He wrote to his local representatives, including the mayor and councilmembers. One, Bob Lingl, has seen fit to respond to date. Here's the position he staked out:
If I recall the article correctly, it is not the city the is buying these items for the police department but instead a private, civilian foundation. I might agree with you if it were the city buying them, but if a private foundation wants to buy them I don't see where the city should have any say.Really? Elected representatives of the people are properly out of the loop on what's deployed against their constituents? If a private entity wants to do--whatever--for the police, the city will have no say?
I found a website that lists all the escort services in Lompoc. So I guess if I want to pay to send a lap dancer over to entertain Chief Dabney--assuming he's OK with it-- that'll be just fine with the City Fathers?
11 comments:
Of course they need a suppressor with which to shoot you. Now why would YOU need one?
See? Its logical!
That's just another pseudo-intellectual thinking he's being libertarian. Damn, but I hate stupid people who don't know they're stupid.
Say, if that's true, then why couldn't we gather up some investors and put together our own protection agency? We could arm them will all sorts of cool stuff.
After all, it would not be taxpayer money involved...
Or is that another "only one" thing? We can only arm the "only ones" privately.
Right, then why can't I buy a suppressor with my own money?
You know...if a private individual or company wished to procure for any government something of value, it usually runs afoul of the "Undue influence" laws. At the Federal level, the threshold is $50.00. I think a suppressor runs more than that...
My response to Councilman Lingl was as follows:
So what you are telling me is that the City Council does not have any oversight of the local police force and that the chief of police, or whoever he has delegated authority to, can make ALL of their own decisions autonomously of the oversight of the town’s elected officials? If I were to be a class III federal firearms dealer and I wanted to donate a Browning M2 .50 Cal machine gun to the police department you would be OK with that too because it was private funding, right?
I would hope that would not be the case because if the department makes a bad, foolish, or unwise choice, the blame will surely also fall on the shoulders of the city council. Besides, the thought of a paramilitary organization conducting operations without the oversight of the town’s elected officials does not give me a very warm and fuzzy feeling and I can guarantee you that I am not the only one who feels this way.
My e-mail was an appeal to you as one of the town’s elected officials to encourage you to exercise the authority you are vested with over YOUR police force, so that hopefully you could encourage them to use their funding on much more appropriate and needed items instead of high priced toys.
I received the following response from Councilman Lingl to my retort:
Mr Lynes,
Your point is well taken. I will discuss this issue with our Police Chief. Thank you for your input and concern.
Bob Lingl
You have to love the intelligence level our leadership is showing...
I don't see the big deal here. Suppressors are safety equipment.. nothing else.
You can get a suppressor too unless you live in a commie state.
Kurt,
It is a "Commie" state, the People's Demokratik Republik of Kalifornia. The Chief could issue CCW's but finds the masses unworthy as he feels that the use of firearms is best left to the professionals in blue.
I am not opposed to suppressors in the least (silencers/mufflers or whatever you want to call them). I think we ALL should have them without having to fill out registration paperwork or pay a tax!
My opposition is twofold:
1. I don't believe that police should be allowed to have anything that the citizens aren't allowed to have and;
2. I feel the obligation to stand up to the growing trend to militarize the police. Especially here in this state where there are so many draconian restrictions on the lawful exercise of our "Right to Keep and Bear Arms". This makes the militarization of the police here all the more worrisome to me as we are prevented adequate means to defend ourselves against it. The balance of power is already drastically weighted in their favor as it is, why facilitate the ever growing chasm between their capabilities and ours???
This community is rural, secluded, peaceful, and only has a population of 42K residents. Crime is well below the national average. Why they feel the need to outfit the police with suppressors, silence their sniper rifle, or even have a SWAT team here is beyond me. As it stands now, the only thing they use SWAT for here is to serve warrants and man unconstitutional DUI checkpoints which infringe on everyones' freedom. Those tasks should be done by regular "Peace Officers", not paramilitary forces yet the sheeple daily accept this as perfectly normal and for their own good and who am I to question the "Heros in Blue". I am attempting to change that perception.
I am sorry that you don't see any danger in that situation!
Please refer to Radley Balko's EXCELLENT report entitled Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America.
It can be found here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf
Perhaps you will change your mind after reading it?
I've read the Cato Institute report, and I agree with it.
On the specific issue of suppressors, however, I don't see the big deal. The military doesn't even use them (well.. not regularly anyways).
Yeah, it's pretty lame that only cops can have suppressors in California, but that's something residents need to take up with their legislature.
Post a Comment