Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
Obama's new restrictions on military equipment for cops will have little effect in SoCal

President Obama's executive order this week limiting the kinds of military equipment the federal government can dole out to police won't make much of a difference in Southern California, experts said. Agencies here haven't received much of the now-banned equipment and aren't being asked to return it.
For instance, local agencies didn't have any of the large-caliber guns or weaponized planes that are on Obama's new list, a KPCC review of data on the 1033 program found. Most of the now-prohibited equipment here consists of camouflage clothing, bayonets and a handful of grenade launchers.
Specifically, as of March 31, 2015, California law enforcement agencies have the following now-prohibited equipment:
- 399 bayonets, including 40 at the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
- 65 pieces of camouflage clothing, including 46 at the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
- 11 grenade launchers, including eight at the Sacramento Police Department
- 1 tracked armored vehicle, with Modesto police
Prohibited items are a tiny fraction of the military equipment already donated to California law enforcement—just 0.2 percent.
Nationwide, an NPR analysis of 1033 data since 2006 did not find any police agencies had received firearms of .50 caliber or greater or any "weaponized aircraft" donated by the program.
"If you read every single one of the restrictions, none of them will have any meaningful impact," said Peter Kraska, a professor at Eastern Kentucky University who studies police militarization.
He said prohibiting items that were never given out in the first place, like tracked armored vehicles and .50 caliber weapons, is "deceptive". Those were "never part of the problem," he said.
Brian Moriguchi, of the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, agreed that the executive order isn't likely to change much.
"I really don't see how it applies to local law enforcement," he said.
Bomb-defusing robots
That doesn't mean California agencies don't receive battlefield-ready equipment — just that most military gear wasn't and still won't be prohibited. The 1033 data shows California agencies have:
- More than 8,000 rifles, including 1,678 at the LAPD and 1,105 at the L.A. Sheriff's
- 42 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, the type designed to withstand bomb blasts in Iraq and Afghanistan, including at police in El Monte, Azusa, Whittier and Pomona
- Helicopters, bomb-defusing robots and gym equipment
Those items are all permitted under Obama's executive order.
Moriguchi said some of the excess military equipment - including armored vehicles and bulletproof vests - could be crucial in keeping police safe while responding to dangerous situations, like a school shooting or terrorist attacks.
"We don't want to die out there," he said. "I think police need to be equipped with the resources and equipment to do their jobs safely and to protect society.
"I think [Obama's] missing that point," Moriguchi added.
'Souvenirs'
The White House could choose to recall the prohibited items already provided to police. But Kraska said things like bayonets are "souvenirs" and doubts that camouflage clothing will be recalled.
And the program is by no means dead. SoCal law enforcement agencies can still apply for guns, armored vehicles and riot equipment through the 1033 program.
Now they'll be required to submit extra paperwork justifying the items, and to report on "significant incidents" involving donated gear. A civilian body, such as a city council, will have to sign off on equipment requests.
And police can always buy the equipment themselves.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons Thursday after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.
-
Censorship has long been controversial. But lately, the issue of who does and doesn’t have the right to restrict kids’ access to books has been heating up across the country in the so-called culture wars.