Police Militarization and Civil Rights Act (Passed)

[windjammer]

Yankee, I guess it's you now who is in charge of the senate until the election of the new speaker?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Technically the new rules have not been declared passed, so Sjoyce is still running things. And bore as well once his PPT election has been declared final.

[Deus Naturae]

What do we do with surplus weapons that we can't sell to NATO?

Well, we can accumulate it somewhere?

I mean, destroying weapons, that's nos fiscal responsible!

Since the President has tossed my name around as a candidate for a SecDef role, I assume it'd be appropriate to provide my input here: if there is surplus weaponry that cannot be sold to a foreign buyer (as a side note, if you wanted to get the most money you could for it, you could broaden the number of countries we can sell to - Australia and Japan, for example, aren't NATO members) and serves no foreseeable military purpose I'd assume the most fiscally prudent course would be to sell it for scrap and recoup at least some of its value.

I'd also warn the Senate more generally about adopting legislation with such broad language as this. There is no reasonable case of any sort against the vast majority of surplus military equipment that is sold at discounted prices to local police departments - 95% of all transfers are non-weapons. All the data is here, and as you can see most of it is things like "wet weather poncho", "flat panel monitor", "electric lighting fixtures", and "stethoscope". In the interests of minimizing taxpayer burdens I'd urge the Senate to reconsider its language in this case - perhaps spelling out what specifically is prohibited would be more helpful (automatic or .50+ caliber weapons, tactical vehicles, drones, combat aircraft, grenades, silencers, LRADs, etc.)

Why shouldn't local taxpayers pay for local police equipment (assuming anyone should pay for it in the first place)? Handing out Federal goodies to local PD's just seems wasteful and makes officers less accountable to the local communities they're supposed to be serving.

[Cranberry]

Why shouldn't local taxpayers pay for local police equipment (assuming anyone should pay for it in the first place)? Handing out Federal goodies to local PD's just seems wasteful and makes officers less accountable to the local communities they're supposed to be serving.

Because such patchwork rugs of responsibilities and fundings in the end nearly always is more expensive. Having one Central authority to oversee the task is in general easier to handle and far easier to reform once such need arises. I can understand that you want police to be more accountable to the local communities, but I feel that would be very hazardous coming to the very force of our executive system. As, you know, being too accountable can easily turn into being too engaged and associated, which is fatal if we want a swift and fast and just executive force.

[windjammer]

Will there be a vote on my amendment?

[bore]

That amendment could be read as allowing us to sell it to anyone, not just NATO.

[Donerail]

Why shouldn't local taxpayers pay for local police equipment (assuming anyone should pay for it in the first place)? Handing out Federal goodies to local PD's just seems wasteful and makes officers less accountable to the local communities they're supposed to be serving.

Because it's better for all taxpayers if the equipment is repurposed rather than sold at a markdown or simply discarded? I don't see the problem here - it's federal equipment that used to be necessary but no longer is (there were a couple wars that we're no longer involved in but still have much of the excess equipment from, for example; I'd imagine the massive cuts to our military recently have amplified much of that).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Will there be a vote on my amendment?

There is no one who can.

The VP has been stripped of all his authority and Dean has no authority in the vacancy of the Speaker except to open a vote on the new speaker.

I said we were cutting too deeply in terms of text size.

[windjammer]

That amendment could be read as allowing us to sell it to anyone, not just NATO.

Senator bore,
If I recall correctly, the End of Imperialism repeal was vetoed by former President DemPGH.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This amendment to Section 1a has been proposed by Senator Windjammer - in the interest of Senate expediency and acting on my authority as Vice President under Article II, Section 2 of the Senate Rules, Regulations, and Procedures, I'll ask for any objections to this amendment.

[windjammer]

I personally see no objection.

[TNF]

I object.

[windjammer]

Oooops,
I thought that the objection was if the VP should administer that or not.  Sorry

[Donerail]

Objection filed by Senator TNF. We will now move into voting on passage of the amendment to the legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Aye

[TNF]

Nay

[Deus Naturae]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

[Cranberry]

Nay

[bore]

Nay

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Abstain

[bore]

This has enough votes to fail, senators have 24 hours to change their vote.

[windjammer]

This is obviously not an important issue, but I don't understand why you all voted Nay?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would you be interesting in a staged process? You sell it to NATO and hold what you don't sell for a defined period of time, at which point if there are no takers you scrap it and use the scrap value for this program.

[bore]

The amendment has failed