Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: An SME and a Staff member help out the Border Patrol and FoxNews

  1. #21
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Haggard View Post
    My department has like 200 M16s that we got for free.


    The guys in the field may not want an M16 (and by M16 I mean M16, 1962-1964 make) but when one needs a rifle what they need is a rifle, not a shotgun or a pistol.

    An M16 loaded with M193 ain't the worst equipment a guy could have.


    That "liability" statement is still sticking in my draw. That whole idea is complete bullshit. That the union dude was pushing it is also bullshit.
    Chuck,

    Great job on the interview.

    Nobody's asking the guys in the field. The border patrol previously had M-16 A1'sand M 14's, however I don't think they are authorized anymore. For example, my agencies firearms policy allows pretty much any government issued M-16 or a are 15 variant but when we asked about DRMO rifles we were told that our issued/authorized weapon is the colt M4 carbine, not the M-16 A1. I would much rather have an M-16 A1 with an aim point in a gooseneck mount then no rifle at all but in a nationwide agency with 20 or 30,000 officers streamlining logistics and training does make a difference from the agency perspective.

    Re: the union dude, I don't think US customs and border protection authorizes any personally owned weapons anymore. Some other DHS agencies, like ICE allow a limited selection of personally owned handguns but not personally owned long guns.

    One argument I've heard from some DHS union and management officials regarding personally owned weapons has been that they don't believe the officers should have to pay out of their pocket for basic equipment. The liability thing it's really just a smokescreen. Any personally owned weapons would have to be from an approved list of manufacturers models etc. and would have to pass on armorers inspection prior to being placed in service.

  2. #22
    Very Pro Dentist Chuck Haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Down the road from Quantrill's big raid.
    If I was the union guy I would have thrown down the gauntlet, either buy us guns or let the troops buy their own guns.

    I get exactly where he was coming from, the liability BS is a cover for "The job should buy us everything". The BP also doesn't allow BUGs the last I knew, which is a stunningly stupid policy.
    I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
    www.agiletactical.com

  3. #23
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Haggard View Post
    The BP also doesn't allow BUGs the last I knew, which is a stunningly stupid policy.
    I agree. carrying a backup gun is a well a stab list "industry standard "in modern American law-enforcement. The worst part about this is just because they're not authorized doesn't mean they're not being carried. Again I think one of the big drivers against this is logistics.!Even if they issued everybody a P 2000 SK as a backup/off-duty gun that now means an additional handgun qual on top of the duty handgun, Rifle, and shotgun quals conducted every quarter. It's not just the extra 1 million rounds every quarter, it's the time the additional qualification training and admin paperwork would take. How are you going to complete all of your online cultural sensitivity training if you're out at the range all the time?

  4. #24
    Very Pro Dentist Chuck Haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Down the road from Quantrill's big raid.
    IMHO any agency that doesn't allow a cop to carry a BUG hates them and cares not if they live or die.

    Would they also disallow other live saving gear? Ban wearing seat belts, or vests?
    I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
    www.agiletactical.com

  5. #25
    Site Supporter MD7305's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NE Tennessee
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Haggard View Post
    IMHO any agency that doesn't allow a cop to carry a BUG hates them and cares not if they live or die.

    Would they also disallow other live saving gear? Ban wearing seat belts, or vests?
    I agree, my agency falls in this category. I just can't understand it. We've begged and pleaded but the chief is strongly against it for some undisclosed reason.

  6. #26
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Haggard View Post
    IMHO any agency that doesn't allow a cop to carry a BUG hates them and cares not if they live or die.

    Would they also disallow other live saving gear? Ban wearing seat belts, or vests?
    No argument from me. When discussing the border patrol and officer safety, keep in mind that this is an agency which issued its agents body armor which was made by federal prison inmates / UNICOR in the late 1990s until Congress intervened.

    The duffel bags the armor came in were awesome though! Toughest nylon gear I've ever seen. Makes me expedition look like it's made out of toilet paper.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    You need to remember that the federal government is not monolithic. All those agencies have their own budgets their own purchasing people their own leaders regulations etc. Also in many agencies, including US customs and border protection which the border patrol is a part of, the senior leaders have never been law-enforcement officers they are attorneys and political appointees.

    They should have a rifle for each border patrol agent. If and when that becomes a priority for the senior management in US customs and border protection it will happen. Same for the preventive maintenance program which should accompany the rifles.

    PS. The last time I checked the US Capitol Police were using Rock River A.R. 15's off the FBI/DOJ contract after their unsuccessful run with the HK G36. Maybe their SRT team is using 416s?

    PSS. Don't know about NOAA or the Department of Education but the law-enforcement officers and Rangers for the U.S. Forest Service deal with some pretty serious stuff in the back country and need to be properly armed as has been discussed in this forum before. For example, I have worked with U.S. Forest Service LEO's taking down commercial marijuana grows in US National Forests run by armed Mexican nationals with cartel ties.
    I agree that fedgov isn't monolithic, but I think the disparity helps to show the misplaced priorities at the top and the empire building below that is endemic to government organizations.

    As for the 416's, it has been publicly reported that the Capital Police SWAT/SRT team is armed with them, and it was implied that they are more widespread than that. As for the Forest Service, I'm pretty sure that a lever action or a shotgun is more than enough for most patrol duty, and going after cartel operations might be better handled by other federal agencies. The vast expansion of federal police forces is, in my opinion, not a good thing for a lot of reasons--one of them being that the guns often won't end up in the hands of those who need them or are well trained to use them.

    The Border Patrol problem is one example of that. Homeland Security (a misguided department in the first place, in my opinion) has the money to build and man its own intelligence center in DC, which seems largely to overlap with the FBI's center, and appears to be creating its own "Homeland Security" police force, but can't buy enough rifles for the Border Patrol, which actually does get into firefights.

    Bureaucracy run amok in my opinion.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Haggard View Post
    IMHO any agency that doesn't allow a cop to carry a BUG hates them and cares not if they live or die.

    Would they also disallow other live saving gear? Ban wearing seat belts, or vests?
    I'm going to strongly disagree with this statement. I started with an agency that doesn't allow BUGs, but the same chief that didn't allow them also got us patrol rifles and has since gotten Tasers and quite a few other pieces of vital equipment for the officers. To say he doesn't care whether his personnel live or die is just flat out wrong.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  9. #29
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Off Camber
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    PS. The last time I checked the US Capitol Police were using Rock River A.R. 15's off the FBI/DOJ contract after their unsuccessful run with the HK G36. Maybe their SRT team is using 416s?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeep View Post
    As for the 416's, it has been publicly reported that the Capital Police SWAT/SRT team is armed with them
    I have seen the USCP with HK 416s and RRA ARs.

    I don't know if the guys I saw with 416s were CERT or not.

  10. #30
    Very Pro Dentist Chuck Haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Down the road from Quantrill's big raid.
    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    I'm going to strongly disagree with this statement. I started with an agency that doesn't allow BUGs, but the same chief that didn't allow them also got us patrol rifles and has since gotten Tasers and quite a few other pieces of vital equipment for the officers. To say he doesn't care whether his personnel live or die is just flat out wrong.
    Then he is seriously uneducated in some facet of the problem at hand. Ignorant of the problem can have the same effect as not caring, or being willfully obstructionist. The vast majority of the agencies that I have seen with a no BUG policy fall exactly into the classification I describe, just my observation Chief.
    I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
    www.agiletactical.com

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •