|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They spend mega-millions on new technology, towers, radar & toys, but have missed the boat on something as simple as a weapon which works. The Feds, as usual, have their heads up their collective asses. SNAFU....
http://www.jrn.com/kgun9/news/New-bo...290738831.html
By they, I hope you mean congress or the fed gov as a whole and not USBP. Trust me, if they held the purse ztrings, they would have their weapons.
What so often passes for 'logical' at especially the local level, as you practically described to a letter the personal carbine policy (well, a more restrictive one than a lot of departments, actually), I guess is lost at the Federal. Too many chefs in the kitchen, I guess. The dispersion & diffusion of responsibility (ie disappearance) in huge organizations is kind of absurd to me.
I am certainly not against funding the legal immigration process, which process has been drastically underfunded in the face of overwhelming demand, just as Border Patrol has been. This is a Yes, And problem, rather than a rifle problem. The whole enchilada needs to be better funded, period. Then again, DHS is the brainchild of an insane GOP that can't figure out if it likes small government (given that DHS is a monstrosity) or hates funding government or quite what... Regardless, the obstructionism in Congress can barely fund a package of twinkies without first determining if the twinkies are American enough, secure or a threat to the United States, or otherwise worth shutting the government down over.
At the end of the day, though, you are very correct. Even further, it isn't like the AR-15 requires a PhD in rocketry to understand and maintain. That an individual posting has no individual given the task, much less qual'ed or at the very least vested with the capability, to perform basic maintenance that so many other AR-15 operators the nation over, civilian, military, or LE, perform on a daily basis is just a sign of how Posterior Forwards the whole policy set is.
Last edited by noonesshowmonkey; 02-04-15 at 08:26.
This pretty much sums it up. My agency uses pool rifles. Such a bad idea for so many reasons. But better than no rifles. Personally owned/Agency approved guns isn't rocket science either. Have a policy out lining what is an approved gun to qualify with. Two Chief's ago, we had our first Chief from outside of the agency in our 115 year history. New blood, new ways of thinking. All of the sudden, personally owned rifles went from, "Are you nuts! Don't ever mention that idea again!" to "Why not?" With personally owned rifles that meet the agencies requirements, the Border Patrol would obtain access to "X" number of guns without any cost to them. From a management point of view, that should be a "No Brainer".
Annual inspection of BP owned and issued rifles shouldn't be such a huge issue. Outfit a work van with a mobile armors workshop, and some parts. Make minor fixes in the field as the inspectors make the annual inspections.
No matter how you want to approach the issue, it isn't that big of a deal to effectively fix the lack of rifles for the Field agents within the Border Patrol. The ONLY issue is for the Border Patrol's senior management to express the desire. In my mind there are no valid excuses to not equip the field Agents with an issued long gun.
The southern border of our country is the new "Wild Wild West", and has been for a long time. To fail to provide these Agents with the appropriate equipment to protect our border and to protect themselves is unacceptable.
Last edited by Beat Trash; 02-04-15 at 10:11.
Personally owned rifles are not the answer for the Patrol. Agents do stupid shit, destroy gear, are cheap and the amount of bad info floating around at the station level re: firearms is ridiculous. It's the .GOV and we have plenty of M4-A1's out there...someone just needs to properly allocate them. Also, iron sighted pool guns are stupid...adding Aimpoints to the pool guns would alleviate a lot of the issues the Patrol is having now with randomly zeroed rifles and save us a ton of $ on AA batteries for the stupid EoTecs on assigned rifles we have now.
You put requirements on them. Police agencies have been doing it for a while, and it's been working great. Half the issues rifles are sub par anyways. And I'd take a bushmaster over a pistol any day.
I don't know if it's THE answer, but it's AN answer. There are many options that are better than the current state.
Bookmarks