Why the Hell is the Department of Agriculture Buying Submachine Guns?

You may have seen this
equipment order going around:

May 07, 2014 2:03 pm

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General,
located in Washington, DC, pursuant to the authority of FAR Part
13, has a requirement for the commerical acquisition of
submachine guns, .40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety,
semi-automatic or 2 shot burts trigger group, Tritium night sights
for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under
fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsilbe or folding,
magazine – 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized
trigger guard for gloved operation. 

Bolding mine, to emphasize OMG WHY ARE WE MILITARIZING THE
LETTUCE INSPECTORS?

This story has mostly
drawn attention from the journalistic right: Breitbart.com’s

Big Government, The Drudge Report,
Washington Times,
Examiner.com,
Guns Save Lives, Personal
Liberty Digest,
American Thinker, and so on. Last week on The
Independents, we had two different Republicans—Rep.
Thomas Massie (Kentucky) and Rep.
Chris Stewart (Utah)—come on to bemoan the militarization of
federal agencies. They are right to do so. But it’s equally true
that the GOP is heavily responsible for the arming of the executive
branch in the first place, and has in its hands the power to change
the bad underlying legislation.

OIGs weren’t always in the submachine business. The
Inspector General Act of 1978 was enacted not so that armed
federal agents could kick in doors of raw
milk farmers before dawn, but rather (in the words of the
Inspector General inside the General Services Administration),

to detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and violations of law
while promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the
operations of the Federal Government.

Italics mine, to illustrate the sour irony of it all.

So how did an
internal government watchdog turn into an external projection
of U.S. power against its own citizens? Because of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, which
amended the IG Act to grant inspectors “full law enforcement
authority to carry firearms, make arrests and execute search
warrants.” The law was sponsored
by then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), passed with a
heavily
Republican majority (207-10 in favor, versus 88-110 among
Democrats), passed
overwhelmingly in the Senate (90-9, with no Republicans voting
against), and then signed into law by President George W. Bush. The
blunt truth is that after 9/11, a vast majority of elected
conservatives want to arm the bejeebus out of the feds, with little
or no deliberation about long-term consequences.

If Republicans now belatedly loathe the creation of dozens
of new police units within the federal government, here is what
they can do about it: Draft a bill reversing the 2002 amendment to
the IG Act, and then pass it.

After the jump, read on for some USDA justification for
submachine guns.

According to
Politico,

USDA responded to POLITICO by explaining that there are more
than 100 agents employed by the law enforcement division of the
department’s Office of the Inspector General who carry such weapons
because they are involved in the investigation of criminal
activities, including fraud, theft of government property, bribery,
extortion, smuggling and assaults on employees. From fiscal 2012
through March 2014, OIG investigations pertaining to USDA
operations have netted more than 2,000 indictments, 1,350
convictions and over $460 million in monetary results, the OIG told
POLITICO in a subsequent email.

More:

USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe says the guns are needed by the
more than 100 agents employed by the law-enforcement division of
the department’s Office of the Inspector General. They’ve carried
machine guns for 20 years, she notes. USDA OIG officers “are placed
in very dangerous law enforcement situations,” another USDA
official told POLITICO. “They make arrests, they serve subpoenas
and they engage in undercover operations.”

Thanks to reader Chris Herald for the tip.