Every Weapon, Armored Truck, and Plane the Pentagon Gave To Local Police

v3rgEz writes You may have heard that the image-conscious Los Angeles Unified School District chose to return the grenade launchers it received from the Defense Department's surplus equipment program. You probably have not heard about some of the more obscure beneficiaries of the Pentagon giveaway, but now you can after MuckRock got the Department of Defense to release the full database, letting anyone browse what gear their local department has received.

Comments

Why only to police?

[mi]

Per the Second Amendment, we all have the right to keep and bear arms. So, why are they only giving these to police? I'd like at least a token weapon (like a single pistol or rifle) for my share of taxes, that went to research, develop, and produce them...

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes sense, since every one of us over eighteen is part of the Militia and the last ditch, absolutely last obviously, defense of the Nation.

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like at least a token weapon (like a single pistol or rifle) for my share of taxes, that went to research, develop, and produce them...

Your share? You get nothing, peasant. Be thankful the Crown allows you to to keep some of the money you produce in its lands. Now get back to work, there are plenty of countries we have yet to reclaim.

Re:Why only to police?

[vettemph]

>> defense of the Nation.

    Our militaty has no experience in defense (which would be done on US soil.) The olny know offense. (which is done over seas)

Re:Why only to police?

[FatLittleMonkey]

So, why are they only giving these to police?

It's probably worth pointing out that these are not "given" to police. They are "loaned".

Therefore police depts that accept this gear are required to pay for maintenance (which on some of the vehicles can be more than the value of the vehicle) and are forbidden from selling them if they become surplus to requirements.

Re: Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think every girl's high school Tankery team should be properly outfitted with enough vehicles to male it interesting.

Sure, I don't expect a Maus to show up, but some Patton tanks would be nice.

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

The second best defense is making other people defend themselves first. It has always been that way.

The first best defense is making so that no one wants to attack you to begin with. Counter-intuitively, simply declaring yourself neutral and not picking sides doesn't do that. You still have what other people want, and if you don't keep the others on the back foot, they will be coming to take it from you.

The Swiss have defended themselves by first, being in a place no one really wants, and second, by arming every citizen. That's why their neutrality has worked.

Belgium and the Netherlands were only successful until someone with more guns decided that those two countries were useful and ran them over.

The US is currently maintaining a strategically defensive posture, just like it has been doing since the end of WWII.

There are those who believe that "defense" is pulling your troops behind your borders and waiting for people to come for you. That's understandable, but simplistic. The US could do that while the oceans were barriers and not roads. We could also do that before we were interdependent on the rest of the world for resources and trade. That ship has sailed.

Re:Why only to police?

[mi]

Our militaty has no experience in defense (which would be done on US soil.) The olny know offense. (which is done over seas)

A bragging Athenian once told a Spartan:

• There are many of your soldiers lying dead around Athens!
• But none of yours around Sparta...

Re:Why only to police?

[matbury]

The Swiss have defended themselves by first, being in a place no one really wants, and second, by arming every citizen. That's why their neutrality has worked.

I think the Swiss stayed neutral by keeping everyone's money for them and allowing them to make secretive transactions for arms, oil, and to hide fortunes amassed by individuals in times of war (the spoils of war). Without banks like these, you can't wage wars effectively so the banking states/havens are always safe and secure.

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Per the Second Amendment, we all have the right to keep and bear arms. So, why are they only giving these to police? I'd like at least a token weapon (like a single pistol or rifle) for my share of taxes, that went to research, develop, and produce them...

Well, actually, you can.

Civilian Marksmanship Program. After fulfilling a set of requirements, you can purchase certain surplus military firearms. Most notably, semi-auto M1 Garands in a variety of conditions for very good prices. Modern military rifles today are select fire or full auto, so there's no way they could transfer to civilians.

Unfortunately, Secretary of Defense Robert Macnamara, under President Johnson, had all the M14s melted down after the switch to M16s. Oh how I wish he hadn't done that and the CMP could offer semi-auto converted M14s for sale. I would LOVE to have one.

In defense of the variety of state and local government agencies accepting these military surplus weapons and vehicles, think about it. If you were a cop, and you had the chance to get ahold of a tank, would you? Hell yeah! Not for any purpose, but just to have a freakin' tank!

Re: Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch, make it interesting, boys shouldn't be involved with tanks, they're really more appropriate for young girls hoping to blossom into women who possess beauty and health as strong as the vehicles they ride.

Just not right for boys at all.

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm recalling that Amendment references a 'well-organized militia' doesn't it?

I realize that may not be limited to NG or USAR, but nonetheless it does likely mean an organized group of some reasonable nature.

Re: Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the movie Tank Girl immediately jump to mind?

Re:Why only to police?

[drinkypoo]

I think the Swiss stayed neutral by keeping everyone's money for them and allowing them to make secretive transactions for arms, oil, and to hide fortunes amassed by individuals in times of war

Sure, but now the Swiss are wide open to the USA, like pretty much all of the former havens. Only state-sponsored corruption remains.

Re:Why only to police?

[dywolf]

swiss neutrality worked because they accepted everyones money, facilitated talks and even arms deals between opposing sides, and because no one cared enough to actually take a small minor nation with no strategic value.

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to echo the defense of state and local agencies accepting military surplus, I know an agency that basically got a tank.

Their thought was to use it essentially as an armored personnel carrier in case of an active shooter. Luckily that hasn't happened, but they have used it when executing search warrants. When they drive it right up to the front door and are telling the people to come out, it has a pretty nice psychological effect.

I'm not quite convinced, but the department is a really good department in that they really focus on safety. If you talk to them when not busy, they'll admit they're not perfect. They'll look the other way for some small things. For slightly bigger things, they'll try to find ways outside the courtroom to hold you accountable. When a suspect was rumored to be suicidal, they found a way to get him counseling and to check up on him. If letting them has a tank helps them to continue to be choosy about who they hire so they maintain a quality force.

I should admit 'm a bit biased since we some times help them and have joked about them owing us a ride in the tank.

Re:Why only to police?

[hink]

I was just going to mention the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Please, someone throw some MOD POINTS!

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual phrasing is "Well regulated". In the verbiage of the time, this means that it functions well, nothing more, nothing less. So, in order to have a functioning militia (not NG, army or whatever, but a group of normal people called up to defend their homes against invaders), everyone should be armed. It actually really truly means that everyone should be armed, not the newish liberal interpretations.

Re:Why only to police?

[AmiMoJo]

Most of the people who want to attack the US only want to because the US messed with them first. Stop getting involved and people will not care enough to attack you.

Re:Why only to police?

[weiserfireman]

according the verbage at the time, well-regulated might also mean, well-equipped. The States, and communities, at the time, would produce a list of equipment that each member of the militia was required to bring with them, if they were called up. That list would include a firearm and a small amount of ammunition appropriate for that weapon.

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I got an M1 Garand, heavily subsidized, from BJ Clinton.

Re:Why only to police?

[Triklyn]

... civil war.

Re:Why only to police?

[Triklyn]

jawohl

who wants to attack the US right now? islamists... lucky for us they're too busy killing each other, you know because they're basically brothers and sisters... and you know must therefore hate the fuck out of each other.

take US involvement out of WW2, we'd probably all be speaking german or russian or japanese.
and there'd be peace in the middle east... because why bother fighting over glass?

Re:Why only to police?

[real gumby]

It's probably worth pointing out that these are not "given" to police. They are "loaned".

Therefore police depts that accept this gear are required to pay for maintenance [...] and are forbidden from selling them [...]

And they are required by 1033 to use the equipment and (according to that wikipedia entry) are allowed to sell some of it.

Re:Why only to police?

[mi]

If that's, how you choose to read the Second Amendment, then the First must only — in your reading — protect speech of those, who petition the government. And only if the petition is for redress of grievances.

And yet, numerous court-decisions (including those immortalized in the "People vs. Larry Flynt") ruled, that the First Amendment protects even pornography...

Re:Why only to police?

[tnyquist83]

Not only do I want some, I want some for those prices! They value the rifles at $150-$200 a piece when those would easily pull in $1000+ on the civilian market.

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our militaty has no experience in defense (which would be done on US soil.) The olny know offense. (which is done over seas)

Time to grow up.

First, learn to use a spell checker.

Second, do some history research.

The USA was attacked during the War of 1812 (all kinds of attacks, leading to -- amongst other things -- Washington DC being burned to the ground), and during World War 2 (in Alaska, in Hawaii, and many other places).

Re:Why only to police?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the Swiss stayed neutral by keeping everyone's money for them and allowing them to make secretive transactions for arms, oil, and to hide fortunes amassed by individuals in times of war (the spoils of war). Without banks like these, you can't wage wars effectively so the banking states/havens are always safe and secure.

That's not even close to being true. Britain was the largest banking nation in the world at the start of WWI, and still a major banking power at the start of WW2. The USA was a huge banking nation before and during both WWI and WW2. Being a major banking power didn't in any way prevent these states from becoming involved in both world wars.

For that matter, Luxemburg, a smaller banking-oriented state with policies very much like the Swiss have, was invaded and occupied by the Germans during WW2. Being a banking power neither prevents one from being involved in war, nor keeps a nation safe.

Go back further in history, and you'll find Britain, the leading banking power in the world for much of modern history, was involved in seemingly endless wars. These wars built the British Empire, and Britain's highly developed banking system was what allowed the British to pay for the wars (the French, in comparison, collapsed into the anarchy of revolution, in large part because of the strain on their finances caused by these same wars). Britain was very much under the threat of invasion on a number of occasions, so being a banking power didn't in any way keep it safe.

Don't confuse the popular view of Swiss banking with the reality. Read some good books on the history of banking and finance, or on the topic economic history.

The Swiss stayed free during WW2 because: a) they were well protected and b) they didn't have any resources the Germans needed enough to justify the military operations needed to overcome the defenders. Hitler was an idiot in many ways, but he did understand the economic value of potential targets.

Re:Why only to police?

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, that sounds a lot like someone belonging to a fascist totalitarian society would say to the resident of a free world.

Doubly ironic that most Spartan soundbites come to us because they were recorded by their opponents, rather than from them directly. Then again, totalitarian societies never last long.

Re:Why only to police?

[Fjandr]

Indeed. People also seem to gloss over the fact that the statement "the right of the people" is an absolute, independent clause. It stands on its own, regardless of any prefatory or explanatory clauses that might depend on it. All other independent clauses relating to grants of power to the government have been read and ruled that way. They are not subsumed or limited by any prefatory statement regarding the reason for their inclusion. If the 2nd Amendment is to be so limited, then so should every power in the Articles where a prefatory statement or dependent clause is attached.

Also, "the right of the people" should be read the same way in every other Amendment. If that happened, peoples' heads would explode.

Re:Why only to police?

[mi]

Sparta and Athens were certainly different, but the "soundbite" quoted referred to the military prowess, which is quite apart from the government structure.

Both went through periods of dictatorships/tyranny, but neither was "fascist" as the term is understood today. In fact, whereas Athens had its bouts of one-man tyrannies every so often, Sparta was ruled by an oligarchy up until much later in history (when the rise of Rome made all Greek powers equally immaterial). Sparta's "kings" were merely military commanders with little domestic authority.

Reading the "Peloponnesian War" — written by an Athenian general (exiled) — one can't help, but develop sympathy for Sparta. Athens lost that war, because they sent a major force not against the actual enemy, but to Sicily — so as to expand their empire...

Doubly ironic that most Spartan soundbites come to us because they were recorded by their opponents

You meant to say "admirers", I'm sure...

Then again, totalitarian societies never last long.

Well, Sparta certainly outlasted Athens (as a power). Though Corinth and Thebes — Sparta's allies — both demanded, Athens be destroyed, Sparta did not do that. Athens certainly would have, had they prevailed — if what happened to Scione or Melos, for example, is any guide. It was perfectly normal for your wonderful "opponents of fascist totalitarian society" to destroy the captured city, kill all males, and sell women sold into slavery.

You should spend a few years reading ancient history, before opening your (virtual) mouth on the subject again...

Re:Why only to police?

[Agripa]

I think the Swiss stayed neutral by keeping everyone's money for them and allowing them to make secretive transactions for arms, oil, and to hide fortunes amassed by individuals in times of war (the spoils of war). Without banks like these, you can't wage wars effectively so the banking states/havens are always safe and secure.

Germany intended to invade Switzerland and continuously updated their plans for doing so during World War 2 but the task was made difficult by the Swiss defensive posture which included large militia, dug in regular army, mining of the bridges and tunnels (especially the tunnels which carried traffic between Germany and Italy), and standing orders not to obey surrender commands from the government in the event of capture. All of these things together made Switzerland too expensive to invade before the war ended.

http://www.amazon.com/Target-S...

$1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why did they give our local PD 145 flashlights worth $130K? What does a thousand-dollar flashlight even /look/ like?

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[sabri]

And why did they give our local PD 145 flashlights worth $130K? What does a thousand-dollar flashlight even /look/ like?

I was going to post exactly the same thing, so you must be from Santa Clara County as well.

$896 for a flashlight... But what about the 6 camouflage sets for $26k? Do they fly?

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Marginal Coward]

They must look pretty darn good - otherwise, the folks who would pay $1000 for a flashlight must not be too bright...

Re: $1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason gear costs the military so much is the ungodly long, no questions asked maintenance contracts. It breaks? Send it in and they fix it every time. Destroyed it? Send it in and get a new one.

For example, my unit was buying $2000 laptops from Dell with 10 year maintenance contracts for $11,000 each.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[amxcoder]

Not sure what kind they are, but they might look something like this: (price $900) http://www.foxfury.com/product...

I've seen many tactical and weapon light systems in the big sporting good stores going for anywhere between $200-$500. I'm sure the military could find a way to pay twice that on dang flashlight somehow.

They may also be using non-standard UV or IR flashlights too, those seem to cost a lot for some reason as well.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[ColdWetDog]

Camouflage netting seems to be a biggy. The Anchorage, Alaska DEA got a $26,000 radar evading camo net system for some bizarre reason. Perhaps they're fighting an onslaught of radar equipped meth labs hidden in Polar Bear dens above the Arctic Circle. Who knows.

Night vision systems are also popular. That makes sense, but boy am I jealous.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surefire UDR Dominator 12 x CR123A, price $1,370.00

• High 2400 lumens / 52 min (2.5 hr*)
• Med 185 lumens / 7.5 hr (18 hr*)
• Low 14 lumens / 30 hr (54 hr*)

Epic light fetch price of epic proportion. Most high output personal light (200-500 lumens) will go between 100-300usd though. I carry a 200 lumen keychain type one that only cost around 40usd.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Culture20]

the folks who would pay $1000 for a flashlight must not be too bright...

If they were bright, they wouldn't really need a flashlight.

Re: $1000 Flashlights?

[Lynchenstein]

"That's the joke"

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[CaptQuark]

Only if you want to pay that much. I got a 2-pack 500 lumen flashlight set from Costco for $20 with coupon.

Costco also had a 2-pack 1500 lumen set for $69 until they sold out in two days.

http://www.costco.com/Duracell...

~~

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, that's what a tactical flashlight looks like, but what I want to see is what a strategic light looks like. Does anyone even make strategic flashlights?

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Yes!: http://www.bestbv.nl/article/s...

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[ProzacPatient]

And why did they give our local PD 145 flashlights worth $130K? What does a thousand-dollar flashlight even /look/ like?

They're probably flashlights designed to be mounted onto weapons that put out incredible recoil. A lot of cheap flashlights will break somehow on the first shot because the forces involved are just massive so building a flashlight that can withstand these forces and be reliable takes some quality materials and engineering.

Though to be honest I still can't imagine even the finest built flashlight being worth $1000 but it's not out of character for our government to like to overpay for everything.

Re: $1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got an 8000 lumen one the parts were under 20 dollars, excluding batteries, if anyone wants one I'll sell them one for 1000, hell I'll include the batteries!

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Jason Levine]

At least flashlights are something police departments can use. My county police department got a mine resistant truck. Are there mines buried all over my county that I don't know about?!!! *carefully watches where I step*

Re: $1000 Flashlights?

[jythie]

*nod* and those maintenance contracts are expensive for the manufacturer too. It means having inventory for outdated parts on hand for years to decades or even keeping manufacturing capabilities in place. Plus additional training, documentation, it really ads up.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[hink]

I'm sure the $10 light is as resistant to impacts and weather, and has a switch rated for thousands of cycles. Yes, four digit flashlights sound crazy, until you consider the economies of scale for specialized equipment that "needs" to always work. How you define "always" and "needs" is what adds zeros on the right side of the cost. The US military writes crazy tough "requirements" that cost money just to prove how reliable your hardware is.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should look at the other two initials in the name MRAP. Ambush Protected vehicles kind of make sense for the SWAT team as they enter very hostile situations occasionally and need to be prepared for pretty much anything.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

It likely has more to do with the certifications that are required for nearly anything sold to the military. When you require things to be near indestructible, and tested to those specs, you get pretty expensive stuff.

Mil Spec: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Standard
More: http://www.landandmaritime.dla.mil/programs/milspec/

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Marginal Coward]

Personally, I thought my joke was better. ;-)

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[hink]

More than one small-town police chief explained that a "free" MRAP was taking the place of him buying a $200,000 "bullet-proof" plain-Jane SWAT van, a month or so back during the first newspaper articles that were critical of the DOD equipment program. MRAPS aren't just protected from mines. It would be kind of silly to have a truck protect the soldiers inside from mines but not bullets.
Whether he needed a bullet-proof truck is a question for another forum, but the fact that he just avoided paying $200K for something is actually a "good thing".

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a surefire. They cost you and i under $100, they cost the govt $1,000.

Same with the m-16.

The mechanical differences in an m16 and an ar15 are worth about $50 in parts and machining for the auto-sear. The actual cost difference paid by the government is in the tens of thousands of dollars. An AR15 costs around 1k, an m16 costs around 16k. There is litterally one added part that makes the difference.

My biggest problem is that the DoD is selling these items off to other government agencies.
Your money paid for the military to purchase the item from the manufacturer. Then your local police department used more of your money to purchase that same item from the DoD. So now that 16k rifle that should have cost $1,050 is now going to cost you $25,000 by the time your local LEO can aim it at your dog.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get in on these. I bought a gen2 Flir optic last summer for like $2,500 at a DoD auction.

Lots of paperwork and you may have to buy 20 of whatever you want, but $2,500 for a $20,000 optic is a steal every day of the week.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[tnyquist83]

It could be that the "radar evading" camo net system was acquired because that's what was available for camo netting. Also, while I was in the Army all of our nets had small metal rings in them to scatter the return for ground surveillance radars, thus making the net with a couple trucks under it indistinguishable from the surrounding terrain.

They most likely just wanted some camo nets (they make a great sunshade) and all that was available were the "radar evading" type.

Re:$1000 Flashlights?

[Anonymous Coward]

That cost probably includes the training to go along with the flashlight. How many police officers does it take to screw in a flashlight light-bulb? Almost $1,000 worth of labor I suppose.

Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

... to the people.

This limits what you'll sell to the police because a lot of this hardware you don't want in "civilian" hands... the police ARE civilians. They are not military.

Anything the police are able to buy, should be something the average citizen can buy.

Pistols?
Rifles?
Shotguns?
Body armor?
Tear gas?
Gas masks?
Flash bangs?
Tasers?

All of that can be sold to civilians already. No issue there.

Tanks?
Machine guns?

THAT crosses a line.

If I can't buy a tank then I don't want to see the police using them either. Both the police and the general public must operate under the same rules.

If police are getting out gunned by people that have automatic weapons, then we can look at that situation and see how that happened. From what I've seen, that mostly happens with the cartels if it happens at all. And in those cases, you're dealing with a failure of the border patrol etc. Regardless, you can bring in the FBI if you really want to bring some firepower down on their heads.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tanks for sale. Some even nearly affordable.

Machine guns made before 1986 can easily be bought. Those made after require a class 3 FFL, which isn't impossible to get, but you have to follow the rules and it takes a while.

As far as I know there is only 1 case of a legal machiene gun being used in a crime, and it was owned by a police officer.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Livius]

The police are not civilians.

They're also not military. And they're not clergy, in case you weren't sure about that one either.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

Apply the same rules to the police that you apply to regular civilians and I am fine with it.

If I can own and USE a tank... driving it down the street... then by all means... let the police do the same. That includes any weapons applied to the tank. If you mount machine guns on it or a 180 mil bore main gun... then I want to be able to have one as well... including the ability to buy ammo for it if they can do the same.

As to machine guns, I am aware of the situation. My stance remains the same there. If the police want to pay 20-50k per rifle and increasingly be dealing with antiques... then so be it.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

Did I contradict any of those points or were you just wasting bandwidth?

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

from your second line "the police ARE civilians"

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Trailer Trash]

The police are under civil law, therefore they are "civilians" by the definition of the word.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[kaladorn]

I know a guy who owns an armoured car. it is unarmed, but he takes it out at times and drives around.

So you can own an armoured vehicle.

One of the issues of tanks and other modern armoured vehicles is that they are *integrated systems* and the manufacturer may be able to sell you a tank, but not if it contains defense department secret technologies like range finders, sighting systems, computer driven stabilization systems, EW and comms gear, etc.

So, although perhaps you could buy such a vehicle as a raw vehicle, you couldn't buy the entire integrated array of technologies.

I think to satisfy realistic control of those technologies, you should pay (as a consumer wanting to buy one) the cost of the vehicle and the cost of extraction of those technologies from the integrated system (if even possible).

So then you could still buy an M1, but it might cost you 1.3 or 1.5x the cost of a fully-integrated standard M1.

The issue with the police being outgunned isn't on the overall scale (eventually enough ERT members will show up). It's a short (and lethal) time where patrol officers with pistols, limited armour, and unarmoured patrol cars are engaged by high velocity portable weapons systems. That's when they are outgunned and the LA bank situation was an example of that that had nothing to do with a Cartel. So would be some active shooter/terrorism examples and police are expected to be first responders here too.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[sociocapitalist]

The police are under civil law, therefore they are "civilians" by the definition of the word.

No, they stop being civilians when they arm up as soldiers.

soldier
sld/
noun
noun: soldier; plural noun: soldiers

        1.
        a person who serves in an army.

and recursively:

        army
        mi/
        noun
        noun: army; plural noun: armies
                1.
                an organized military force equipped for fighting on land.

source: www.google.com

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Chas]

I, for one, LOVE the fact that my local FOREST PRESERVE bought a bunch of M60's.

WTF is a Forest Preserve unit doing with M60's?

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[drinkypoo]

If I can't buy a tank then I don't want to see the police using them either. Both the police and the general public must operate under the same rules.

You can buy a tank. However, in this day and age, the US military will no longer sell it to you, not even after disabling the weapon system, and not even if it's old, outdated, and no longer classified secret. You'd have to buy it from another country, then ship it to its destination since it won't be legal to drive it on many public roads, even with capped treads.

OTOH, you can't buy a machine gun, and cops have long been permitted to have automatic weapons. So yeah, I'm with you there. Short automatic weapons are home assault weapons, at least in the hands of cops. And long ones have no place in the hands of police.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

source: www.google.com

You lose.

I mean, at this point I don't even care whether or not I am in favor of what you are arguing. Your failure is an attempt to use a (dubious) dictionary semantic reference to try to argue a legal definition.

Do you perceive how this is a fallacy?

Just in case, allow me to illustrate using your line of reasoning.

president
prez()dnt,prezdent
noun
1.
the elected head of a republican state.

and recursively:
define:"republican state"
Red states and blue states refer to those states of the United States whose residents predominantly vote for the Republican Party (red) or Democratic Party (blue) presidential candidates.

source:www.google.com

Therefore, the US president is no longer president if his or her state does not vote for the Republican party in the most recent presidential election.

Herp derp.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which type of M60?
M60 Patton, which would be awesome in a forest, and I fully support the department obtaining them, provided they let me ride with them.
M60 machine gun, which wouldn't be necessary for a Forest Preserve if we simply legalized marijuana rather than having organized crime gangs growing plants on public lands.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[pr0t0]

Bookmarked in the event of zombie apocalypse!

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

When can I get my own tank? With a nice 70mm gun!

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

From my understanding you needed to have a class 3 FFL to be able to sell machines guns but that still doesn't allow you to own ones made after 1986. Also from my understanding it is a $500 tax stamp that needs to be acquired to own one and the government can search your home at any time. Then again I don't really know the laws all that well on machine guns since the most powerful firearm I own, were the receiver made 2 years earlier, would be completely unregulated.

As far as tanks yes you can own them but the main armaments need to be disabled. There is a place fairly close to where I went to college where one can go have fun and drive various old British tanks. And yes I do plan on doing this in a couple of years with both of my kids once they are older and will really remember it since it is costly to do.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilians CAN buy tanks and machine guns with the proper permits.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Eunuchswear]

The police are not civilians.

Sir Robert Peel would disagree:

Peelian Principle 7 - “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[hink]

Because people have converted tracked vehicles to fight forest fires.
See this for an example: M548/M1015 Full Tracked Vehicle

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[asylumx]

I don't want any citizens police or otherwise driving tanks down the street. Our streets here in Michigan are bad enough just with the weather, we really don't need tanks tearing them up!

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It's a short (and lethal) time where patrol officers with pistols, limited armour, and unarmoured patrol cars are engaged by high velocity portable weapons systems.

So any hunting rifle then. Seriously, standard police body armor or a car door doesn't do much of anything against common deer round even like low end .30-30 let alone something like a .303, .308, .30-06, 7.62x54r, 8mm Mauser, 7.5x55mm Swiss which are all fairly common round going back over the last 70 or so years. Now add in that a semi-automatic, self loading, rifle like the M1 Garand were basically handed out like candy after WWII so the police would have been outgunned even then more so without modern body armor.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[weiserfireman]

The LA Bank thing was a bad deal,

but my little town of 5500 people has never had something like that happen in it. Ever. A police officer in my community, has never been killed in the line of duty, in our town. We had one killed in 1947 when he provided mutual aid to a neighboring town.

But our local police chief is currently trying to convince our Mayor that he really needs to upgrade to Armored Vehicles and riot gear. "Look what happened in Ferguson MO, that could happen here."

We have a training culture for our police departments, nationwide, that installs an "Us vs Them" mentality. Every interaction with the public is a potential life or death event for the police.

I suggest that this mentality is making lives more dangerous for the police, and everyone else in this country. And it isn't getting better. The police are hunkering down.

I have a friend that is a Sheriff's Deputy. He recently posted that everyone who is being critical of the police these days is a "Police Hater" and is probably a criminal. It is that type of attitude that has the rest of society looking at our police departments with a new more critical eye.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[LWATCDR]

Not a single tank was sold to the police. I also did not see a single machine gun offered to police. Automatic weapons yes but not a single machine gun that I saw.
Also no the police and population do not have to work under the same rules! Show me that in law. Show that to me in a nation on earth.
And sometimes you do not have time get the FBI to a location..
It is called Military surplus. Many of the items are offered for less than value of the metal in them. So your local police get a mine resistant truck that has a lot of armor and can be used for cover in a shootout or during a hurricane for SnR.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Trailer Trash]

The police are under civil law, therefore they are "civilians" by the definition of the word.

No, they stop being civilians when they arm up as soldiers.

We have two systems of law in this country: civil and military. Unless they're bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice - which applies only to those in the uniformed services of the US. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... for more details.

Short version: they're "civilians" whether they like it or not.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[nehumanuscrede]

You do need the Class III license to sell, manufacture or import any Class III device. ( Machine Guns, Short Barreled Rifles, Suppressors, etc )

Civilians are not allowed to own machine guns manufactured after 1986, but are allowed to own any manufactured prior. They are, however, prohibitively expensive for anything decent and, like all other Class III devices, have special rules about who has access to them, where you can take them, prior approval from the BATFE if you travel across State lines, etc.

If you own a Class III device ( or several ) then they have to be kept in a safe or locked unit that only YOU have access to. A smaller locked safe within a larger one would work and allow others in the home to access the main safe, but not the smaller one containing the special devices. Unless the others in the home are also listed as users, they are not allowed access to the device at all. A BATFE gotcha if you're not aware of it.

Considering how much ammo costs these days, unless you have a Government budget, machine guns are prohibitively expensive to operate. I'd rather have the semi-auto variants myself. Far easier to control. If you need a dozen shots to hit your target, you need to work on your marksmanship I think.

The $500 Tax is for Dealers, Importers or Manufacturers.

Individual ownership Tax Stamps are $200 for most Class III devices. Gets attached and sent to you via a Form-4 from the BATFE. Devices that are registered to individual users need to have a copy of the Form-4 on hand at all times if the device is in use or in transport. I don't know the rules when it comes to Corporations, Agencies and the like.

I've never been harassed by any LE demanding to see the form ( don't show it to just anyone who demands to see it as it contains your name, address ( where the device lives ) and other personal info on it ) but I have been approached by them out of curiosity about the device itself.

Other categories of things civilians can own with the right paperwork and stamps include AOW ( All other weapons, such as short barreled shotguns ) and Destructive Devices ( Explosives, mini-guns, and the like ). Lots of fun paperwork to deal with. Subject to both State and Federal laws. ( Means even though the devices are legal at the Federal level, your State may not allow them )

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

The police are under civil law, therefore they are "civilians" by the definition of the word.

Qualified Immunity means that they aren't subject to civil law in the same was as everybody else. So while they're MOSTLY civilians, there is a distinction.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

Police officers do NOT own tanks. They own armored personell carriers.

BIG difference. One has a main gun, one does not.

I do agree with the cops getting giggle switches and me not getting to... But it does look like SCOTUS may be taking this up fairly soon. Scalia said that the next 2A case they're going to take will be looking at what kind of firearms americans are allowed to own. (Think Assault Weapons Bans, but I can't see them taking that up and not mentioning the NFA as well.)

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I can't buy a tank then I don't want to see the police using them either. Both the police and the general public must operate under the same rules.

You can buy a tank. However, in this day and age, the US military will no longer sell it to you, not even after disabling the weapon system, and not even if it's old, outdated, and no longer classified secret. You'd have to buy it from another country, then ship it to its destination since it won't be legal to drive it on many public roads, even with capped treads.

OTOH, you can't buy a machine gun, and cops have long been permitted to have automatic weapons. So yeah, I'm with you there. Short automatic weapons are home assault weapons, at least in the hands of cops. And long ones have no place in the hands of police.

Automatic weapons, below caliber .50, are easily and commonly owned and purchased in thirty-four states. There are approximately four hundred and forty-four thousand in private hands. They cause almost zero problems for anyone. Stop spreading lies.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[drinkypoo]

They cause almost zero problems for anyone.

Except in the hands of cops, who often have poor weapons discipline.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

My stance remains the same there. If the police want to pay 20-50k per rifle and increasingly be dealing with antiques... then so be it.

I disagree. They will just implement further taxes to pay for that.

Let civilians (regular and uniformed law enforcement) pay free market prices for machine guns.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

You're forgetting the bit where they could only buy legacy weapons. Antiques. Possibly in good repair but with a very finite number. Every time one breaks there will be one less.

As to letting civilians buy automatic weapons generally... I don't really mind it but you'd need to create a situation to allow that to happen. This isn't that situation.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

Equality under the law.

Or

A police state.

Choose.

I am not asking that civilians be given tanks and automatic weapons. I am demanding that the police be denied them.

They don't need them. If you run into a situation where you need automatic weapons then call in the national guard because your country just got invaded.

Tear gas, sniper rifles, and old fashioned police tactics work just fine to drop anything short of an invasion. You do not need military hardware.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

Not under the same permits or conditions and not the same tanks and machine guns.

The tanks civilians can buy tend to be forbidden from driving down the road except under special circumstances. They are for collectors. They sit in a room somewhere with a plague in front of them.

if the police want to moth ball all their tanks and put little museum plagues in front of them then I'm fine with them.

As to machine guns, the machine guns Americans are allowed to buy are grand fathered weapons in increasingly short supply. The cost of some of those guns is in excess of 50k because they're not that many of them. What is more, the circumstances under which you are allowed to discharge such weapons are extremely tight.

If the police are willing to play by the exact same rules then I'm fine with it.

It is when there is one set of rules for the rulers and another set of rules for the ruled that we cease to have a rule of law.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

So long as the police have to follow the exact same rules, I'm fine with it.

They are not military. Police ARE civilians.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

They are civilians. You are in error. They are not military.

They can quit their jobs at any time.

They can participate in the political process with full personal freedom of speech.

To attain special privileges they would have to give something else up.

They have not. They operate under no restrictions that the average person doesn't have upon them already. As such they have given up nothing to pay for additional rights. Therefore they have no additional rights. Therefore they are civilians.

If police want to sign up for terms of enlistment with imprisonment if they go AWOL and give up the right to political expression while enlisted, then they will have paid for special privileges.

Absent giving up something they've done nothing to earn special rights.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm not forgetting anything. I am quite aware of the artificial market for Title II firearms.

What you misunderstand is that these are worth so much now that people will use plasma arc cutters to extract the portion of the registered firearm with the serial number and then embed/weld it in a new receiver/DIAS as a "repair". This is legal, and incidentally resolves Theseus' Paradox. Practically the only way to "break"/destroy one of these devices now is to smelt it.

All your proposal would be doing is further restrict access to these devices by the general, law-abiding public. Police departments are fed by the power of taxation and they would outbid the public in the same way that government bureaucrats can crush the public in the courts by being able to outspend the defense thanks to the power of taxation. Every one of these weapons bought by a police department would never reenter the already distorted market, further restricting the supply and increasing the prices.

I agree with the premise that the police should not be allowed special access to these weapons. However, your proposal to further derange the market is not the proper solution. I guess I might be in favor of allowing the general populace access to machine guns but banning the police from owning them, if you wanted to play it that way. 75+ years of history has already established that owners of legal machine guns do not misuse them and can therefore be trusted in a way that our police cannot.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

There aren't enough of these guns for law enforcement to make significant use of them. They're too expensive and too rare.

What I further suspect will happen is that the government would chaff under these rules. If forbidden from crafting a loophole just for them, they would create a loophole for everyone. And then you'd get what you want.

But you can't do it directly or you'll fail. Learn something from the opposition. Sometimes you have to attack an issue from 90 degrees.

If they're willing to accept the same restriction, then I'm frankly fine with it. The weapons would be so rare that basically no one would have them including the police.

But again... if they wanted to have them... all they'd have to do is let the public generally have them.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Fjandr]

The "Us vs. Them" mentality is certainly going to make policing less safe as they start crossing lines with the wrong people. Riots like Ferguson are the perfect cover to start taking long-range shots with very high caliber weapons at police, with zero fear of being discovered. Places that focus on community policing rarely have to worry about police being targeted. Why? Because they act like decent human beings, and there isn't a culture of egotistical men-children who think stroking automatic weapons purchased with money they stole from someone using civil asset forfeiture makes them God's gift to whoever the fuck they think they should be God's gift to.

The number of cops killed in the line of duty is a rounding error when it comes to dangerous professions. They're not heroes. They don't "deserve" special status. They joined up, they agreed to the pay and the risk. People dislike the police because the police clearly believe they are above the law. The explosion of personal video recording devices is just now making it clear how out-of-control they are.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Fjandr]

No shit. The pictures from Ferguson make anyone with the slightest modicum of weapons training cringe. A cop pointing a firearm anywhere other than at the ground unless actually making a high-risk search or arrest (or at the range, or other such circumstances for the pedant mouth-breathers) should be grounds for immediate dismissal, along with a lifetime ban from law enforcement employment.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Fjandr]

I didn't look closely at the data so all of them could be wrong, but a number of posts here reference the transfer of M60s, which are machine guns.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[sociocapitalist]

The police are under civil law, therefore they are "civilians" by the definition of the word.

No, they stop being civilians when they arm up as soldiers.

We have two systems of law in this country: civil and military. Unless they're bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice - which applies only to those in the uniformed services of the US. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... for more details.

Short version: they're "civilians" whether they like it or not.

You're talking about law and politics where I'm talking about reality.

When you take a bunch of people, arm them and train them to kill then they are an army. Law, no law, whatever. They're still an army by the definition of the word 'army'.

People in an army are soldiers, by the definition of the word 'soldier'.

Whether or not those people are governed by a specific law has nothing to do with the reality of what they are. Them liking it or not has even less than nothing to do with it.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[LWATCDR]

The M60 would be a machine gun but I did not see any distributed.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[LWATCDR]

You can own a machine gun you just have pay for a special license.
And no tanks were transferred so you are happy now.

As to your statement that you must equal weapons for the general population and the police is not true unless you consider Sweden and Norway police states.
It is an absolute statement with no proof.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

As to machine guns, not only must they have a special license but they must only use weapons that were manufactured before the grandfather period. As a result, there are a limited number of those weapons and there are fewer of them all the time.

If the police want to play by those rules then I'm okay with it.

As to tanks, I'd be very surprised if the police would let just anyone drive around picking up groceries in one of those monstrosities. But if they are okay with that and the government is happy to sell them to the general public and not just the police... I am fine with it. What they're doing now, is not selling them to the public. They only sell them to the police. That effectively means they're banned because you can't find them on the market. If they put them up on the market and let anyone drive them around whenever they want, then I'm happy with the police owning them.

As to police states, most Europeans have no concept of what it means to be a citizen. They went directly from being peasants to being whatever they are now.

Americans threw off the royal yoke and built a new society without a defined aristocracy. We are also inherently suspicious of anything that looks like or could lead to old aristo style privileges. These weapons for me but not for you policies smack very much of that sort of attitude and we're not going to put up with it.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[LWATCDR]

I am actually a US citizen. I have no problem with limits on civilian full auto weapons.
In a democratic society the weapon that defends our freedom is the ballot box and not an automatic weapon.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

You presume that the republic will endure forever.

Consider this, citizen... all things end. When they do... what will you want then? Look at the people of Ukraine for an example... there are many. When push comes to shove, if you don't have something that can force troops to respect you... then when it all comes crashing down you might find you have no rights at all.

If you don't think you need a gun, then you don't know what it means to be a citizen.

As a citizen, I am a unit of my civilization. I am its laws, its philosophy, its will, and its power. I lend some of my power to the state so it can serve me. It is not above me. It rather exists to service my needs. I stand if anything below the law which stand above any singular entity but which can be changed through the due process of the citizenry.

Just as I have a right to think and say what I please. I also have a right to be dangerous. I don't have a right to trespass against you. I do not have a right violate YOUR rights. However, be being dangerous is not a violation of your rights unless I abuse my power to harm you.

Defanging the citizenry leads to the end of the citizenry themselves. We take one more step towards being peasants. So many Americans are nothing more then that. Utterly ignorant of their civic duties, the nature of our society, or the incumbent responsibilities that come with our rights.

That I accept I cannot have military grade weaponry is itself a huge concession. Suggesting that police have more access to weaponry then their citizen peers is utterly unacceptable.

This extends to those stupid trigger locks they keep trying to push down our throats. If the police are willing to use those buggy encumbrances then so be it. Short of that, never.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[LWATCDR]

If the Republic falls then the restrictions on the military acting like a police force will fall. Your automatic weapon will be of little use facing an M1A1 or an Apache.
You logic is flawed and your insults are meaningless. You live in fear and terror that is self inflicted.

Re:Anything sold to the police should be sold...

[Karmashock]

No it won't. You're not thinking it through.

That stuff requires logistics. How far can an M1A1 go without logistical support? Not very far.

Absent some sort of social order all the heavy equipment will be grounded very quickly.

And as to what social order we ultimately have, an armed population will dramatically improve the odds that the new order respects individual rights if only because failing to do that leads to getting shot in the face by people.

What is more, all these weapons require humans on the other end. You're suggesting that our soldiers are going to roll tanks over people and slaughter them in huge numbers. It is very unlikely given a break down of order that our own soldiers and their unit commanders will comply with those orders.

What you might have is large numbers of people intimidated into complying. Our soldiers could be ordered to point weapons at people and yell at them. Actually firing and filling mass graves are less likely.

If our population is armed then we will not as easily be intimidated.

I regret to inform you that you're arguing against history, basic human psychology, and math. You've got pretty much literally nothing going for your argument besides a general distrust of your peers to take their civic responsibilities seriously. And given that position, you are quite clearly not a believer in republics or democratic rule... but are rather a believer in oligarchic or autocratic rule.

A believer in democracy which is what I am is not going to see eye to eye with an autocrat which is what you are.

I am not a peasant. I am a citizen. I am not chattel to be ordered about by bureaucrats with guns. Which is all a police offers is in the first place. Its the lady that sits behind the counter at the DMV... with a gun and some extra training. That person is not above me. The law is above us both. They don't get to break the law unless I get to break it too.

$900 Flashlight?

[hawguy]

I'd like to know what kind of Flashlights Santa Clara, CA received at $900 each. ($130K for 145 of them).

They received a utility truck worth $47K - if they put just 53 of their flashlights in the back of the truck, they'd be worth more than the truck itself.

What makes these flashlights worth $900?

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[50000BTU_barbecue]

The 850$ kickback.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surefire. They are pretty much the best weapon-mountable flashlights currently manufatured and approaved for police and military use.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[Dereck1701]

http://www.amazon.com/Surefire...

Not quite there but close, some of the weapon mount flashlights are pretty expensive. I'm sure some of it is government procurement kickbacks, some of it is probably the 24 hour on call assistance military contracts demand, but the lights themselves have to be built insanely tough as well. I once bought a cheap knock off flashlight/laser combo just to try out on my shotgun. It shook itself apart before I fired the fifth round.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes these flashlights worth $900?

Ruggedness. You can literally beat someone to death with these flashlights and they still work afterwards.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[hawguy]

What makes these flashlights worth $900?

Ruggedness. You can literally beat someone to death with these flashlights and they still work afterwards.

I'm pretty sure I could do the same thing with a $40 maglite. People just aren't that rugged.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[AK Marc]

Over $2000 each for a pile of target holders. I presume for target practice. Alaskan Troopers. They also got a $460,000 vehicle, not sure what kind.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bulb filaments will be busted after that. Also maglite use a thin tube and poor threads. Maglite are shit.

Use a 40$ chinese made light that is as sturdy as surefire if you care for the 40$ price tag. See Fenix, Jetbeam, Foursevens, etc.

That is what I use. I love my chinese led lights. They are the very best of the superior chinese engineering.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought two large LED equipped Maglites and both failed within a couple of years. And I never beat anyone to death with either of them.

I'd hate to have a flashlight fail if I was using one to chase down an armed criminal.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

plus the 90 dollar Nsa / CIA black ops tax. yes I know this is more than 900.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[drinkypoo]

The bulb filaments will be busted after that. Also maglite use a thin tube and poor threads. Maglite are shit.

No they won't, because they've gone LED like everyone else. Most manufacturers use a thin tube for large flashlights, too. The problem with maglites is the switch, which will always fail.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

Things are worth what the customer is willing to pay. Since governments don't have to earn their spending money, they don't bother to negotiate and just pay the sticker price.

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[hawguy]

What makes these flashlights worth $900?

Ruggedness. You can literally beat someone to death with these flashlights and they still work afterwards.

I'm pretty sure I could do the same thing with a $40 maglite. People just aren't that rugged.

I can't believe someone spent a mod point downmodding this post as 'redundant' -- how can it be redundant when it's the only post on this article talking about a maglite being able to beat someone to death!? Offtopic I could see, maybe overrated, perhaps even flamebait. But redundant!?

Re:$900 Flashlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chinese engineering is better anyway.

Recent riots and violent 'protests' by those that

[JohnnyConservative]

Recent riots and violent 'protests' in the USA by those that do not obey the law prove this equipment is needed AND needs to be used on those criminal democRATs!

Phew

[Dereck1701]

I'm happy to say that none of my local police departments received anything too crazy (grenade launchers, APC's, etc). Mostly it was pretty reasonable stuff like rifles, pistols, gear, trucks, etc. I am a tad concerned with the number of weapons some of them received, most of the departments seemed to want an assault rifle for every single officer and enough pistols for every employee in their department. I realize that police need to keep up with some of the stuff used by the exceedingly rare nutcase but a few well trained officers with a few properly maintained rifles would seem more suited to that end rather than a bunch of poorly trained officers with some rusty possibly inoperative rifles in the back of their cars.

Re:Phew

[pavon]

Yeah same here. The only bad thing I saw were the MRAPs which have already been in the local news. I can't imagine that there are enough situations where such a vehicle would be needed to justify the high maintenance costs. They are mostly used for show, as projections of power.

Other than that, it's a bunch of useful items. The larger police departments got explosive ordinance disposal robots, scopes, utility trucks, helicopter. The forest service got a bunch of night vision supplies. The department of corrections got a big ol power distributor. One of the more rural tribal departments got a road grader, some generators, welders, and even a field kitchen.

Good to see that tax payer funded equipment going to good use.

Re:Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm at University of Florida. We got an armored vehicle, which is less than I expected. Orlando's UCF, however, got a couple dozen assault rifles and a grenade launcher.

A fucking grenade launcher.

Apparently it's been returned, though. Still, who orders a grenade launcher for a school?

Re:Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

APCs are very useful when you have a disturbed person with a rifle anything over 7.62, shooting full metal jackets everywhere, or a bank robbery gone very wrong. The buggers go through a normal armor used to protect against light hand guns in civilian APCs, and through the normal light Kevlar body armor. Grenade launchers can be used to fire light above a scene or a city courtier in an emergency, but an ordinary police officers shouldn't ever approach one normally.
  Support weapons are always useful, but shouldn't be of the rapid firing type like an assault rifle is, but of the heavy single shot or automatic type like a shotgun with variable, or at least full rounds to sever those spines of charging drug users who won't stop with a double shot from a pistol. I don't particularly appreciate the US tactics of filling the suspect with lead at the first contact.
So everything "crazy" have their practical uses in serving and protecting.

Re:Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

APCs are useless for cops 100% of the time. By the time you get the APC out of storage etc the shooter has chewed through whoever was in range and expended as much ammo as he had or wanted. The fact that the APC can survive a shot from a Barrett isn't really helpful to the 1-10 officers and God knows how many civilians that arrived before the APC.
The APCs are way past diminishing returns if they cost as much as is reported. $1M plus mammoth upkeep costs for a PD that services 1000 people is an incredible waste. The town is never going to face a shooter where this is meaningful... but $1,000/pp in taxes is definitely meaningful.

Re:Phew

[compro01]

Still, who orders a grenade launcher for a school?

I believe grenade launchers can be used to fire canisters of tear gas.

Re:Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

That kind of waste should be prosecuted. Nothing will change until the people who made these decisions are held to account for misallocation of public resources. The same goes for military contracts like the F35, the fighter that will cost a trillion dollars and isn't combat-ready yet and will likely never see combat, since it's too expensive to risk in battle. The same goes for the Little Crappy Ships that aren't survivable in combat. The generals have a responsibility to our troops to see that they have not the shiniest, most expensive bling that pleases the MIC and their captive Congressmen, but the equipment they need to win a real war, the kind we've been fighting without actually winning since 2001. We need more equipment like close-support aircraft (the A10, which is being retired without effective replacement so we can buy 30 more F35s). Whether those wars are justified or evil is another question, but the people equipping the troops should be held accountable for their folly either way.

Re:Phew

[freeze128]

Why would you? Those 1st graders are already crying....

Re:Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, who orders a grenade launcher for a school?

I believe grenade launchers can be used to fire canisters of tear gas.

Also bean bags and flares.

Re:Phew

[Dereck1701]

"APCs are very useful when...."

The situation you describe is a one in a billion chance, there have maybe been a handful of them in the last few decades nation wide. Most recent incidents involve a nutcase running around killing as many unarmed people as possible, they aren't camping out waiting 45 minutes or more for the police to roll up in armored vehicles. By the time they get the APC loaded up, started and driven to the scene probably 97% of incidents are already concluded (shooters dead, surrendered or escaped) and those that haven't probably could have been solved 30 minutes earlier by a few officers, some vests, a few rifles/shotguns and a well planned entry. I'm not saying that police don't need access to them on very rare occasions, but one APC per million citizens is probably too much, where as we're seeing police departments as covering areas of less than a 100,000 trying to get a couple of them. And also having too many of them them seems to see their use as often as possible, a minor drug arrest or some off hand remarks can result in one rolling up in your yard with a half dozen heavily armed police piling out of the back of one like they're afraid you've got a nuke in your basement.

Re:Phew

[serviscope_minor]

Still, who orders a grenade launcher for a school?

someone who hates kids?

Re:Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs tear gas in a school? Do they want to make everyone cry, good or bad marks, in a bid for equality?

Re:Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the pictures of the police in Boston running around in MRAPS going after a wounded teenager were pretty comical. They put probably a thousand rounds into the boat he was hiding in without him ever firing a shot. And he lived. I think the Keystone Kops had more credibility. OTOH, the images of the ninja warriors marching people out of their homes at gunpoint were simply infuriating.

Re:Phew

[compro01]

First graders? Unless I'm running into a namespace collision, UCF is University of Central Florida.

Re:Phew

[compro01]

Dealing with uppity university students, I'd presume.

Re:Phew

[compro01]

Or university students. I believe UCF=University of Central Florida.

Re:Phew

[shutdown -p now]

There are some WTFs still when you look beyond just the police agencies. For example, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has acquired 130 5.56 rifles. Why?

Re:Phew

[Fjandr]

Pretty much the only case one would have been useful was the LA bank robbery. That single incident, never repeated, has been used to justify some of the most breathtaking overreach by law enforcement ever documented.

Arming the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but why would they want to arm their enemy.

Captcha: treaty

Meh

[Almonday]

All this means is that we got the crap scared out of us at various points in recent history (roughly 5 years after the end of the cold war and 9/11, respectively) and we ended up "recouping" some of the costs incurred by the original freakouts by sending the crap we bought for the defense department to local police departments in the hopes that it might be useful for something. Want a less militarized police force? Don't fund the military to the point of embarrassing overkill, folks.

Why does my tiny town in Iowa ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Need a mine-resistant vehicle?

Can some one please step in already? I don't like the idea that my children could grow up in a country where police brutality is the norm.

Re:Why does my tiny town in Iowa ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, this is a democratic republic. "Stepping in" is your job. If you wait for someone else to "step in," things will only get worse.

Speak to your elected representatives at worst, or run for office if you really care about your children. No one else cares about them the way that you do. You do care about your children and their future, and that's the most basic prerequisite for a working democracy.

The next step is taking the initiative to be an active member of your society rather than passively waiting for others to do something. When the Romans talked about "pietas," they meant acting in a way that benefitted their family and state, not just themselves, and not failing to act. When the Founding Fathers threw off the yoke of British tyranny and formed a new nation, they didn't wait for someone else to come and "step in" for them: they formed a government and wrote a constitution limiting that government's power and rejected the idea of standing armies and forged a new way of life to secure the blessings of liberty for their posterity. When women and blacks earned the right for their children to be full members of society with equal rights under the law, it wasn't by waiting for the white man to come to his senses and "step in," but by convincing everyone of the justice of their cause.

If you love your children, run for some office and change things for the better. Five hundred and thirty five good fathers and mothers like you, or one out of every half million citizens, could turn this country around just by looking out for their children. But you don't have to get elected to Congress: just become a member of your city council or county government and stop your police from wasting your tax money on MRAPs and military hardware. Do your job, or else your children will grow up in someone else's world.

Re:Why does my tiny town in Iowa ...

[cold fjord]

Need a mine-resistant vehicle?

Because it is resistant to small arms fire that would make Swiss cheese out of a police car. It give the officers a chance to get close to a perp with much less risk to them. If the perp has pipe bombs (hardly unknown) they won't do him much good. Getting the drift?

Can some one please step in already? I don't like the idea that my children could grow up in a country where police brutality is the norm.

Police brutality isn't the norm. Tell your children that they should not attack police officers, resist arrest, or flee from the police at high speeds, since those are the stupid acts that tend to get people hurt. If you can't manage that, don't have children.

Re:Why does my tiny town in Iowa ...

[geniice]

Probably they wanted a larger vehicle able to hold a fair number of offices with some cross country ability. Getting something from the military is significantly cheaper than buying something built for that purpose. It may not be perfect but it is good value.

Re:Why does my tiny town in Iowa ...

[drinkypoo]

Police brutality isn't the norm.

[citation needed] I have never been anything other than unfailingly polite and in fact compliant when I have encountered law enforcement, and yet they have literally always reactive in some sort of excessive manner. My very first police encounter was being arrested for vandalism of something I did not harm in any way whatsoever, being handcuffed too tightly, and put in the front of a modern shitpile FWD cruiser with my face up against the dashboard while my hand turned purple. Wasn't even 18 yet.

As far as I can tell, police brutality is the norm.

Re:Why does my tiny town in Iowa ...

[Fjandr]

You're not going to win a high-speed chase driving an MRAP. As officers don't receive training in how to properly operate them, they're actually more likely to injure themselves by rolling one over than to ever have a legitimate law enforcement use for one.

MRAPs are expensive, they chew up roads, and they roll over at the drop of a hat. They are useful for one thing: protecting the occupants from explosive devices.

I actually have never heard of a case of someone throwing pipe bombs at police in pursuit. I would be quite interested in reading more about the incident.

Re:Why does my tiny town in Iowa ...

[Fjandr]

Cross country in an MRAP? That's an amusing mental image.

$0.00 Battery Charger

[Anonymous Coward]

(SFPD)

Where can I get one?

The First Cop Tank

[JimSadler]

As far as i know it was 1961 when the city of Ft. Lauderdale got the first police tank. It was in fear of the dreaded college students on Ft. Lauderdale beach on spring break. It was stored underneath the local public swimming pool. It featured such things as tear gas sprays and rubber bullets. But the heavy, tracked vehicle was a threat as our beach road was normally covered with students. We had as many as 500,000 at one time. About 1962 colleges started to stagger their spring breaks to avoid crowding at resort areas and the FT. Lauderdale police and officials were ugly enough to cause less kids to come to Ft. Lauderdale anyway. And yes, kids really were assaulted for no reason by over worked cops. I was there and saw it first hand. Oh Lord save us from the hordes of scholars descending upon us.

Give it to NPR for the tax deduction

[Anonymous Coward]

If DoD doesn't need the deduction, I could use it!
Imagine Terrry Gross with her own tank!
Bill O'Reilly won't be walking out of that interview.

Score for Florence!

[fhage]

Gotta love our Florence Colorado (pop 3881) and their ability to do federal paperwork. Their police dept received $3.7M including;

• 1 MINE RESISTANT VEHICLE
• 2 COMBAT/ASSAULT/TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES
• 1 Ordinance disposal robot
• Lost count at 22 Trucks, including 3 fork lifts, a Bus and a Self propelled Vacuum.
• 7 Trailers, including a recreational camper
• Welding equipment, woodworking machines, bending machine
• Earth Moving equipment, tractors, spreaders
• 26 spotlights, 12 IR aiming systems
• 10 night vision systems
• 6 Shop Vacs, 2 lawn mowers, 5 TV's
• and... 4 Mules

Who can beat their 120+ line items of largess in a town with less than 5000 people? The Florence Facebook photos page is to die for. It took me 5 minutes to recover. Looks like a total LE staff around 12. (including the dog). I want pictures of Florence Cops on Mules!

Re:Score for Florence!

[Registered Coward v2]

Who can beat their 120+ line items of largess in a town with less than 5000 people? The Florence Facebook photos page is to die for. It took me 5 minutes to recover. Looks like a total LE staff around 12. (including the dog). I want pictures of Florence Cops on Mules!

While they may have been live mules the MULE was a also a mechanical device. Could have been a museum piece or maybe an M-Gator?

Re:Score for Florence!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a justification, but FYI, from Wiki: Federal Correctional Complex, Florence, including ADX Florence, the only federal Supermax prison in the United States; is located near Florence in unincorporated Fremont County.

Re:Score for Florence!

[tnyquist83]

I've seen it listed elsewhere as a "Kawasaki Mule", which would be a side-by-side ATV.

We pay for it twice

[cosm]

It's amazing that our tax dollars pay for the equipment to be bought on DOD contracts on the federal level, and then our state tax dollars turn around to pay for it a second time. What a complete fucking sham.

Re:We pay for it twice

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the money that the military gets allows the government to pay them less out of our taxes. Right?

Surplus ??

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem to me that these weapons and vehicles should be used by the military until they are no longer functional. Not passed down the chain so they can buy more at the expense of the taxpayer..... Boxes of ready to eat meals ?? How many people visit a food bank every day ? Would those not help families in need ? Got a spare helicopter or two ? Sell them and use the revenue generated towards eliminating poverty in their own country....

Tell me why any Police force needs Tanks, Grenade Launchers, or other machines of WAR ? Isn't that what the US Military / National Guard is for ? To be called in when the "cops" can't handle a situation ?

It all seems pretty dangerous to me. If you give a backwoods sheriff department a grenade launcher, a helicopter, and an assault rifle or ten, they will find an excuse to use them... remember Alice's Restaurant ? All the equipment used for a guy that littered ...

Re:Surplus ??

[Triklyn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

welcome to the post-9/11 world

[bouldin]

Why only to police?

Because 9/11.

No, really. This was just another piece of police state bullshit rammed through by Republicans after 9/11, along with warrantless surveillance by the NSA, the Patriot Act, and civil forfeiture laws http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/videos/john-oliver-amplifies-the-absurdity-of-civil-forfeitures-20141006, which allow police to seize your property with only an accusation.

Remember this next time the Republicans get on their soapbox pretending to be Libertarians.

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans (many of them) are Statists, not Libertarians.

Now, the Romans and Greeks of the ancient world understood that in the immediate aftermath of a big event, poor law was made. They left us cautionary examples and quotes. Then again, nobody in politics today reads the classics and neither does the public generally.

And thus, we generate new cautionary tales.

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[ai4px]

....And thus, we generate new cautionary tales........ that future generations will ignore

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[Jason Levine]

Those who ignore history are bound to... LOOK, A TERRORIST!!!!

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[mi]

This was just another piece of police state bullshit rammed through by Republicans after 9/11

I seem to remember a vastly bipartisan support for these laws after 9/11... I don't think, you can plausibly single RethugliKKKans out.

Worse, Democrats had 4 years of majority in both Chambers of Congress — two of those years with a fellow Democrat in the White House. If they have not abolished these laws during the times, they are just as a guilty.

Back to my original point of the Second Amendment right — rather than state surveillance or, indeed, forfeitures — are you seriously going to argue, it is the Democrats, who champion our right to keep and bear arms? Really? Go ahead, make my day...

and civil forfeiture laws

So, the civil forfeiture is RethugliKKKans' fault too? Wow... Though reformed in 2000 (ans signed by that famous Republican William Clinton a year before 9/11), the outrage has been been with us since, at least, The Prohibition! And how neat of you to neglect to mention the IRS' newly-developed habit of seizing not just suspect cash found in a car-trunk, but bank-accounts. The New York Times article describes the practice — which greatly expanded under Obama: from 114 such confiscations in 2005 to 639 in 2012.

And the greatest money-confiscation of all? 1933, Frank Delano Roosevelt. What Party was he from, remind me, please?

Remember this next time the Republicans get on their soapbox pretending to be Libertarians.

Yeah, you certainly have forgotten everything, that inconveniences your lie-telling...

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[dave420]

It's incredibly troubling that you spend so much time and energy trying to defend one shit from another because your pet shit smells ever so slightly better to you. You're defending shit like it's worth defending. Stop it, and the world might just be a better place.

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[bouldin]

I didn't actually say anything about the Democrats, but I would agree that they are NOT our last bastion of personal freedoms.

I also would not say Clinton or Obama are especially liberal. To a first approximation, the modern Democratic party is almost exactly like the modern Republican party.

Yeah, you certainly have forgotten everything, that inconveniences your lie-telling...

I appreciate that I may have ruffled your feathers, but you have not come close to proving I've said any lies.

The way to prove or disprove my assertion that Republicans rammed through these laws would be to look at who introduced the indvidual acts, who cosponsored them, who voted for them, and why.

Thanks for the links about Civil Forfeiture laws, I wasn't familiar with all of that history. Personally, I'd like to see more Libertarianism, but I don't think most people who claim that moniker are actually Libertarians at all. If you don't agree with everything the ACLU does, you probably are not a Libertarian.

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[mi]

but you have not come close to proving I've said any lies.

The untruths consisted of:

1. Accusing Republicans of passing the Patriot Act in 2000 — the stupid law passed Congress 357 to 66, and Senate — 98 to 1.
2. Accusing Republicans of introducing the civil forfeiture laws — a mistake you've already acknowledged since.
3. Implying, Republicans are the reason, our Second Amendment right is trampled — and, at best, is treated as a mere privilege at best. You said nothing on this explicitly, but your post was a reply to mine, where I was talking about the Second Amendment and nothing else.

No, you didn't explicitly say "Democrats are innocent", but a lie by omission is still a lie.

If you don't agree with everything the ACLU

The one time I sent ACLU money, they sent me a membership card (I still have it). Two weeks later a solicitation to subscribe to "The Nation" (a disgusting Communist rag) arrived at the same address (I tag both my electronic and regular mail addresses with strings identifying the correspondents). The card had a picture showing American President in chains on it — anybody publishing such a picture today would've been denounced as "racist" and investigated by the Secret Service.

That ACLU would choose to ally itself with Illiberals in general and Communists in particular is why I'm now deeply suspicious of anything else they do. The staunchest of American Conservatives treat gays and the Freedom of Speech better, than Hamas or USSR, which are subject of much sympathy and even praise of "The Nation"...

To a first approximation, the modern Democratic party is almost exactly like the modern Republican party.

Nope. Though neither are, of course, Libertarian, the Democrats are much worse. What a Republican like Bush would do reluctantly and as an exception — be it the already mentioned civil forfeitures or drone killings — a Democrat would do willingly and make it a rule.

Lastly, Republicans may not agree with Libertarians on everything, but only Democrats openly sneer at us. Right here on /..

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[mi]

It's incredibly troubling that you spend so much time and energy

Khmm, I noticed, you've been following me around. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[bouldin]

The untruths consisted of:

Accusing Republicans of passing the Patriot Act in 2000 â" the stupid law passed Congress 357 to 66, and Senate â" 98 to 1.

No, I said they rammed it through, which is different. The act was introduced by a Republican, and all House Repubs except 3 voted for it. For comparison, 62 Democrats opposed it.

Part of how Republicans rammed it through is by accusing Democrats of being weak on national security. I think you have an idea what I meant.

Accusing Republicans of introducing the civil forfeiture laws â" a mistake you've already acknowledged since.

No, I acknowledged there was history behind civil forfeiture.

It's interesting that you omitted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which was part of the Reagan-era ramp up of the War on Drugs. All the articles I've read call that act the turning point in Civil Forfeiture. Now who is lying by omission?

Implying, Republicans are the reason, our Second Amendment right is trampled â" and, at best, is treated as a mere privilege at best. You said nothing on this explicitly, but your post was a reply to mine, where I was talking about the Second Amendment and nothing else.

I don't think any reasonable person would read this thread and think I implied Republicans have trampled the second amendment.

No, you didn't explicitly say "Democrats are innocent", but a lie by omission is still a lie.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.. You have ignored many valid points that I've made (e.g. about NSA Warrantless surveillance) and have cherry-picked and flat-out put words in my mouth.

Let's not beat around the bush. Republicans have (throughout my lifetime) been the advocates of National Security at all costs, and Crime Control at all costs. They have pushed Democrats to the right on these issues by repeatedly accusing them of being weak of national defense, weak on terror, and weak on crime. You are right that Democrats have had a hand in it, but it is very reasonable to say Republicans have more culpability here.

I enjoy lively debate, and would continue this conversation if I thought you were serious about finding the truth. You only seem to want to argue in favor of your tribe, so I'm going to walk away from this conversation.

Re:welcome to the post-9/11 world

[mi]

The act was introduced by a Republican, and all House Repubs except 3 voted for it. For comparison, 62 Democrats opposed it.

And how do you explain away the 98:1 votes for the law in Senate? Or the fact, that the law — originally meant to automatically expire — was just extended by everybody's favorite Democrat? He said:

"It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat"

It's interesting that you omitted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 [...]

You were referring to post-9/11 legislation (see title of this subthread). The Clinton-signed Act of 2000 was the closest to 9/11 (before or after). While it was possible, you've made a mistake of one year, I could not imagine, you'd be associating a law of 1984 with anything "post-9/11".

All the articles I've read call that act the turning point in Civil Forfeiture.

Then you've been reading crap. The civil forfeitures are just another manifestation of the major flaw of our — and British — law. While there are various commendable protections for your person (habeas corpus/presumption of innocence, right to bail, 4th and 5th Amendments, et ctera), there is nothing explicitly protecting your property. It can be — indeed, has been — seized by the Executive on a whim. And, of course, Democrats (such as the already-mentioned FDR) are guiltier of it than Republicans.

The income tax may be considered another manifestation of the same flaw...

I don't think any reasonable person would read this thread and think I implied Republicans have trampled the second amendment.

He-he... I doubt, we'll get a poll, but here is what it looks like:

• me: Second Amendment gives us the right to weapons.
• you replying to me: Republicans are assholes

Why would you bring up Republicans at all — in a follow-up to a tiny post about the Second Amendment — if not to blame them for the blatant Second Amendment violations?

Republicans have (throughout my lifetime) been the advocates of National Security at all costs, and Crime Control at all costs.

They may have been misguided at that, but they weren't evil. Whereas anybody openly advocating for Hamas or Communists are advocating for evil...

You only seem to want to argue in favor of your tribe

Republicans are not my tribe. But a Libertarian in today's USA would be crazy to align with the Democrats. Because "it is the economy, stupid". Even if some uber-Conservative manages to gain power and outlaw abortions, gasp, I'll still have enough money to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure. On contrast, if Obamas are allowed to run the country for much longer, we will all be so poor, having a 24x7 free abortion clinic next door will be of very little consolation...

Please tell me why

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Gilbert Az. It is a suburb of Phoenix. Only 4 times last year did it ever drop below freezing, and then it was only for a few hours in the early morning. Can someone tell me why they got:

110 ) SHIRT,COLD WEATHER
50) DRAWERS,COLD WEATHER
36) DRAWERS,EXTREME COLD WEATHER
15) UNDERSHIRT,EXTREME COLD WEATHER

Re:Please tell me why

[geniice]

Because the police are the ones out and about in the small hours of the morning. If you are outside for sustained periods it doesn't need to be below freezing to be unpleasent enough to reduce your effectiveness.

Re:Please tell me why

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Those still seem extremely excessive even then unless the cops there are a bunch of pussies. I go deer hunting up in northern Minnesota with lighter cloths than that and often it will be near 0F at night and a warm day might be 35F and I sleep in a tent. If I am moving around, you know like walking a beat, back at camp I can wear a pair of bib overalls and a flannel shirt and be fine even if it is in the teens out.

What kind of grenade launcher

[Richard Elmore]

This MIGHT not be quite as idiotic as it sounds initially. Grenade launchers come in two varieties, 40mm and 37mm.

The 40mm ones are what the military uses, a number of lethal rounds are manufactured for them (HE, HEDP, buckshot, etc.) they have rifled barrels to improve range and accuracy. They are classified as destructive devices and are very tightly controlled.

The 37mm ones are non-restricted (individuals can buy them in many states) and are classified as flare guns, only low-lethality rounds are manufactured in 37mm and they are smoothbore. They are used for crowd control and signaling. I believe private citizens can only purchase signaling rounds (smoke, flares) and others like teargas and rubber bullets are restricted to law enforcement only.

I'm not sure why a school district needs to fire teargas or rubber bullets (isn't that when you call the police) but it would at least be less idiotic that giving them grenade launchers capable of firing explosive rounds.

Re:What kind of grenade launcher

[Flitcraft]

40 mm? Those would be perfect for Ping-Pong balls. Schools could use them in table tennis training, raising a new generation of players able do defeat the Chinese. This could be a new round in Ping-Pong-Diplomacy.

24kt Solo Cups?

[MachDelta]

What I'm curious about is how in the hell two disposable cups cost $127.30
Or how 220 gauze bandages comes to $424.60
Or 17 rolls of "pressure sensitive adhesive tape" (read: likely duct tape or equivalent) is $281.69
And a single plastic bag listed at $194.75

Does the US military electroplate their gear with precious metals before selling it, or what? I'm not even a US citizen, but those prices - sans a reasonable explanation - seem obscene.

PS: Taken from the MO Department of Public Safety.

Re:24kt Solo Cups?

[hink]

Perhaps the "each" for those items is a CASE. A SMALL case of cups, for example, is often a "gross" of cups. (12 dozen = 144).
Work in food service or a warehouse, you will learn that LOGISTICS is what makes a large organization work.

Houston Texas....

[Anonymous Coward]

84x Extreme Cold Weather Parka Jackets
84x Extreme Cold Weather Trousers
100x Extreme Cold Weather Undergarments

Do they know something about climate change that we don't?

Re:Houston Texas....

[maliqua]

That's nothing Los Angeles Sherifs have them beat with 1600 parkas.

John Oliver!

[pr0t0]

John Oliver did a funny yet sad piece on Fergusson, MO and police militarization. My favorite part is the two stoners in Saginaw, MI filming the sheriff's armored truck; particularly when one has a moment of clarity and wonders how bad their city really is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Look at the claimed value of some of this stuff:

[Holistic Missile]

A couple examples from my home county:

LAMP,INCANDESCENT 15 $5,096.70
LIFE PRESERVER,YOKE 12 $11,908.32

It seems like someone is scamming someone here. Or, is Uncle Sam actually paying over $300 each for light bulbs (maybe complete lamps)? $1,000 for a life preserver?

This concern is aside from the county's acquisition of a tank, APC's, mine resistant vehicle, dozens of assault rifles, etc.

$75,000 for 15 keyboards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at Maine -> Caribou, they have acquired 15 keyboards for $75,000?

7.62mm rifle?

[wcrowe]

I'm curious why my local Agriculture Department needs a bunch of M-16s.

I know that the "5.56mm rifle" is an M-16, and the ".45 cal pistol" would be a 1911, but what is the "7.62mm rifle"? I'm hoping it's an old M-14 rifle. I'm hoping these are not M-60s!

Re:7.62mm rifle?

[rahvin112]

The sniper rifle is still 30 caliber. The question you should be asking is why your agriculture department needs sniper weapons.

Talk about a garage sale prices.

[finiousfingers]

I like the prices on this. M16 for $120 and the 7.62 for $130. I think that SWAT can have most of this if its surplus. But not the patrol units. They have SWAT to call in for assistance. But the whole DoD having all this surplus is crazy.

Los anageles california

[maliqua]

1600 Snow Parkas

was this just a 'HAHA beat you to it Alaska"

Re:Recent riots and violent 'protests' by those th

[Anonymous Coward]

how about those CONServatives that control our government and don't follow the rules. I guess you love nut hugging for the 1%.

Some interesting bits from Washington

[Shadwhawk]

The 'USFS GIFFORD PINCHOT NAT'L FOREST' received over $1.4 million in items. It's a sizable place in southern Washington, but that still seems high. Turns out that $1.1 million of that was for FOUR rugged PDAs. Most everything they got were tools. US DOJ ATF RENTON recieved 5 multimeters valued at over $60k apiece, and other things like weather stations and oscilloscopes. PULLMAN POLICE DEPT got $22 of items: 6 pairs of sun/wind/dust goggles. KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE took in over 2 million, including a million-dollar utility helicopter, some sort of spectroscopy detectors, and big trailer generators. SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE got a FLIR system and 3 'observation' helicopters which were valued at $276k. Quite a few departments got an MRAP and guns, but the majority of items seem to be pretty useful, non-scary things.

Re:Some interesting bits from Washington

[shutdown -p now]

Have a look at WA Department of Fish and Wildlife.