I’m guessing that many Orthodox Israeli troops will be *extremely *pissed off when they hear about it; some might refuse to carry the devices outright.
They are two different markings.
Stock numbers and batch IDS are two different ideas.
Stock numbers typically remain the same throughout the production life of a part. Batch numbers need to change for each production run.
Government Contracting 101:
The government has a need for something: toilets, parachutes, rifles. Whatever. So they put out an RFP - a Request for Proposal. This is a document that lays out in some detail what they want. If it’s a toilet, there will be detailed descriptions for each type of toilet needed.
Typically, the government doesn’t know exactly how many it will need. So it will negotiate an IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity) price for the item, and award the contract to supply the item to one or more vendors. When the vendor produces the item, the government tests it and accepts it. By doing so, they agree that the item meets their specifications. If they reject it, they must identify which elements in the solicitation’s requirements were not met. If they asked for a toilet that handles 1.6 gallons per flush, and the delivered toilet balks at that, they may reject it. But if they fail to specify what color the toilets should be, they may not reject the delivered toilet because they’re green.
I say all this to say that it’s not clear to me what acquisition rule or CFR the rifle manufacturer violated. There may well have been some specification in the solicitation that forbids this practice, but none of the stories about this have identified it.
I agree it’s not a good idea.
But is there any specific violation of rule, contract, or law here? Or does the government simply need to tighten up its rifle specifications for future acquisitions?
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to… what’s the phrase?
How about the 1857 Indian Mutiny for a historical precedent of people getting pissed about weapons with religious significance?
Hundreds of thousands died over a rumour!
I really hope they haven’t issued these sights to anyone in the Afghan or Iraqi Armies.
Now I want to know which bible verses are inscribed. For instance, did they use the chillingly appropriate words of Matthew 10:30 ?** (“And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”)
**
Looks like in the OT they went for the center of mass:
2 Samuel 18:14
…So he took three javelins in his hand and plunged them into Absalom’s heart while Absalom was still alive…
2 Kings 9:24
Then Jehu drew his bow and shot Joram between the shoulders. The arrow pierced his heart and he slumped down in his chariot.
What precision aiming solution would Jesus buy?
I was thinking of that earlier. These things have consequences, whether we think they should or not.
I find it comical and the next time I get my hands on my Canadian Forces Reserve-issued rifle, I’ll check the scope, though it’s almost certainly from a different manufacturer.
I don’t see what the big deal is, myself. It’s not really any different from someone naming computer subroutines after his favourite fictional characters.
Can you imagine the shitstorm we’d be hearing about if some weapons manufacture included secret Koran verses on their product?
Really? I’m about as secular a Jew as you can get (atheist, non-practicing) - but I thought the Yom Kippur war convinced the IDF that military necessity trumps religion every time.
I don’t see the “verses”, here, just what might be interpreted as references to verses, mixed into an otherwise lengthy serial number.
It’s a stretch,as the FAR doesn’t really address this. The only prohibition of inscriptions that I know of is where adding “Made in America” to article which, in fact, weren’t is defined as a basis for debarment.
That said I think this could fall under the EEO provisions. If the company is not defined as a religious entity, then they would be required to follow the provisions of the EEO and asking someone who is not Christian to inscribe Biblical verses, or create an object to be inscribed, woudl probably be considered hostile.
From FAR 22.807 (7)
Contracts with religious entities. Pursuant to E.O. 13279, Section 202 of E.O. 11246, shall not apply to a Government contractor or subcontractor that is a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society, with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities. Such contractors and subcontractors are not exempted or excused from complying with the other requirements contained in the order.
As for selling to the Israelis, is it possible these are Old Testament quotes?
There are so many awesomely appropriate OT verses for modern weaponry!
Personally, I always thought some quotes from Jeremiah would go well on nukes:
Why would someone bother doing this at all? Is this the right wing version of dotting your i’s with little hearts?
That’s a fair question - but doesn’t the government’s intent enter into the contracting process at all? (Honest question - IANA procurement expert.) At common law, and under most (probably all) state laws, my understanding is that performance of a contract which knowingly perverts the intent of the contract can be held to be a breach. If I’m building your house, and I know you’re allergic to Paint X, but use it anyway because it wasn’t barred in the contract, that’ll be something most courts frown on. At the end of the day, courts expect parties to a contract to interpret that contract reasonably.
By a similar token, how could this contractor reasonably believe that it’s acceptable to put Bible quotes on its sights? I mean, a government contractor knows that the government (with rare, clearly delineated exceptions) enforces a rigorous separation of church and state. A military contractor would also know that this separation is likely to be particularly important in this particular context. And doesn’t the fact that the quotes were semi-hidden suggest that the manufacterer knew what they were doing wasn’t within the intent of the contract?
I could see the manufacturer raising the argument you suggest - but it seems to smack of unreasonable “gotcha”-ness. Would a federal court decide in favor of such a thing?
I’m curious if any tank regiments have latched onto Judges 1:19, the implication being that not even God himself could dislodge their “iron chariots”.
P.S. If I could get to youtube, I’d link that great scene from Band of Brothers where the sniper (Shifty?) is reciting a proverb as he shoots the enemy sniper.
Looks it up
Oh, that’s a good one. 
Hey, this is fun …
I thought of another possible cause of action: If the time and expense of adding the inscription is included in their overhead rate, the Government could cite, fine, or even debar them. (the latter is unlikely)
They would have to be able to show that a seperate, unallowable billing code is used to cover all time and expenses related to this practice. I’m betting they can’t.