helicopters They have one helicopter (http://www.police.govt.nz/contact-us/station/air-support-uni...), it used to be called the "Eagle" when I was a kid growing up in Auckland.

67726e2• 9 years ago

This accounts for our federal / state / local breakdown, but what is a legitimate question is why does the FDA or IRS need a law enforcement division? Why can't there be a federal law enforcement division that works on behalf of federal agencies with a need?

X86BSD2• 9 years ago

All of those police forces are unrecognized by the Constitution except the Sheriff

pc866• 9 years ago

Where are sheriffs mentions in the Constitution?

moftz• 9 years ago

Budgetary reasons. Why would the FBI spend their own money and resources to enforce FDA regulations? That's money coming out of their budget. There would need to be in place a central federal police force that would be funded by the various agencies that require X number of hours of law enforcement per year. But this might create even greater costs due to the overhead in running this federal police force. You would need offices all over the country alongside the current federal agency offices like FDA, FBI, DEA, etc.

It would probably be easier to have the FBI setup as a federal police force which it pretty much almost is. Agencies could send part of their budget to the FBI to essentially purchase law enforcement hours. Factor in the cost of hourly rate of officer + hourly rate of overhead for officer + usage of resources + any other expenses incurred and then bill that to the agency that requires the police work. This would help smaller agencies by reducing the costs they would have to spend on maintaining a police force of their own 24/7. The only issue would be that the FBI would need to maintain a force large enough to enforce anything the other agencies would require of it. Things like DEA work and regular FBI work would require much more man power than things like DOE work so smaller agencies might not get the representation and priority they would get by maintaining their own force.

dwe3000• 9 years ago

Budgetary reasons. Why would the FBI spend their own money and resources to enforce FDA regulations? That's money coming out of their budget.

Businesses have been charging internal departments budgetary expenses for ages. That's what an overhead department - often IT, for example - does.

Thinking of these as separate agencies is just an easy way to hide that they are all federal government agencies.

Even working with charging state agencies wouldn't be that difficult to work out.

tomohawk• 9 years ago

Ingenious work around to the Posse Comitatus Act. Turn the police into the military!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

The rampant expansion and use of SWAT is disgusting.

cryoshon2• 9 years ago

it's because they are scared we will try to overthrow them

they are justified in that fear these days

dandare• 9 years ago

Also very interesting: ARtworks purchased by Veterans Affairs - http://www.openthebooks.com/the_vas_luxury_art_obsession/

huffmsa3• 9 years ago

"2005 to present the US Geological Survey agency spent $1,333,202.85 on guns, ammo and other military style equipment."

Citizens, pick up that rock.

angry_octet• 9 years ago

I read the entire report and I find nothing particular exceptional about it, except the HHS shouldn't be involved in DOD purchases and everything seems gold plated. And no I'm not a gun owner or NRA member.

There has been an increase, but most of it is essentially due to post 911 mindset that every facility needs armed guards. In other countries that would just be unarmed (possibly contracted) guards, who ring the police if there are any problems. But then, other countries have fewer guns. Also, the fragmentation of policing in the States almost requires having an agency force, because of jurisdiction and funding wars.

yunolisten• 9 years ago

6000: RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD $40,465.91

That's one way to 'retire' people. Take old Yeller out back...

vanattab• 9 years ago

I thought the US Coast Guard was considered Military? If you want to have your mind blown by the shear number of federal law enforcement agencies check out the Wikipedia list below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_t...

jdavis703• 9 years ago

They're part of Homeland Security now.

beedogs3• 9 years ago

With every passing day, my decision to leave the United States looks more and more like a permanent one.

pc866• 9 years ago

Where did you go? I'm very interested in this, but really where else do you have:

- Nearly unrestricted freedom of speech

- For the time being, no constant surveillance state

- Comparatively low taxes for the services provided

beedogs3• 9 years ago

America has none of those things, for what it's worth.

joyeuse6701• 9 years ago

If you're familiar with the use and types of firearms, this budget doesn't seem so odd. The alarmist nature of the paper gives the authors away. If they divided the cost per officer or the assets or notional value they presumably are protecting, it'd look like a fair budget!

throwaway2016a• 9 years ago

I am reasonable familiar (though admittedly not an expert) with the types and use of the items outlined here and I can't come to the same conclusion. Perhaps I am missing something. I don't want you to scrutinize the entire PDF but can you pick out one example and dive into the calculations?

mcguire6• 9 years ago

"What guns, ammunition and military-style equipment did the IRS purchase? FY2006-FY2014"

"...Fire resistant safes..."

devillius• 9 years ago

I think the title is a little misleading. The report states that the findings are from 2006-2014 and that is when the rapid militarization of police forces with DHS funds was widely reported.

I fear that HN attributes all these to the current political atmosphere and how the foundation laid by the previous administration.

mcguire6• 9 years ago

I'm as big an opponent of the militarization of police in the US as anyone, but I'm not sure consolidating police powers into one organization is going to immi the situation.

mcguire6• 9 years ago

Looking at the Customs and Border Protection case, did the CBP change standard-issued handguns during the period? The P2000, which they bought a bunch of, was introduced in 2001, and changing the standard issue is going to involve buying a lot of new guns.

Likewise, did ICE switch from some other caliber to .40S&W?

pc866• 9 years ago

I seem to remember an article some time ago about the feds standardizing handgun calibers to .40 to try to lower the unit cost of ammunition.

Non-military federal agencies’ purchases of guns, ammunition, etc (2016)

Related Stories