Dept of Veterans Affairs PACKS HEAT ????

W

Waitone

New member
I was leafing through the February 2001 edition of "Combat Handguns" when my eyes fell on page 100 where Beretta USA proudly announced the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs awarded it a multi-year contract to provide the department Beretta's Model 92D.

Upon reading the announcement a whole series of questions just leaped to mind. Permit me to share them with the forum: 1) Why do employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs need to carry a sidearm? 2) What is going on between the department and American veterans that would justify one side to carry sidearms? 3) If one were to assume the packing of a sidearm is justified (I said "if", I did not say it was justified), why was there extensive testing? What were they testing for? The Model 92D had already proven itself in rigorous testing conducted by the Army, etc. AND

4) Why was the contract not automatically awarded S&W. If my memory serves me correctly the federales struck an agreement with S&W to be the supplier of choice in the selection of firearms?

My view????? Another example of the militarization of the executive branch. Something that has to be reversed.
 
Look at it a different way: the VA dept. head is simply exercising his right to keep and bear arms, and the fact that _he_ can could be used to file a suit for equal protection and win our right back.
 
Hey George:

They make those Berettas to keep the government from buying up all the good guns like Glock, Sig and Springfield Armory. ;)
 
There was thread a good while back along the lines of "Which gov't 'agencies' are armed?"

Turns out...most of them.
 
VA Cops

The employees in question are Police Officers employeed by the VA at their larger facilaties. Most VA Hospitals are located in some of the country's worst crime ridden urban areas. Traditionally, it has been deemed by Hospital Administrators that although they feel the need to have sworn Officers serving their Facility, it was felt that armed officers sent the wrong message to the patients(vets) and their staff. This does have some merit. However, generally speaking, it is not these folks that are the problem. It is the surounding communities. A VA Hospital is Federal Juristiction. Local cops as a general rule have no authority on the hospital grounds. Not being armed in recent years has been a problem that has resulted in the death and/or serious bodily harm to VA Police Officers. My guess regarding the "testing" is that there were pilot programs in selected areas in arming the Officers to see how it would work. This probably raises more questions for some of you than it answers, so feel free to ask further and I will respond if I know the answer.
 
As for why Sellout&Whiner didn't get the contract:

A bill was recently passed in Congress and signed into law by Perpetrator Clinton that expressly FORBIDS any government agency from granting contracts to any manufacturer based solely on what "agreements" that company may or may not have signed.

In other words, Clinton promised big contracts if they would agree, and then signed this law which negated that promise. Typical Clinton deal.
 
The VA cops here in Oregon/Washington are armed only with batons and mace. HUGE signs at the doors of these Federal facilities state that firearms are prohibited. That means licensed CCW's as well, I'm sure.

I feel safer already :rolleyes:
 
Before I retired I went to the V.A. hospital in Manhattan for my disabiity claim. I had to check my revolver in their gun room. Federal property. The V.A. Police were armed and I asked one of them why. He told me they had violent patients there. Some of the people off the street can be a problem also. The guards/police at welfare centers are armed and a friend of mine is taking a security job at a Social Security center and he`ll be armed too.
 
My father-in-law was wounded in WWII and goes to 2 V.A. hospitals for treatment. One is in Allen Park and one is in Downtown Detroit. At both facilities there are armed security types. I can understand the need in Detroit, but Allen Park? Very typical bedroom community and low crime rate. Lower in fact than where we live at the moment. I asked about it once and was told "it's just a precaution." Anyway, I think if crime at VA facilities is that big of a problem they should assign active duty MPs and let it go at that.

On a related topic, does anyone know why it's necessary for Department of AGRICULTURE employees to be armed?
 
Protection against bovines with Mad Cow Disease....

The corn is stalking them....

The carrots are part of an underground movement....

They're afraid of being beet-en...

Border Patrol...the chickens keep trying to jump the fence..

And of course, SOMEONE has to guard all that surplus cheese.
 
iso-BWAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!! (Thanks I needed that).


scud-Well if the gov is the mob then I suggest we send them back to Italy. :)
 
The VA Police had have several unarmed officers killed by armed mental patients. In response, the VA has permitted the Directors (or whatever title they go by) to arm their officers at their discretion. Thus, some VA police are armed at some facilities and others aren't.
 
Hey! Nobody's called me up and said, "We've done extensive testing and here's your Glock." ;)

What's up with that? Should I go get a government job?

tstr
 
VA in Eugene Clinic

Longshot: The VA police at the Eugene Clinic are well armed and not with sticks or mace. It's a small clinic and not in a high crime area. I asked my GP why this is and he stated that any VA clinic with an active Mental Health clinic has armed guards. The big VA in Roseburg has metal detectors at the entry ways (sign on door and if you really look, you can see them) but the guards are "out of sight". The VA in Boise, ID does not have any/or except for a few security guards with sticks (and I assume mace), I know that for a fact (okay, so I forgot it was there). It seems as if the guberment doesn't trust the Vets with firearms (or really big knives) when they show up for treatment.. could it be that they give really bad treatment and the Vets think they are getting screwed... could be.

On a side note.. any Vets out there that think they need mental help to help with any problems, be careful. I was going to see a shrink about me being more introverted then extroverted and how I can/could improve myself. In the "release" they wish you to sign, it states "If the VA deems me a threat to myself or others, I hereby give permission for my mental health records to be shared with any government agency that the VA deems appropriate". You know what that means... at least 86,000 other Vets know now. I refused to sign so I am now refused service.

From what I understand, any federal agency can have weapons on them in the course of their duties. Makes one think huh.

USP45usp
 
gjwandkids writes On a related topic, does anyone know why it's necessary for Department of AGRICULTURE employees to be armed?

For the same reason that many other ADMINISTRATIVE agencies are now armed. Because they've become de facto LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies, and they know, at some level, that the natives are getting restless.

There is a fundamental difference between a Dept. of Ag rep who is there to give you unsolicited advice or offer you money to plant (or not to plant) a crop...and a Dept. of Ag rep who is there to arrest you for breaking some arcane regulation you never heard of, and which will cost you your livelihood (and probably your property) even if you don't go to jail. The former is a nuisance. The latter is exactly the sort of creature described in the Declaration of Independence as "swarms of agents sent among us to eat out our substance" as one of the reasons for rebellion.

As Americans lose respect for the ever-multiplying number of arcane administrative "rules" (which nonetheless have the force of law, complete with fines and prison terms for violating them), and for the bottomfeeders who enforce them, they can no longer be as certain that people will meekly comply. And if respect for the law isn't enough, well, that's why they have firearms. As for why they don't simply have a local LEO accompany them--first, there aren't enough LEOs to babysit the swarms of feds, and second, it's...beneath them (as feds) to have to depend on _state_ or _local_ LEOs to threaten the peasants.

Not that I'm bitter.
 
I guess the biggest question of all here is: Is the DVA a Constitutionally authorized function of the executive branch? If not (and I don't think you'll find it in the Constitution) then none of these DVA police officers are actually police officers, and the DVA has no authority to purchase guns, or anything else, for that matter.

I'm not opposed to the United States taking care of it's veterans; I'm just opposed to doing it in an un-Constitutional manner.
 
DVA and the Constitution

I've heard many people say over and over that all these assorted federal agencies are unconstitutional, and I can understand that. Okay, so let's say that all the federal agencies are unconstitutional and are disbanded. That would cause problems. With no DVA, many veterans would be screwed, and I would be out of the GI bill. Without the CIA, the number of terrorist attacks on the US would go through the roof. Without the FAA and its saftey regulations, (even though many of them border on insanity, like blood pressure requirements for private pilots) there would be more accidents and more fatalities. Without the DOT, who would maintain our interstate highways, rail lines, and other means of transportation that cross state lines?

I'm against intrusive government agencies. I'm against swarms of federal agents harrassing farmers for grading their own land or harrassing gun owners because the floorplates of their magazines weren't made in the USA. I'm against agents of the FAA, IRS, and DOA being able to carry weapons on duty, when we mere peasants cannot.

Someone said that he's not against the government taking care of its vets, but wishes it would be done in a constitutional matter. But, does the constitution provide for such a thing at all? In other words, if not the DVA, then what? You can't just say "Thanks for your help, you're on your own" to some poor GI that gave a leg or an arm for his country....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top