Are you recommending that all 120,000 Federal officers be rolled into the FBI? That's roughly 10x what they now have.
Nope, not what I said.
A lot of federal agencies are responsible for a lot of federal funds and a lot of entities who receive those funds mis appropriate them. Consequently many of them have their own inspector general offices.
The largest amount I was personally involved with was $12 million. Do you want to go arrest someone for mis appropriating/stealing that amount of money without being armed?
Here is a real life example of my point: In New Jersey, Division of Youth And Family Services DYFS is responsible for investigating situations concerning child abuse and a variety of other family issues. Very important work. Sometimes situations can become very volatile. DYFS case workers aren't armed and I'm sure most don't want to be. When needed they call upon local LawEnforcement assets for assistance. Police Officers frequently accompany DYFS case workers.
Fast forward, a Department of Education investigator needs to confront a contractor for embezzling government funds. Imagine he doesn't have a swat team of his own. He would have to get assistance from a local agency or the US Marshals to effect an arrest.
My point remains that every government department is run by a politically appointed administrator and many have redundant law enforcement arms answerable only to them. Currently that is the law. I'm just not sure it's the best idea.
Others have beat me to it, but this proposal embarrassingly boils down to "defund the police." IRS-CI are criminal investigators who graduated from an academy, fully trained, and need to qualify on their issued firearms on a regular basis. They specialize in money laundering investigations, often targeting terror and organized crime. While executing search or arrest warrants, interviewing subjects, etc they need to be armed. I have had the pleasure of working with IRS-CI agents numerous times throughout my career, and they have been nothing but professional. No need to disarm them.
I agree with your assessment of Federal Agents. I served as a Detective Bureau Commander and during my career as an investigator and instructor I interacted with Federal Agents frequently. They were, as a group, some of the most dedicated professionals I have ever met. It was an honor and privilege to have worked with them.
I have no interest in disarming any Law Enforcement Agent.
My simple point is that our government has become a bloated and uncontrolled bureaucracy and that a proliferation of independent and uncoordinated Law Enforcement Agencies may not be the best idea. It's just a limited government idea.
Not strange that that isn't the point, but by your answer we can assume you are calling for the disarming of law enforcement?
Where did you get that idea from? Disarm Law Enforcement? Didn't say it, never have. Assume something else.
In theory, I'm opposed to unlimited government growth and I submit that the proliferation of agency specific police agencies to be a symptom of that bloat.
"Unless bureaucracy is constantly resisted, it breaks down representative government and overwhelms democracy." Ronald Reagan
