While the “use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” The Washington Times uncovering of a 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
As one defense official proclaimed, “this appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens.”
Meet Directive 3025.18 and all its “quelling civil disturbances” totalitarianism… As The Washington Times reports,
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest. There is one silver lining (for now)…
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
(MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH….)
The National Rifle Association has issued a strongly-worded criticism of a fellow gun rights group, calling its practice of so-called “open carry” demonstrations “downright scary.”
The criticisms of Open Carry Texas were noted in an unsigned post published Friday on the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action page. Open Carry Texas members have become known for gathering in public places, mostly notably restaurants, carrying large, high-powered rifles.
Most recently, Sonic, Chipotle, and Chili’s joined Starbucks, Wendy’s, Jack in the Box, and Applebee’s in banning firearms from their premises after protests by Open Carry Texas.
“Let’s not mince words,” the post on the NRA’s site said, “not only is it rare, it’s downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself.”
To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one’s cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.
“Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners,” the NRA wrote. “That’s not the Texas way. And that’s certainly not the NRA way.”
Open Carry Texas slammed the NRA Monday in a post on its Facebook page, saying,
“The NRA has refused to learn for themselves how Open Carry Texas conducts itself other than what the liberal media and [former New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg funded gun control extremists have falsely portrayed.
The more the NRA continues to divide its members by attacking some aspects of gun rights instead of supporting all gun rights, the more support it will lose.”
For gun-rights proponents, it’s time for some common sense.
It is the sense of this author that most Americans are uncomfortable, if not downright outraged, with (probably) needless open carry of high powered, high round capacity weapons in certain areas, especially in the presence of women and children.
In Mississippi, once the “new” had worn off the right to open carry, the “Wild West” scenarios predicted by some have not come about. From this writer’s observation, open carry, especially of high-powered rifles, is the exception, and not the rule. As it should be.
Flagrant display of so-called “assault rifles” and the like, just give more “ammo” to those who would further diminish the rights of Americans to bear arms.