Utah Wildlife Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38810837&ni...take-guns-away-from-blm-forest-service-agents

Thoughts? I think its a bit ridiculous. Maybe Jason Chaffetz needs to put himself in areas 30 miles away from the nearest help, with no weapon, and deal with criminals. Maybe then he might understand why the BLM and FS need protection. I mean seriously we are putting this much pressure on Forest Service and BLM law enforcement? There are 200 of them total for the BLM, hardly an army. Is this really the best fight these spineless politicians can wage with the government? The agencies that make up around 1% of the federal budget and not even a fraction of federal law enforcement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7MM RELOADED

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
It may not be UT, but maybe Mr. Chaffetz should take a trip down to the Santa Fe Nat'l Forest around Coyote and Youngsville, NM and see just how friendly the locals are to an outsider in "my backyard", or Tierra Amarilla in the Carson Nat'l Forest for that matter...

I'll betcha he'd be pro-gun for BLM and USFS then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
I think he's wanting them out of the law enforcement business. So being 30 miles from nowhere and dealing with criminals shouldn't be an issue.

I'm fine if the Feds need LE for them to contract it out to local agencies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,017 Posts
Why shouldn't they have law enforcement over their/our lands? How can they manage it if they can't enforce people to abide by the laws? What Piute County wants is to be able to break the law without any repercussions...it is the same argument that the Bundy clan made; they want to break the law without having to pay the consequences. Local sherriff departments won't enforce the law because they don't agree with it. That is BS...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
Does the EPA, Dept of Education, and BLM really need their own SWAT teams? I'm not opposed to a Forest Service Ranger, or BLM personnel being armed, especially those that work in remote areas. But does the IRS need a SWAT team? Really?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huge29

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
Does the EPA, Dept of Education, and BLM really need their own SWAT teams? I'm not opposed to a Forest Service Ranger, or BLM personnel being armed, especially those that work in remote areas. But does the IRS need a SWAT team? Really?
I agree with this, but a forest service or BLM ranger should have at least a handgun. I don't think they need a swat team, but they should be armed. I'd feel pretty vulnerable in the middle of nowhere with backup 30 minutes away dealing with a fugitive with no weapon, it's just a ridiculous thought. Remember that state park ranger who almost got killed.... Good thing he had a gun huh? But federal employees should be left unarmed and helpless. The last game warden I ran into had 2 handguns, a short barrel shotgun, and an assault rifle.....hypocritical much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7MM RELOADED

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,017 Posts
Does the EPA, Dept of Education, and BLM really need their own SWAT teams? I'm not opposed to a Forest Service Ranger, or BLM personnel being armed, especially those that work in remote areas. But does the IRS need a SWAT team? Really?
I didn't see that this was about the EPA, the Department of Education or the IRS...wasn't this thread about the Forest Service and the BLM having guns and the law enforcement capability to enforce laws?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
One thing to remember that a lot of drug running and illegal drug manufacture/growing happens on BLM and USFS lands. Yeah, I think they need some sort of line of defense, semi-auto handgun and rifle at least. They are often remote and work alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
It sound anti gun to me, I bet he can get Hillary's support on this........

And why stop there, why do city police have guns, that is government overreach, no different, disarm them all, including the Secret Service. The SS is federal and have no jurisdiction when in a state, outside of the 10 square miles of Washington DC.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,115 Posts
Maybe if this works, they can start to disarm the general public starting with those with carry permits. And then we can take away the guns that hunters carry and make them get their food and animals by primitive means. We could then produce a show where we drop a man off in the wilds without any thing, not even clothes and tell him to survive. That sounds strangely familiar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
Maybe if this works, they can start to disarm the general public starting with those with carry permits. And then we can take away the guns that hunters carry and make them get their food and animals by primitive means. We could then produce a show where we drop a man off in the wilds without any thing, not even clothes and tell him to survive. That sounds strangely familiar.
Now that's what I'm talking about.......why stop at permit holders.......?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Just another attack on public land. Since we all hold a place in this issue, here is Mr. Chaffetz phone number if you feel the need to call and disagree with him:

(202) 225-7751
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
Wait, isn't Chaffetz technically a fed? I know where we should start........law makers first........then law enforcement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1DEER 1-I

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,674 Posts
My opinion doesn't matter much on this issue because I think EVERYONE who has the legal right and the desire should be carrying a gun.......or three if they want. My company puts me in dangerous areas all the time while forbidding that I carry any kind of protection including pepper spray. I despise this fact but not quite enough to give up the paycheck.

I think the guy that cleans the camp ground toilets should carry a gun.-----SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
The guy cleaning the toilets probably needs it as much as any of them. I've heard several report of the privatized camp ground hosts catching allot of flack and harassment just like actual FS and BLM employees, just for being employed by a federal contractor in association with federal lands.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
This is the only thing I've agreed with Chaftez on in a long time. Other than the IRS should be dismantled and tax code simplified.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
This is the only thing I've agreed with Chaftez on in a long time. Other than the IRS should be dismantled and tax code simplified.
Can I ask you why?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
Because in the original legislation, FS or BLM law enforcement were instructed in policy to work with local law enforcement, namely the local sheriff departments, on matters pertaining to law enforcement action. They were never intended to have SWAT, be designated "POLICE" or have a tactical enforcement branch. I don't agree with many of these old ranchers being textualists concerning the Constitution but I do agree that both the forest service and blm have outgrown their intent in regard to enforcing laws and because of the bureaucracy that they are, they are inefficient, cost way too much money, and shouldn't be in any way controversial. My reasons are long and complicated. Have you ever wondered why there isn't a single deputized BLM agent in Utah? I'll give you an asshat of an example, Daniel P. Love. HE is the best example of why the FS and BLM do not need SWAT teams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
This is the only thing I've agreed with Chaftez on in a long time. Other than the IRS should be dismantled and tax code simplified.
You do realize that the FS and BLM LEO work with DWR during hunting seasons, as the DWR can not cover everything? Chaffetz has included USFWS in this as well, where we see the same inter-agency cooperation. These people are expected to patrol and enforce wildlife laws, while coming into contact with a large group of people that will be armed, and will be violating laws, but they will NOT be allowed to be armed or have arresting powers.

So the way this plays out on the ground is that when the FS encounters a poacher on federal lands, they do not have the ability to do anything but call the county LEO. In some counties under the current atmosphere, that means that some Sheriffs will not send help. Which is ultimately the goal here. This is a poachers paradise.

Additionally, the block grants, to have local county sheriffs replace FS and BLM LEO is no different than what Ivory is proposing with public lands. Chaffetz wants the feds to give up policing authority, and at the same time still fund it. We all know how I feel about people with their hands out.......

It is the funding part maybe more than anything that really irks me. Seriously! "Hey, I want your car, I'm going to drive it, and you can't anymore, but I want you to buy the gas and tires?" I don't think so.

If you want to talk about special agents, raids, and militarization, that is a whole other issue, that has nothing to do with disarming LEOs and taking away their ability to arrest people. That is just the cover being used to justify this. If the feds can't have firearms and arresting authority on federal property, then there is no argument that says the same thing should not be applied to UHP on Utah highways, they can call the county sheriff too, and fund them of course as well.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top