http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/07/nevadans-are-free-don-their-arms-open/

Even though it’s legal, not everyone comfortable with gun-wearing citizens, especially some police

Justin M. Bowen

Dave Stilwell, a truck driver from Las Vegas who always carries a gun for self-defense, said, “When I started to open carry a couple years ago, I would have guessed that 90 out of 100 people didn’t think it was legal.”

By Steve Kanigher
 
 

WHAT OPPONENTS SAY More guns open the door for more danger. The wild, wild West wasn’t a safe place precisely because more people carried guns. An increased presence of firearms increases the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a stray bullet, or that a criminal will get a citizen’s gun and use it for no good. Even some Second Amendment advocates say an individual openly carrying a gun in a public area can result in the same reaction that a false warning of fire can in a crowded theater. WHAT PROPONENTS SAY The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so anyone openly carrying a firearm should not need a permit — and, in fact, in Nevada, that is the case. Advocates of the state’s open-carry law say that not everyone who carries a gun is a bad person, and that if more people carried firearms, those people who do wish to use them unlawfully would think twice before doing so. HOW METRO POLICE ARE TOLD TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE OPENLY CARRYING GUNS Metro’s 20-minute refresher course on open carrying of firearms, produced in-house, begins with the statement that Nevada is an open-carry state. It goes on to tell officers that there are three ways to “engage” a person who is openly carrying a firearm: a consensual stop, in which an officer casually walks up to an individual and attempts to engage in conversation but does not make an arrest if the person simply walks away; a “Terry stop,” in which an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may have committed a crime or is about to do so; or an arrest. The training depicts three scenarios using still photos. The first scenario, which occurs on the Strip, involves an anonymous tip shortly after midnight of an armed white or Hispanic man, roughly 5-foot-10 with a medium build. The tipster says the individual is wearing a blue shirt, black baggy shorts and has a black bandana hanging from a rear pocket, which can be considered a gang symbol. When officers arrive, they see that an individual closely matching that description has a cup in his hand and is 30 feet away from a large group of people. The officers are instructed to approach the individual to determine his frame of mind. If intoxicated, he could be arrested for possessing the firearm. He also would be in trouble if he were an underage drinker or an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. If he’s not intoxicated and there is no suspicion that he has or is about to commit a crime, there is no reason to detain him. In the next scenario, which takes place after 3 a.m. in a neighborhood known for drug peddling and gang violence, a woman calls police to report a young Asian man in her backyard with a gun and a small dog. By the time police arrive a few minutes later, they spot a man matching the description wearing a beanie and walking a dog on a leash on the sidewalk. The officers are instructed to approach the individual and ask him whether he was in the backyard — which would have been trespassing — and to try to determine whether the beanie could be used as a mask. Because he has no burglary tools and the woman did not report any theft or property damage, the officers are instructed to let him go if they have no other reason to detain him. In the final scenario, officers at the Fremont Street Experience one evening during a festival of live entertainment come upon seven armed adults — five white men, a black man and a white woman — standing around but not drinking. In that instance, officers are instructed to leave those individuals alone.

Just about everybody on the Metro Police force has heard of Tim Farrell, and he sometimes gets mistaken for a law enforcement officer.

Farrell is simply a 29-year-old wireless Internet engineer — and a gun rights crusader. He is one of what appears to be a growing number of people taking up the “open-carry” cause, advocating a constitutional right to openly carry firearms.

“The open-carry movement has gained momentum over the last four or five years because people are waking up to their rights,” Farrell says. “I don’t need a permit to exercise free speech. I don’t need a permit to be tried by a jury if I’m accused of a crime, so why do I need a permit to carry a gun if I have a constitutional right to carry a gun?”

Nevada is a better place than most for Farrell because it is "an open--carry state." Nevada reiterates the right to bear arms in its constitution and does not have blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ open carrying of firearms.

That’s why a dozen or so people who attended the March 27 Tea Party rally in Searchlight were able to openly carry firearms.

One was Dave Stilwell, a 44-year-old truck driver from Las Vegas who always carries a gun for self-defense.

He says he was jogging back from a garage sale near his house one morning last May with his .45-caliber pistol on his hip. Around Jones Boulevard and Cheyenne Avenue, a Metro patrol car rolled up slowly behind him.

A shopkeeper had called police after seeing the gun, said the officer, who took the pistol from Stilwell, removed the magazine and the bullet in the chamber, checked the ID number on the gun and then returned the weapon and ammunition to Stilwell before driving away.

“I just told the officer I was exercising my body and my rights,” he said. “In retrospect, I didn’t think that was such a big deal.

“I knew I would have contact with police at some point. Even though it’s my legal right to carry a gun, there’s a lot of propaganda out there, a lot of inaccurate information. When I started to open carry a couple years ago, I would have guessed that 90 out of 100 people didn’t think it was legal.”

So have open-carry advocates latched onto the Tea Party movement? Stilwell said that although he attended with gun in holster, his reason for going was to join others who care about their rights.

“Rights are becoming more prevalent because people feel like their backs are against the wall because of the government,” he says.

Farrell is not a Tea Partyer. He describes himself as libertarian and pro-choice on abortion. He and Stilwell are on the same page when it comes to guns, however.

Like Stilwell, Farrell says he carries his handgun wherever he goes, for self-defense. He says he has never been kicked out of a casino or other place of business but finds himself educating business owners who question why he is so brazenly armed.

Farrell says he has worn his gun many times into his neighborhood restaurant and bar near the U.S. 95-Summerlin Parkway interchange. But as he walks in one recent afternoon, a bartender who spots the gun is taken aback. She says the only pistol-packing customers she has served are undercover cops.

“So what I should have done is asked to see your concealed weapons permit because that is something that’s mandatory,” she tells Farrell.

“I don’t have a concealed gun on me,” he replies. “I do have a concealed-weapons permit but you do not need a concealed-weapons permit for a nonconcealed gun.”

“I mean, a regular permit just to carry the gun around,” she says.

“There is no permit in this state for that,” he tells her.

“It used to be years ago you would have to give your weapons to the bartender,” she says.

“This bar is private property, obviously,” Farrell says. “You can set whatever rules you want.”

“You can pull that out on me and shoot,” she tells him. “You see what I’m saying?”

“Well, of course. And that’s one of the reasons to carry openly, is for self-defense but it’s also to educate others as well that, one, it’s not against the law and, two, that not everyone with a gun is a bad guy. Certainly if there was a bad guy coming to rob you, he wouldn’t let you see the gun until it was too late.”

With that, the bartender goes about her business.

It undoubtedly helps that Farrell is not one of those guys who wears head-to-toe camouflage gear. He wears polo shirts and bluejeans.

He doesn’t have a gun collection. “I have a handgun and a shotgun, that’s all, just to keep me and my wife safe.”

When Farrell read Stilwell’s blog post about how he had been stopped by police, Farrell researched state and local laws, as well as police regulations and then conducted an experiment.

On the night of June 24, he holstered up his loaded 40-caliber Glock 23 pistol and proceeded to a sidewalk on Las Vegas Boulevard, just south of Charleston Boulevard, where he was certain he would be noticed by police. He was.

It wasn’t his first encounter with the law. While vacationing in Nashua, N.H., early last year, he was stopped on foot on the way to a bank by police who asked about his gun. Minutes later he was allowed to go about his business with gun in tow. Such is life in the “live free or die” state, apparently.

The Las Vegas Strip encounter was far more intense, with police arriving in squad cars and on motorcycles in a show of force, guns drawn. Farrell was handcuffed and his gun was confiscated, its bullets removed. Over the course of the next 23 minutes, Farrell invoked his right to talk to an attorney, told police not to touch his gun, and that he hadn’t consented to being searched and detained. He refused to answer questions about whether he possessed a registration card for the weapon, and invoked his right to remain silent.

Bottom line: He hadn’t committed any crime. After police ran a background check on Farrell, confirming his gun was properly registered, and finding that he also has a concealed-weapons permit and is not a dangerous criminal, he was uncuffed. He was handed back his gun but the bullets were dropped down one of his pants pockets and the empty magazine was placed on an irrigation box 100 feet away. He was ordered not to move until police drove away.

“I understand the need for officer safety,” Farrell said. “These guys have a tough job. But officer safety does not trump my rights. To stop me there has to be something other than the fact I have a gun. They shouldn’t have even taken my gun.”

Based on complaints from Farrell, Metro’s Citizen Review Board and internal affairs division each launched investigations into his case last summer. Although the officers involved were cleared of wrongdoing, Metro’s force had to take a refresher course on how to handle individuals who openly carry firearms.

Last month, a five-member panel of the Citizen Review Board found that police had complied with department policy related to the incident but that neither the policy nor police training at the time Farrell was stopped was specific enough on “open carry” stops. The board concluded that the police action was “the result of ambiguity among officers on how to handle an individual asserting his Second Amendment right to openly carry a gun in public.”

While cadets are trained in Metro’s police academy on how to handle constitutional rights, including those involving gun possession, the agency’s thick policy and procedure manual is silent on open-carry issues.

Andrea Beckman, the Citizen Review Board’s executive director, says Farrell’s case “brought to light the significance of how to train police officers on open carry.” Farrell’s case, in fact, was the first open-carry dispute heard by the board, and his name is now familiar throughout Metro.

A little more than a month after “the Farrell incident,” Metro’s 3,000 officers took their refresher course.

“When we don’t respond to something the way we should have, we’re quick to correct ourselves,” Metro Patrol Division Deputy Chief Kathleen O’Connor says.

The review board noted, however, that one police sergeant who confronted Farrell needed more training because it was clear from the sergeant’s testimony that if he had been given a test after the refresher, he would have failed.

The open-carry issue is tricky for police, O’Connor says, because officers are caught between preserving an individual’s open-carry rights and protecting the public from potential harm.

Of course, some police officers are not the only ones uncomfortable with the idea of lots of citizens walking around with guns on their hips. Opponents say the more guns that are being toted around, the greater the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a stray bullet, the more likely it is that a criminal will get a citizen’s gun and use it for no good. Even some Second Amendment advocates acknowledge that an individual who openly wears a gun in a crowded public area might result in the same reaction that a false warning of fire can in a crowded theater.

There are exceptions to Nevada’s open-carry rights. Among them is a state law that prohibits average citizens from carrying firearms on college campuses, at public or private schools and at day care centers without written permission from the heads of those facilities. An individual also cannot legally possess a firearm while intoxicated.

Local laws prohibit possession of guns in Clark County parks or in vehicles within North Las Vegas city limits.

Violation of the North Las Vegas “deadly weapons” ordinance, on the books since 1978, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The ordinance provides exceptions to the weapons ban as it pertains to “ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation.” The ordinance has only been enforced in conjunction with traffic stops for other violations, such as speeding or suspicion of criminal activity, police say.

It also appears to violate the state law that gives the Legislature, not local governments, the power to regulate firearms, UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Thomas McAffee says.

“The state statute does permit some older local registration requirements, but the city ordinance here is a complete ban on possession in a motor vehicle, which seems to clearly fall within the scope of the state reservation of authority,” McAffee says.

Michael Davidson, North Las Vegas’ chief criminal attorney, said his interpretation is that the ordinance is legal because when the state law was last revised in 2007, the intent was to preserve pre-1989 local gun laws that had nothing to do with firearm registration. He said there have been dozens of cases in recent years where convictions that included violation of that ordinance have been upheld in North Las Vegas Municipal Court without a single appeal of the weapons ban made to District Court in Clark County.

“The intent was to go after gangbangers, not mom and pop in the RV,” Davidson says.

Farrell and other local open-carry advocates counter that North Las Vegas’ law is unconstitutional on its face, no matter the intent.

These advocates staged peaceful protests in North Las Vegas last year — picking up litter “to show we’re just regular guys” — and in January in front of Bally’s on the Strip, where numerous tourists had their pictures taken with Farrell and roughly 20 of his fellow gun-toters.

Farrell had given a Metro watch commander a courtesy heads-up before his armed group headed down to the Strip. The police commander thanked him for the warning, acknowledged the group’s right to assemble, but also pleaded with Farrell to cancel his plans.

The tourists who took pictures, however, encouraged Farrell and his posse to keep standing up for the Constitution, he says, and that’s what he intends to do.
 
 

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5774.shtml

By Jerry Mazza - Online Journal Associate Editor

It boggles the mind to watch the short YouTube videos of Wikileaks’ leaked video. To hear the clipped voices of the American helicopter pilots honing in on a group of civilians, including a Reuters photographer and his driver in a July 2007 attack in Baghdad, then killing them, mistaking the photographer’s camera for an AK-47.

Twelve in all were killed and two children wounded sitting in a rescue van. One pilot’s response to that was, “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”

The oft-conservative New York Times reporting Video Shows U.S. Killing of Reuters Employees catches the cold, ruthless tone of the Apache helicopter pilots. At one point saying, “Look at these dead bastards,” and the response is “Nice.” In fact, one pilot, impatient to do more killing insists, “Come on. Let us shoot.” He’s waiting for confirmation the intended victim has a weapon, which he obviously does not. Yet eventually, the wounded victim, Mr. Noor-Eldeen, 22, is shot dead. His driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40, is shot as well. This can be seen in the full 38-minute version.

You get to listen to all the blind-brained macho of these guys who would probably shoot their mother if she had a broom in her hand, sad-assed murderers that they are, reveling in this slaughter. The full video, Wikileaks reported at the National Press Club, came from whistle-blowers in the military who had viewed it after breaking the encryption code. Wikileaks subsequently edited the video to 17 minutes. All blessings go to those military whistle-blowers for their courage.

At another point, we hear a pilot say, “I think they just drove over a body,” and he chuckles at the van trying to gather the wounded.

The journalists had been working on a weightlifting report, Reuters said, when they heard of the military raid in the Baghdad neighborhood and went out to check on it.

There were reports of U.S. forces clashing with “insurgents” in the area though no fighting had taken place on the streets, in which Namir was walking with a group of men, whom witnesses said were not assuming hostile postures.

No disciplinary action was taken by the American military, which determined after an “investigation” that the “forces involved had no reason to know that there were Reuters employees in the group.” What about the civilians and children that would be killed or wounded as well?

In fact, the United States Central Command, overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released late Monday a redacted report providing more detail on the events. It contained pictures of what it claimed were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of the killed.

It also claimed the Reuters journalists “made no effort to display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”

What were the Reuters guys supposed to do, wave their press cards at the choppers? That in and of itself probably would have gotten them killed. They would have been seen as “small arms” fired at pilots.

As to the planting of arms next to the already dead, innocent victims, that’s an old story going back to the slaughter in Haditha on November 19, 2005. At that time, U.S. Marines were caught on video by a journalism student as they massacred women, kids and old folks at close range. Similar situations occurred at Fallajuh. There are scenes of the dead before and after weapons are added. This latest video brings the horror of Iraq back in a painfully palpable way.

A Reuters’ representative made a statement that: “The deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh three years ago were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. We continue to work for journalist safety and call on all involved parties to recognize the important work that journalists do and the extreme danger that photographers and video journalists face in particular.”

But what about the civilians, Mr. Schlesinger? Who will speak for them, for their pointless deaths? And who will apologize for the careless killers in their high-tech weapons spitting death? Who will apologize for the war that was illegally started on the basis that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was about to use them on us any moment?

Who will try to convict Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Company who lied a thousand times or more that they were absolutely certain WMD were in Hussein’s possession, and that the mushroom cloud was to appear at any moment on the horizon? What about these murderers, giving the itchy fingers reasons to pull, pull, pull; giving them reasons to “shock and awe” an entire nation into destruction and chaos?

Who will judge these men and women in a court of law and take their lives as those civilians and journalists’ lives were taken, so randomly, casually, just another day in the chopper, dear? Yet the very same or worse killing continues, equally as randomly by drones guided from the CIA at Langley, making the murder even more impersonal in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and all points south.

And what force of justice, god or man, will judge the United States of America as the ongoing World Butcher, supported by tax dollars of working people who themselves are trying to keep their heads above the water-line of extinction? If the statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and our forefathers could speak, they would scream in anger at us for this descent into barbarism. It makes this writer sick to his stomach.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. His new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” is available at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com.
 
 

http://www.infowars.com/violence-in-video-games-and-the-baghdad-massacre/

“Violence in Video Games” was produced to demonstrate the close similarities between real-world violence and simulated violence included in video games. The video juxtapositions scenes captured in the real-world and those that exist in the fantasy game world depicted in the Call of Duty series. Shooting dogs, beating children and murdering innocent civilians are dwarfed by the amount of unmitigated evil game developers are having their heroes portray.

Call of Duty is currently the most popular first-person shooter video game series on the market. The game overshadows in popularity and sales Grand Theft Auto and Halo.

Current versions of the game include torture of captured enemy combatants, burning prisoners alive with Molotov cocktails, shooting soldiers who surrender, and the terrorist slaughter of civilians in a Russian airport.

For the less gung-ho (and psychopathic), the latest version of Call of Duty allows players to opt-out of the scene depicting the murder of innocent civilians.

Video games play an important role in training U.S. soldiers as they prepare for combat. In 2008, the Army invested $50 million for the development of video games and a gaming system designed to train soldiers for combat. “With the new platform and games, Army programmers hope to offer more life-like reproductions of battlefield scenarios, offering editable terrains, a greater capacity for multi-player action and larger battlefields,” writes Switched, an AOL electronics website.

The current version of Call of Duty was not available in 2007 when soldiers massacred a Reuters cameraman and other civilians in Baghdad. However, considering the way the soldiers acted, you wouldn’t know it.
 
 

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/05/irs-chief-buy-health-insurance-or-lose-your-tax-refund/

By Gautham Nagesh - The Daily Caller
 
 

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas  Shulman discusses his role in overseeing the  collection of $2.4 trillion in tax revenue during  a luncheon gathering at the National Press Club  in Washington, Monday, April 5, 2010.  (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Individuals who don’t purchase health insurance may lose their tax refunds according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. After acknowledging the recently passed health-care bill limits the agency’s options for enforcing the individual mandate, Shulman told reporters that the most likely way to penalize individuals that don’t comply is by reducing or confiscating their tax refunds. Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt. “These are not the kinds of things we send agents out about,” Shulman said. “These are things where you get a letter from us. Congress was very careful to make sure there was nothing too punitive in this bill.” Many reports have claimed that enforcement of the individual mandate will be non-existent, but Shulman’s answers indicate differently. According to BusinessWeek, starting in 2015 Americans who don’t purchase insurance will be subject to a fine of $325 and that sum increases to $695 in 2016. However, the commissioner seemed confident that in most cases individuals would either receive subsidies to purchase insurance or simply do so on their own in order to comply with the law.

“The vast majority of American people have a healthy respect for the law and want to be compliant with their tax obligations,” Shulman said, mentioning letters, collection notices and offsets as among the various ways the IRS will reach out to people without coverage.

During his speech Shulman said threats against the IRS have not risen despite media reports to the contrary. He disagreed that it has become more dangerous to work for the IRS following the February incident in which a disgruntled pilot flew his plane into the agency’s Austin, Texas office, killing one employee.

“There’s been a lot of stuff in the press around increased threats, which is actually inaccurate,” Shulman said. “What there has been is increased chatter on the Internet that has an anti-government sentiment.”

He also said it is too early to know what additional resources or how many employees the IRS will need to enforce compliance with the mandate and clarified his reasons for using a professional tax preparer.

“I wouldn’t read into anything about me doing it now,” Shulman said. “I’m just a busy guy and have had good service for the past 15 years.”
 
 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/small-army-to-protect-toronto-during-g20-summit/article1525511/

Number of security personnel expected to exceed those at the Vancouver Olympics

Colin Freeze

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Apr. 07, 2010 5:00AM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Apr. 07, 2010 11:46AM EDT

Police forces have entered into an alliance to deal with the threat of violent protest at Toronto’s G20 summit with as many as 10,000 uniformed officers and 1,000 private security guards teaming up to protect world leaders.

Federal contract tenders obtained by The Globe indicate a small army will descend on Canada's largest city this June, exceeding the estimated 6,000-police-officer presence at Vancouver’s 2010 Olympics.

The police security will come at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, although police officials would not confirm deployment numbers. Yet federal contract tenders posted online indicate how things are shaping up.

“For the G8 Summit [in Deerhurst, Ont.] the RCMP/OPP will require approximately 4,000 personnel with duty-related belongings to be transported at different dates, times and locations,” reads a contract tendered for shuttle buses. “For the G20 Summit, the RCMP will require approximately 5,600 personnel with duty-related belongings to be transported at different dates, times and locations.”

Spokeswoman RCMP Sergeant Michele Paradis said yesterday “we won’t ever give out the number,” of police assigned to the Group of 20 meetings, set to be held inside downtown’s Metro Convention Centre on the June 25 weekend, and the Group of Eight meeting that immediately precedes it at the Deerhurst Resort north of the city.

The RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit, to be buttressed by non-Mountie police officers seconded to the ISU, has the responsibility of protecting VIPs. And several specialized police units -- SWAT teams, intelligence analysts, motorcade escorts -- are expected to fly down from Deerhurst for the Toronto summit.

On top of all that, a new federal “letter of interest” seeks to hire a contractor who can provide airport-style security at various checkpoints.

“The contractor will be required to provide approximately 1,030 security screening personnel to perform pedestrian screening in designated areas,” the letter reads.

The tender doesn’t say where the guards will be stationed, but they are to be outfitted with “Magnetometers,” “walk-through metal detectors,” “X-Ray belt driven scanners” and “hand-held metal detectors.”

Sgt. Paradis, who handles communications for federal police, said “we are going to use private security, and this will be used to augment the security process.” Stressing she would not speak to numbers, she did add that no numbers are set in stone and that the force levels will vary depending on what circumstances and threat levels dictate.

In Pittsburgh, which hosted the G20 last September, 6,000 police and National Guard were called in the assist city police.

In June the overall ranks of security forces could even rival the estimated 15,000 dignitaries and journalists anticipated for the G8/G20 summits. The Toronto Police Service is expected to have much or most of its 5,500-member uniformed force on duty to protect the metropolis that weekend -- officers were warned not to book any vacation months ago. “I cannot comment on TPS deployment beyond telling you that … all hands are expected to be on deck to police the entire city,” said City Councillor Adam Vaughan, a member of the police board.

And unspecified numbers of Canadian soldiers and spies will also work behind the scenes to help thousands of police safeguard the meetings. Meanwhile, world leaders like U.S. President Barack Obama will also bring added layers of guards of their own.

Publicly available contract tenders for police transport, private security, and communications systems are currently available on the merx.com website for those who search the term “G20.”

The tenders in their own words

The following federal contract tenders for G20-related equipment are currently online:

    * Dozens of buses: "For the G20 Summit the RCMP will require approximately 5,600 personnel with duty-related belongings to be transported at different dates, times and locations."
    * 1,000 Private Security Guards: "The contractor will be required to provide approximately 1,030 security screening personnel to perform pedestrian screening in designated areas."
    * Secure two-way radios: "The radio system must be a leased, two-way multi-channel digital trunk radio communication system or service ... fully operational by June 7, 2010."
    * Communications/Interpretation: "Conference discussion systems (CDS), conference simultaneous interpretation systems (CSIS), sound reinforcement systems (SRS), conference microphone systems (CMS), audio visual systems (AVS) and simultaneous interpretation (SIS) in various locations."
    * On-site printing and shredding: "The Printing contractor will deliver, install and provide the personnel to operate the main sites printing centres as well as the remote sites... the contractor will provide personnel, photocopiers, facsimiles, scanners and shredders."