S.C. Sheriff's Department Armored Vehicle with Belt-Fed Machine Gun

[Guns and more]

So all of you that think an APC is useful in certain situations, how about an Apache helicopter? An F-16? At what point are you willing to say, "This is stupid." Because it is.

Good point made about the border. Does anyone here have a problem with deploying a .50 machine gun when the backstop is Mexico? I know I don't.

Guarding the US border is the job of the military, not the local sheriff. (DHS has failed to do this)

 

[Drgong]

The APC itself may have a use (battering ram comes to mind) but when would a police unit need a .50 cal machine gun that is not going to be overkill?

(crickets...)

 

[siglite]

This thread's off the rails. But Officer's Wife is staying on track. (pardon the pun)

That's one way past posse comitus.

Ayup. And everyone's getting side-tracked by the "tactical value" or lack thereof.

Put that aside.

Popo can (and does) have a vehicle mounted heavy machine gun.

You cannot (at least in most states, and I suspect SC is one of them).

Arms race? My ass. Gangstas are not doing drive by shootings in T-72s. There is no law enforcement justification for this other than "we want one, so we got one."

Well, I want one too. But being a lowly non-police serf to the state, I cannot have one.

 

[JR47]

Guarding the US border is the job of the military, not the local sheriff. (DHS has failed to do this)

Where do you come up with that? Cite something in law that says that, or is this just another rant?

The Border Patrol, Customs and Immigrations, and Revenue Agents all patrolled the Border in years past. It has NEVER been a purpose of the United States Military, unless in time of declared war.

To say that DHS has failed to do this is ludicrous. Before there was a DHS, these agencies existed, and the same things were said. The military is prevented from taking a law-enforcement role by Posse Comitatus. Would you like to repeal that?

As for the armored vehicle, just about any state allows private ownership of them, As for the Machinegun, depends on STATE law, not Federal. In Georgia, you could own both. State law doesn't prevent mounting the gun, either. You used to see Jeeps with mounted 1919A4s in Parades over the years, in even anti-gun Maryland. It's not PC now, so they're gone. But, the law didn't preclude them.

Actually, much of this seems directed at the fact that they have such a combination, and some of are insanely jealous of it. The reasons are specious, for the most part.

Tell me. If the Police cannot own an armored vehicle, then why should you, if you want one? If the Police cannot own any Class 3 weapons, why should you be able to? Maryland's various SWAT Teams have various APC, even some with turrets. It seems that they were built that way. The US Park Police helicopter has a pintle mount for an M2. This is a Huey that their Regional SWAT uses, and it doubles as a Medi-Vac available to the public.

Somewhere along the line, it's become fashionable to complain about "excesses". These are apparently anything that they have that we want, but can't have, for reasons of local law, or expense.

 

[ScottsGT]

Popo can (and does) have a vehicle mounted heavy machine gun.

You cannot (at least in most states, and I suspect SC is one of them).

Yes, in SC I could own one, if I could afford it. And as I mentioned in my earlier post, Sheriff Lott has signed (Had one of his deputys in his behalf sign it actually) off on Form 4's for me twice.

 

[siglite]

You can purchase a new M2?

 

[fletcher]

Somewhere along the line, it's become fashionable to complain about "excesses".

If I had to guess, it was probably sometime in the mid/late 1700s.

 

[Treo]

Securing the borders is the duty of the U.S. Military. I think it falls under that whole " Provide for the common defense " thingy.

 

[basicblur]

Settle...settle...

Really...some of you folks need to relax a bit!
I recommend you step away from the computer, pop in a DVD, and chill with a movie or two...

Maybe Blue Thunder?

And iff'n you're STILL not chilled, Blue Thunder Special Edition?

 

[JR47]

Securing the borders is the duty of the U.S. Military. I think it falls under that whole " Provide for the common defense " thingy.

So much for thought, then. The Borders of the United States have traditionally been secured in peace-time by the locals, and the various revenue and dedicated Border agencies of the federal government. Border interdiction is considered a law-enforcement issue, effectively ruling out the use of the military against non-military forces.

I don't think that we'd like the "excesses" inherent in a military solution to the border problem.

 

[TwitchALot]

Tell me. If the Police cannot own an armored vehicle, then why should you, if you want one? If the Police cannot own any Class 3 weapons, why should you be able to?

Very simple. Because I would be paying for my M2. The police, on the other hand, are using the public's money, OUR money, to pay for theirs. Government agencies should be responsible with the public's money, and not waste it on things they don't need. And a local police agency does not need an M2 to accomplish its duties.

Now, if an officer or the officers of an agency want to pitch in THEIR own money to buy an M2 and use it for police duties when necessary (as if...), I wouldn't have a problem with it (and of course, since it would be their M2, and not the department's, they could use it for personal purposes like any citizen as well). But as it stands, that is not the case.

 

[Wes Janson]

A machine gun mounted on a APC is a offsensive weapon.

Anti-gunners think that your Bushmaster M4A3 is an "offensive weapon" and that you can't be trusted to have it. Where do you wish to draw the line? What makes a weapon "offensive" rather than defensive?

What they choose to do as individuals is a seperate issue. What they choose to do and the tools they have for use in the scope of thier employment is entirely our business, and whether we approve of it or not is very important. They work for us, doing a job voluntarily.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, I'd like to point out that this is the exact same argument used by many anti-gunners who are afraid of the police carrying patrol rifles. Nevermind the score of extremely valid, well-established and incontrovertible reasons for cops to carry carbines, because some people are afraid of them they should be proscribed from law enforcement use. The correct solution to both issues is for law enforcement to properly address community concerns by explaining in detail their purpose and necessity.

What possible, realistic scenario could there be for the use of a small town sheriff department making use of a 50 cal belt fed machine gun, vehicle mounted or not?

As has been previously pointed out in this thread, meth labs and marijuana grow-ops are a significant problem in that part of the country. Ignoring the travesty that is the War On Drugs, the criminal element found in both are known for being well-armed.

Part of what people are missing is the fact that while the basic purpose of an armed APC is to negate the advantage of entrenched small-arms fire, for law enforcement deployment the primary purpose will inevitably be to intimidate armed criminals into surrendering. The M2 doesn't have to be fired in order to achieve that goal. If even one shootout can be avoided by bringing out the M113, then it's easily paid for itself.

Well, I want one too. But being a lowly non-police serf to the state, I cannot have one.

Sure you can. They just won't surplus them to you for free.

You can purchase a new M2?

A brand-new FN-built M2HB QCB, no. You can, however, buy a brand-new CWA/TNW/AA-built semi-auto M2HB or M3HB. Or, for about twice as much, you can go out and get a transferable full-auto M2HB. Assuming that the Sheriff's M2 was surplused, I'd imagine it's probably even older than most of the transferable M2s on the market.

Very simple. Because I would be paying for my M2. The police, on the other hand, are using the public's money, OUR money, to pay for theirs. Government agencies should be responsible with the public's money, and not waste it on things they don't need. And a local police agency does not need an M2 to accomplish its duties.

While quite true, you're also talking about $2,000. For a department, that's quite literally not even pocket change. If they ever use it, even once, to defuse or avoid a situation which might otherwise turn violent, then it has paid for itself a hundredfold. Even if it never does, then you're still basically complaining about an inconsequential expenditure. Would you get up in outrage if the Sheriff paid a bonus of $5 to every employee in the department? That'd be about twice as much as they paid for the armor.

 

[TwitchALot]

While quite true, you're also talking about $2,000. For a department, that's quite literally not even pocket change. If they ever use it, even once, to defuse or avoid a situation which might otherwise turn violent, then it has paid for itself a hundredfold. Even if it never does, then you're still basically complaining about an inconsequential expenditure.

That's irrelevant. Almost every individual expense is pocket change when government is concerned because it's so bloated. And quite frankly, pocket change adds up if you have billions of pennies (which is the case with government). I mean, what's a million or ten here in a multi billion dollar budget? What's a million there? A thousand here? Well, it's an awful lot when consider the fact that they all add up, and none of it belongs to them.

Furthermore, unless the criminals explicitly stated that they surrendered because of the presence or use of the M2, there would be no way to show that it defused or avoided a situation. Sometimes criminals give up because they're tired of being in a barricaded situation, for example. There are any number of reasons to explain why a criminal would choose to surrender to authorities, M2 or not.

Quite frankly, if the criminal doesn't think the officers are serious after surrounding him with officers and a SWAT team armed with assault rifles and an APC armed with a 5.56 or 7.62 machine gun, I'm not particularly convinced that an M2 would drastically change the situation. What are the officers going to do, use it against a criminal for no apparent reason? Would you be any deader if they shot you with dozens of rifles and pistols AND the M2 as opposed to the same with a 5.56 or 7.62 machine gun in place of the M2? Really.

Would you get up in outrage if the Sheriff paid a bonus of $5 to every employee in the department? That'd be about twice as much as they paid for the armor.

That depends on a whole lot of factors. Does the Sheriff have the authority to do that? Is it part of the contract with the employees? Is there already a bonus offered every year to adjust for inflation or as a natural progression in rank? Did the employees earn an extra raise if not?

For the record, I don't know what the situation is exactly, so the APC may very well be a justifiable expense. My beef is not with the APC, it's with the M2 (and the ammo). When would officers ever need to lay down suppressive fire at ranges beyond 1000 yards? When would they ever need to take a shot beyond the range of a 7.62 rifle or machine gun?

It sounds to me like this is going to be used as more of an intimidation device than anything else. If so, you may as well get a fake or use an 5.56 or a 7.62 machine gun of your choice, which is not only actually cheaper, but also cheaper when it comes to ammo (by far), which would allow the officers more range and training time with the weapons to begin with. An M2 is just overkill. If the M2 itself shouldn't be considered expensive, the ammunition necessary to train the officers should be, especially when you consider the alternatives.

 

[Guns and more]

The Border Patrol, Customs and Immigrations, and Revenue Agents all patrolled the Border in years past.
To say that DHS has failed to do this is ludicrous.

To me, the border patrol, customs and immigration, etc. are federal agencies. The poster was detailing how the sheriff could use an APC on the border. I said it's not his job. (I believe correctly.)
If you want to argue that DHS has done a good job of securing the border, you're just not paying attention to the facts.

 

[NonConformist]

You know, I'm all for nice toys and all...

but why would ANYWHERE in South Carolina need a vehicle mounted .50 cal for Law Enforcement duties!?!?!?!

Please, anyone give me one legitimate law enforcement application.

+1 Especially considering you are responsible(unless they can hide behind qualified immunity) for every round you put downrange!

I dont see it!

 

[mgkdrgn]

As has been previously pointed out in this thread, meth labs and marijuana grow-ops are a significant problem in that part of the country. Ignoring the travesty that is the War On Drugs, the criminal element found in both are known for being well-armed.

If you fire an M2 round into a meth lab you are going to have a VERY big BOOM, followed by picking up the suspects, the evidence, and anyone in close proximity buckets.

As for the MJ, you're going to first have to cut a road for the APC to get there (unless it can go through pine trees). Once it -does- get there they can hook some nets on it to drag the stuff out, but that's about it.

There is =no= practical law enforcement use for this piece of military equipment here.

 

[NonConformist]

I think 'the war on drugs' excuse is getting old. There has been far more damage to our rights because of the same than any dent in the drug trade they have made!

 

[Officers'Wife]

Anti-gunners think that your Bushmaster M4A3 is an "offensive weapon"

Very well, then try this. An HMG mounted on an APC would be a crew weapon putting it under the heading of ordnance instead of arms. Ordnance, falls under the heading of military and military in the context of an individual state would be militia NOT LEO's.

Unless county sheriff's are now exempt from the Constitutional prohibition of private armies.

Selena

 

[woodybrighton]

what they probably wanted is some sort of armored 4X4 like this example
http://forums.lr4x4.com/lofiversion/index.php/t28129.h
but they are very very expensive new and the military won't have any surplus for a few years
some helpful bod said you can have an m113 cheap we will even through in a machine gun and a couple of cases of ammo paint it black and add police on the side sorted.
que few parades some training and it will be left to rot in a corner of the garage.
When they realize its too slow to get anyway and will wake the dead on its way there in the first place

 

[Surat]

The APC itself may have a use (battering ram comes to mind) but when would a police unit need a .50 cal machine gun that is not going to be overkill?

Killdozer anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

 

[JR47]

To me, the border patrol, customs and immigration, etc. are federal agencies. The poster was detailing how the sheriff could use an APC on the border. I said it's not his job. (I believe correctly.)
If you want to argue that DHS has done a good job of securing the border, you're just not paying attention to the facts.

I believe that I mentioned that they are federal agencies. That's all that DHS actually controls. As for how well they've done, it certainly hasn't been any worse than the record before they came into existence, now is it?

Sheriff's and Local LEO are required to enforce local laws involving immigration and illegal immigrants. They can be as simple as trespassing, or destruction of property, to those involving murder and rape. There is no line that stops the Sheriff from investigating the presence of illegals in relation to a crime.

Too many of these arguments are too shallow to really be anything but knee-jerk reactions to the fact that these people have something that we want. It's not fair!!:banghead:

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

Good point made about the border. Does anyone here have a problem with deploying a .50 machine gun when the backstop is Mexico? I know I don't.

Maybe I missed something, but when did South Carolina start bordering Mexico? Alot of what I've been reading on the Mexican border is drug cartels are being escorted by the Mexican military. A good national guard friend of mine was building the wall between Mexico and the US, they saw illegals all the time crossing but weren't even allowed to have their weapons, they could call on the radio to tell the border patrol, and that is it.

As far as armored vehicles and crew served weapons being abused against civilians, that gunners hatch looks pretty open to me without much cover. Come to think of it, that driver is sitting pretty high up too.

For all you wishing you could have something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqpxeWQ_XJw

Heres a video of a guy who made one and went wild on the town. If his town had a .50 cal and an M113 they would have been able to stop him.

 

[Travis McGee]

Billions and billions of dollars from the fedgov are being parceled out to local LE in the name of the War On Terror and the War On Drugs. It's mighty hard to resist the federal moolah to pay for choppers, tac gear, and APCs.

 

[macadore]

Good point made about the border. Does anyone here have a problem with deploying a .50 machine gun when the backstop is Mexico? I know I don't.

Mexico sells us more oil than any country but Canada. Its oil reserves are comparable to Iran. We should not talk about machine gunning their citizens any more than they should talk about machine gunning ours. We have made enough enemies these past few years. We don’t need one on our boarder.

 

[loosecannon]

This sounds as if their grant writer located a free armored car, which shouldn't get them in too much trouble. When you consider the price of a M2 BMG, I'm reluctant to believe that the county paid for one, and I don't see the feds allowing the military to give one away. This sounds like a collector lending a personal weapon for photo ops. Once I worked at a prison which had an M2 BMG in a guard tower. The gun was real but was for show only.