A concern being heard more often is that the United States government will use our military forces to supersede the authority of our civilian law enforcement. In essence, the fear is that just as with the British in 1770 in Boston (remember the Boston Massacre?), our present government will use military personnel inside the United States not to protect citizens but to police them. More currently, in May 1970 members of the Ohio National Guard shot and killed four unarmed student rioters at Kent State University.
There are laws in place in the United States, the best-known being the Posse Comitatus Act, that prohibit that kind of military takeover of civilian law enforcement authorities. For an excellent discussion of that law and some related ones, see the Congressional Research Service study entitled, “The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law.” The CRS study was released August 16 ,2012.
There’s a lot of concern out on the Interwebs regarding various government agencies purchasing was appears to be a large amount of ammunition. Even agencies not traditionally associated with law enforcement are buying up bullets. They say it’s for training, but I am not alone in finding such huge purchases unsettling.
Comment by Dan — August 22, 2012 @ 12:24 pm
Bill, I brought this up 6-8 weeks ago. Thanks for the 8/16/12 update.
Dan, you don’t need or use hollow point handgun ammunition to shoot hole is paper targets.
Comment by Ancientemplar — August 22, 2012 @ 7:33 pm
whoops,”holes in paper targets”
Comment by Ancientemplar — August 22, 2012 @ 7:34 pm
Fully understand, Ancient. I buy the cheap stuff (but not the Russian crap) for my target plinking. When I get home, and after they’re cleaned, I load up my weapons with hollow-point.
Comment by Dan — August 22, 2012 @ 8:06 pm
Ancientemplar,
Yes, and it was your earlier comment that encouraged me to put this post up when the CRS document became available.
Comment by Bill — August 23, 2012 @ 6:34 am
Wouldn’t those laws be superceded by the Homeland Security Act…or whatever it is called. Also, I shudder whenever the term ‘posse comitatus’ is used because of the history of persons acting under their purported rights under ‘posse comitatus’ in north Idaho, circa late 1970s-early 1980s, and the ensuing troubles.
Comment by up river — August 24, 2012 @ 8:51 am
up river,
You may be thinking of the organization “The Posse Comitatus”. It was formed in 1969 in Portland, Oregon, but seemed to get more traction in the midwest in about 1975 because of the farm crisis. At its peak, it was active at some level in about 23 states.
Comment by Bill — August 24, 2012 @ 9:03 am
I vaguely remember that, Bill and Up River, can you tell us the difference between the Act and the 70s group?
Comment by mary — August 24, 2012 @ 1:28 pm
I have not read either the Homeland Security Act or the Posse Comitatus Act. Don’t want to read them. Ignorance is bliss. With regard to the 70s/80s group, several stories were published in the local papers at the time. It is my recollection, which is foggy on good days, is that the local group, wing, or whatever, asserted rights under the Posse Comitatus Act. Thus the name.
Comment by up river — August 24, 2012 @ 2:17 pm
The group were just a radical group of nut jobs.. The act is an established law to curtail the use of Federal troops within the continental United States for other than civil emergencies.
That’s just a one sentence explanation.
Comment by Ancientemplar — August 24, 2012 @ 4:14 pm
Just so everyone knows that the military isn’t here to protect us personally but as stated below. So lets not think they are here to protect us.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
In the National Guard (Army or Air)
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
Guide Note: There has been some controversy about whether the phrase “So help me God” is mandatory. I have seen officers allow enlistees to omit these words, if they choose, according to their religious preference and beliefs. While federal law does not appear to make any part of the oath optional (see Title 10, Section 502 of the United States Code), military regulations often do. For example, the Army enlistment regulation (see Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 6-18) makes the portion “So help me God” optional.
Comment by Eric — September 11, 2012 @ 2:15 pm
Eric,
Correct. The “public duty doctrine” provides that if a duty is owed to the public generally, there is no liability to an individual member of that group.
Comment by Bill — September 11, 2012 @ 2:41 pm