Slashdot Mirror
Privately Owned Armored Trucks Raise Eyebrows After Dallas Attack
HughPickens.com writes: Manny Fernandez writes in the NY Times that the scores of military and police-style vans, trucks and cars offered for sale on Craigslist and eBay have raised concerns for some law enforcement officials, particularly after the Dallas attack on a police headquarters. Officials say the vehicles appear to be legal for the most part, so there is little they can do. Jeff Funicello, for example, is selling his black 1975 GMC armored truck on Craigslist. The body is armored, and the windows are bulletproof. It has sliding portholes to point rifles from and a sprinkler system inside. Long ago, it transported money, and it was once the target of a shootout in the 1980s. Of course, people have been driving reinforced cars long before the Dallas attack on a police headquarters. But the celebrities and executives who install bulletproof windows and other types of armor on their vehicles often do not want it noticed. Celebrity clients generally demand that the exteriors of their luxury armored vehicles look normal so they blend in. However those who buy and sell armored vans want people to look. And the popularity of apocalyptic movies and television shows has put a new twist and added a macabre cachet to such vehicles "This is America," says Funicello. "I should be able to have a howitzer or a bazooka if I want one. If I wanted to buy a fire truck, I could."
Why would you need an armoured car, or encryption.
Trust us, we're the Government. /spooky, captcha was 'identify'
No one should own a bulldozer because it is almost a tank. Or cutting and welding equipment because you could armor a vehicle.
Passionately Indifferent
And yet I've never heard of a howitzer being used in commission of a crime.
I also note that in the UK, ownership of a tank is perfectly legal. It has to be demilitarized (the gun barrel(s) filled with concrete, that sort of thing), but it can be managed, if you're rich enough. Saw an article the other day about some guy who uses his Scimitar light tank to drive to town to get groceries....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It is legal to own a howitzer or a bazooka in the US. The rockets and shells I believe are regulated.
You can also own a fighter plane and or a bomber.
You can own a tank in the UK as well.
If you ever go to an airshow odds are you will see people flying fighters and bombers that they own.
It sounds really dumb but frankly I just do not see people using any of these to commit crimes.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
as police have always had and always will have better access to top grade weaponry and armour.
I would argue this statement is false. When the 2nd amendment was drafted the hunting rifle in the hands of the average citizen was not especially inferior to that of the one in the hands of the local serif or for that matter the regular army soldier. Moreover the local serif and the soldier were no more able to defend themselves against said rifle than your average citizen was.
As far as larger weapons like artillery was concerned at prior to the civil war my admittedly hasty study of the subject indicates there was not much in the way of law that prevented a citizen (other than cost) from purchasing a napoleon; which would have been a state of the art field piece. Certainly there were lots of wealthy planters and the like who could afford them.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The rockets and shells I believe are regulated.... It sounds really dumb but frankly I just do not see people using any of these to commit crimes.
Gee, I wonder if one of those has anything to do with the other.
Hey, while we're on this logical path, make all guns legal, for anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Just regulate the bullets.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
as police have always had and always will have better access to top grade weaponry and armour.
I would argue this statement is false. When the 2nd amendment was drafted the hunting rifle in the hands of the average citizen was not especially inferior to that of the one in the hands of the local serif or for that matter the regular army soldier. Moreover the local serif and the soldier were no more able to defend themselves against said rifle than your average citizen was.
As far as larger weapons like artillery was concerned at prior to the civil war my admittedly hasty study of the subject indicates there was not much in the way of law that prevented a citizen (other than cost) from purchasing a napoleon; which would have been a state of the art field piece. Certainly there were lots of wealthy planters and the like who could afford them.
Actually, the average hunter's rifle was probably more effective than what the local sheriff or soldier had, because a hunter quite possibly had an actual rifle while the soldier would have been issued a smoothbore musket. And heavy artillery was certainly owned by private individuals at least up through the Civil War as there are numerous instances of wealthy individuals using ther own funds to raise and equip militia units during times of conflict (if you had the money this was an easy way to get a commission at the start of the Civil War on either side as they were desperate for troops).
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The vehicle would be registered and taxed based on its weight and displacement, so any damage to the road should be covered under the cost of the road fund license (commonly called vehicle tax or road tax), which is set by the DVLA.
If the vehicle is driven with its road track blocks installed (rubber blocks that go on the tracks) then in theory it should have a lower pavement weight than a similarly heavy lorry, as the vehicles weight has a greater footprint, and thus lowers the stress on the road.
It's also why our poorest state is wealthier than the UK on a per capita basis.
We look more and more like a toilet because we are abandoning our founding values, which are the values that created the middle class, and were once shared by every nation that is today recognized as "developed", as those values are, in fact, the only way you can create a developed economy.