Skip to main content

View Diary: Mercenaries in Northwoods Wisconsin Protecting Destruction: UPDATES! (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's legal to hunt with suppressors in many states (8+ / 0-)

    But it was my understanding that humans are not in season.

    A disturbing thought you raise here--in addition to the images themselves.

    •  What I would want to know is this: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noise of rain, northerntier, jayden

      Just because it's legal to hunt with suppressors, doesn't mean it's legal to have them on just any kind of gun in just any kind of season, or for use in a mercenary style security venture.

      I would be very interested to know if these guys are violating local or federal gun laws with regards to this.

      •  The Paper Work Is Pricey For An Individual (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Creosote, GreenMother

        But for guys like this it would probably cost less than what they spend on ammunition for each gun each quarter to have all the permits.  

        There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

        by bernardpliers on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 11:17:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think perhaps looking into permitting is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrY10cK

          important.

          I am not comfortable with any kind of Merc on American soil, especially not when they act against law abiding citizens in questionable operations. If it were me, I would be scrutinizing what kind of permits are out there and seeing how they stack up against our civil rights. Perhaps the Patriot Act isn't the only law that needs to be undone. Or perhaps their presence isn't as legal as their employers would like you to think.

          Private security guards with a semi-auto handgun and a large clip, I can understand up to a point. But what I see in this photograph? WTF? Is this S. America or 1960s in an Asian Jungle somewhere?

          •  Sorry for so many posts and no real conversation (0+ / 0-)

            but we all have to start somewhere:

            United States

            The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 U.S.C. § 3108) forbade the U.S. Government from using Pinkerton National Detective Agency employees, or similar private police companies. In 1977, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this statute as forbidding the U.S. Government's employing companies offering mercenary, quasi-military forces for hire. United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978). There is a disagreement over whether or not this proscription is limited to the use of such forces as strikebreakers, because it is stated thus:

                The purpose of the Act and the legislative history reveal that an organization was "similar" to the Pinkerton Detective Agency only if it offered for hire mercenary, quasi-military forces as strikebreakers and armed guards. It had the secondary effect of deterring any other organization from providing such services lest it be branded a "similar organization." The legislative history supports this view and no other.

            In the 7 June 1978 Letter to the Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies, the Comptroller General interpreted this decision in a way that carved out an exemption for "Guard and Protective Services".

            A U.S. Department of Defense interim rule (effective 16 June 2006) revises DoD Instruction 3020.41 to authorize contractors, other than private security contractors, to use deadly force against enemy armed forces only in self-defense. 71 Fed. Reg. 34826. Per that interim rule, private security contractors are authorized to use deadly force when protecting their client's assets and persons, consistent with their contract's mission statement. One interpretation is that this authorizes contractors to engage in combat on behalf of the U.S. Government. It is the combatant commander's responsibility to ensure that private security contract mission statements do not authorize performance of inherently Governmental military functions, i.e. preemptive attacks or assaults or raids, etc..
            https://en.wikipedia.org/...

            There is more--sorry it's only wikipedia, but it's a start.
            I wonder what the laws are, if they change when on American Soil, and IF the Patriot Act, may in fact blur the lines between privately hired forces, acting on behalf of our government, using their intelligence to protect companies deemed as critical infrastructure?

            I have more on critical infrastructure at my diary right now. http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  Greenmother, it's worth pointing out (0+ / 0-)

      that suppressors are one of the most lied about objects in movies.

      http://www.silencerco.com/... is a suppressor that could be on the first pic. Note that it would reduce the noise by about 33dB, resulting in a shot that may be around 130 decibels.

      What else is in the neighborhood of 130ish decibels? 130 is the threshold of ear pain. Rock concerts are quieter. Jets taking off are quieter.

      Suppressors are not for hunting humans without the humans being able to hear the shots. Suppressors are for reducing the sound as much as possible, hopefully managing to bring the blast down to below the level of hearing damage.

      Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

      by JayFromPA on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 01:46:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site