Firearms on Ground Teams

[blackrain]

Haven't looked at this thread in a couple days but I'll address a couple of things.

1)There is a difference between qualified and authorized. I should have clarified.

2)I believe that the Second Amendment should be interpreted very broadly as far as gun rights. (No surprise to anyone here I'm sure) Yes we limit rights in this country but my view on those limits will be different from others.

3) A common theme I hear about is "limits" regarding authority and as I mentioned above Constitutional Rights Etc...whether we like it or not as long as criminals don't respect limits then we have to be prepared....If criminals respected limits then even law enforcement would not need weapons. Lots of Looney Tunes out there would see us as military because they don't know the difference whether we are armed or not. I've been asked if I was Law Enforcement while wearing the CAP blue flight suit.

4) Sure we can prevent a lot of tragedy by banning different things....lets ban alcohol to prevent drunk driving.....ban use of all motor vehicle for all but work and essential transportation for commerce to prevent unnecessary motor vehicle deaths (no recreational use and no license before 21).  No backyard swimming pools to prevent children drowning.....and on and on...

5) The point about security in vehicles referrers to being in a vehicle with only a glass window as security. A secured (to the vehicle) weapons locker (or similar or post a weapons guard like we do when we stop in convoy going to the range stateside) is necessary. Yes some people who should know better(FBI Agents) several years ago (mid 1990s) in Memphis left automatic weapons in a locked SUV in a motel parking lot and they were stolen. Made for an anxious few days until they were recovered along with most of the ammunition. But I don't expect to be told I'm not qualified/authorized by my virtue of my civilian status. The MPs and Security Forces personnel were some of the biggest violators of General Order Number 1 (no alcohol) in theater. Some got caught and some didn't...but they came back to the states and went right back to work guarding the bases stateside. I won't leave a weapon unsecured. I just won't do it. That's just one of my personal limits.

6) As far as a weapon making people braver....well does being in a vehicle increase peoples tendency to be confrontational? Sure just look at the road rage. A 5'3 100 lb person will make an obscene gesture a someone twice their size in another car but wouldn't think about doing the same thing if they crossed paths on a sidewalk. Back to banning "unnecessary" vehicle use.

7) Finally on the issue of judgment. We trust people to fly their children using good judgment.

I would just state I have nothing but the utmost respect for Law Enforcement but they can't be everywhere at once.

Well I think I've thoroughly exercised my First Amendment Rights discussing the Second Amendment. Makes this country great... :clap: 

[LSThiker]

3)Lots of Looney Tunes out there would see us as military because they don't know the difference whether we are armed or not. I've been asked if I was Law Enforcement while wearing the CAP blue flight suit.

A good reason for CAP not to allow any concealed weapons at activities.  We have enough people thinking we are military or LE, no need to give them any more of a reason.  Besides, no need to give misguided members a reason to pretend we are military or LE.  The cost of having allowing a concealed weapon outweigh the benefit of having one. 

4) Sure we can prevent a lot of tragedy by banning different things....lets ban alcohol to prevent drunk driving.....ban use of all motor vehicle for all but work and essential transportation for commerce to prevent unnecessary motor vehicle deaths (no recreational use and no license before 21).

CAP already bans smoking and drinking around cadets.  In addition, it bans 18 year old + cadets from smoking.  CAP already limits the use of corporate vehicles and prevents cadets, even those with DLs, from driving corporate vehicles.  It also limits senior members under the age of 21.  Again, the context of the question is not outside of CAP, but at the CAP activities. 

5) The point about security in vehicles referrers to being in a vehicle with only a glass window as security. A secured (to the vehicle) weapons locker (or similar or post a weapons guard like we do when we stop in convoy going to the range stateside) is necessary.

Posting a cadet as a "weapons guard" because a single senior member wants to carry a firearm would be the waste of a cadet's training time.  Even another senior member's training time.  Training needs to be effective, efficient, and within the scope of the mission, operation, or objective.

But I don't expect to be told I'm not qualified/authorized by my virtue of my civilian status.

Well you are not.  You are being told because of your membership in CAP and the BOG and USAF have agreed on not allowing members to carry a concealed firearm except as prescribed in CAPR 900-3. 

I won't leave a weapon unsecured. I just won't do it. That's just one of my personal limits.

Maybe you will not, but as evidenced by enough military, LE, and civilians, there are members who will.  Therefore, CAP does not need to take the risk on the other ~34,000 members.

6) As far as a weapon making people braver....well does being in a vehicle increase peoples tendency to be confrontational? Sure just look at the road rage. A 5'3 100 lb person will make an obscene gesture a someone twice their size in another car but wouldn't think about doing the same thing if they crossed paths on a sidewalk. Back to banning "unnecessary" vehicle use.

And if my wing were to hear about any senior members having road rage or inappropriate gestures while driving a CAP vehicle, you would be banned from vehicle use.  Actually, not long ago, a SM was banned from vehicle usage for not being safe around cadets.  Nevertheless, driving vehicles is a requirement for us to carry out our mission.   

7) Finally on the issue of judgment. We trust people to fly their children using good judgment.

A required risk to carry out the operational mission.  Firearms are not a required risk to accomplish our mission unlike LE and military.

[JeffDG]

2)I believe that the Second Amendment should be interpreted very broadly as far as gun rights. (No surprise to anyone here I'm sure) Yes we limit rights in this country but my view on those limits will be different from others.

Second Amendment is wholly inapplicable.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, impact government interactions with citizens.  CAP is a private organization, and as such, has no obligation to respect your 2nd Amendment rights.  If you don't like the policies, you are not obligated to be a member.

Regardless of concealed carry laws, for example, if I don't want you carrying in my house, I have every right to tell you that, and you can either stow your weapon somewhere else, or get the hell off my property if you don't like my rules.

[blackrain]

2)I believe that the Second Amendment should be interpreted very broadly as far as gun rights. (No surprise to anyone here I'm sure) Yes we limit rights in this country but my view on those limits will be different from others.

Second Amendment is wholly inapplicable.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, impact government interactions with citizens.  CAP is a private organization, and as such, has no obligation to respect your 2nd Amendment rights.  If you don't like the policies, you are not obligated to be a member.

Regardless of concealed carry laws, for example, if I don't want you carrying in my house, I have every right to tell you that, and you can either stow your weapon somewhere else, or get the hell off my property if you don't like my rules.

Is that your thought on all the Amendments to the Constitution as related to CAP? Or just the Second Amendment.

As far as CAP being private they sure have a pretty close relationship the US Government and they certainly use a LOT of US taxpayer money....Just a soon as they don't use taxpayer money then I'll agree it's private.

Totally agree on your house, your rules...same for mine

[Eclipse]

As far as CAP being private they sure have a pretty close relationship the US Government and they certainly use a LOT of US taxpayer money....Just a soon as they don't use taxpayer money then I'll agree it's private.

Your agreement doesn't change the facts.

CAP is chartered as a private organization.  That it does, or does not receive federal money is irrelevant.

[LSThiker]

As far as CAP being private they sure have a pretty close relationship the US Government and they certainly use a LOT of US taxpayer money....Just a soon as they don't use taxpayer money then I'll agree it's private.

Totally agree on your house, your rules...same for mine

Yup and CAP's house, CAP's rules.

By the way, the CAP and the US law do not agree with your opinion:

Civil Air Patrol is a private, nonprofit corporation chartered under special Act of Congress, 36 USC §§ 40301 - 40307, which sets forth the purposes, rights, and duties of the Civil Air Patrol.

[blackrain]

As far as CAP being private they sure have a pretty close relationship the US Government and they certainly use a LOT of US taxpayer money....Just a soon as they don't use taxpayer money then I'll agree it's private.

Totally agree on your house, your rules...same for mine

Yup and CAP's house, CAP's rules.

By the way, the CAP and the US law do not agree with your opinion:

Civil Air Patrol is a private, nonprofit corporation chartered under special Act of Congress, 36 USC §§ 40301 - 40307, which sets forth the purposes, rights, and duties of the Civil Air Patrol.

OK fair enough on the legal definition of private.......

but I bet if you ask the taxpayers, whether CAP Members or not, have very definite opinions on organizations that spend their money, especially one that would likely not exist without said funding......(yes I know through our elected officials it is decided who gets what funding but from a practical standpoint most of us have very little real direct clout in that area but the taxpayers still care).....

However I suspect even private institutions especially those using taxpayer funds still are subject to the entire US Constitution.

[JeffDG]

2)I believe that the Second Amendment should be interpreted very broadly as far as gun rights. (No surprise to anyone here I'm sure) Yes we limit rights in this country but my view on those limits will be different from others.

Second Amendment is wholly inapplicable.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, impact government interactions with citizens.  CAP is a private organization, and as such, has no obligation to respect your 2nd Amendment rights.  If you don't like the policies, you are not obligated to be a member.

Regardless of concealed carry laws, for example, if I don't want you carrying in my house, I have every right to tell you that, and you can either stow your weapon somewhere else, or get the hell off my property if you don't like my rules.

Is that your thought on all the Amendments to the Constitution as related to CAP? Or just the Second Amendment.

It is.

The Bill of Rights is not applicable to any private organization that is not controlled by the federal or a state or local government.

CAP can tell you to shut up if they want, and expel you as a member if you refuse to follow their rules on speech.  CAP can require a suspicion-less search of your gear at a CAP event.  In an investigation, CAP can require you to answer questions, regardless of whether they could incriminate you, and treat a refusal as evidence of guilt.

[LSThiker]

OK fair enough on the legal definition of private.......

but I bet if you ask the taxpayers, whether CAP Members or not, have very definite opinions on organizations that spend their money, especially one that would likely not exist without said funding......(yes I know through our elected officials it is decided who gets what funding but from a practical standpoint most of us have very little real direct clout in that area but the taxpayers still care).....

Does not change the fact that we are a private corporation and not a government organization. 

However I suspect even private institutions especially those using taxpayer funds still are subject to the entire US Constitution.

CAP is exercising its constitutional right, which is supported by the US courts, as a private corporation to ban firearms. 

Since JeffDG brought up searches, I found this website that helps people understand the differences between public employee and private employee searches and their rights while at work.  I should clarify that yes I know that applies to employees specifically and that we are not employees.  However, it serves to illustrate that the Bill of Rights is not as clear cut as people think it is.

http://www.workplacefairness.org/searches

[Eclipse]

but I bet if you ask the taxpayers, whether CAP Members or not, have very definite opinions on organizations that spend their money, especially one that would likely not exist without said funding......(yes I know through our elected officials it is decided who gets what funding but from a practical standpoint most of us have very little real direct clout in that area but the taxpayers still care).....

What someone "believes" or "feels" is irrelevant when the law states otherwise.

[SunDog]

2)I believe that the Second Amendment should be interpreted very broadly as far as gun rights. (No surprise to anyone here I'm sure) Yes we limit rights in this country but my view on those limits will be different from others.

Second Amendment is wholly inapplicable.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, impact government interactions with citizens.  CAP is a private organization, and as such, has no obligation to respect your 2nd Amendment rights.  If you don't like the policies, you are not obligated to be a member.

Regardless of concealed carry laws, for example, if I don't want you carrying in my house, I have every right to tell you that, and you can either stow your weapon somewhere else, or get the hell off my property if you don't like my rules.

Is that your thought on all the Amendments to the Constitution as related to CAP? Or just the Second Amendment.

It is.

The Bill of Rights is not applicable to any private organization that is not controlled by the federal or a state or local government.

CAP can tell you to shut up if they want, and expel you as a member if you refuse to follow their rules on speech.  CAP can require a suspicion-less search of your gear at a CAP event.  In an investigation, CAP can require you to answer questions, regardless of whether they could incriminate you, and treat a refusal as evidence of guilt.

Well, not "guilt" in the legal sense.  And CAP can ask to search your gear, and throw you out if you refuse.  Forcible search would take it from the civil arena to the criminal - in your favor, likely.  I doubt anyone in CAP would be that agressive, or stupid. They'd just tell you to leave upon your refusal, and you would have to go.

They can ask you to answer questions as a condition of (continued) membership, but you can ignore the request, tell them to pound sand, or whatever, and out you go.

Clearly, CAP can't compel, except as condition of membership. Both you and CAP have freedom of association.  If they were capricious and arbitrary in their behaviour, and you were damaged ($$$, reputation, etc,) you might prevail in a civil action. They probably couldn't be forced to reinstate you, but you might get in their pockets.

[lordmonar]

Here are my thoughts.

1)  CAP "POLICY" is no guns unless required by law and a note from your wing commander.   Period End OF Story.  Right, Wrong or Indifferent...that is POLICY.

2)  What your commander/team leader/peers/subordinates don't know....can't hurt you.   If you absolutely, must carry for what ever reason (political, psychological, Physiological).  If you do just that...conceal carry.....ain't no one going to be able to say anything.  Just don't let find out anything I got to do paper work on!  Just remember rule 1.

3)  Remember it is just CAP.....ain't not a lot of things we are doing that really justifies putting our lives on the line.   If the ORM is really so high that you got carry to feel safe......then maybe the ORM is too high to do the mission.   

[Panache]

2)I believe that the Second Amendment should be interpreted very broadly as far as gun rights. (No surprise to anyone here I'm sure) Yes we limit rights in this country but my view on those limits will be different from others.

Second Amendment is wholly inapplicable.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, impact government interactions with citizens.  CAP is a private organization, and as such, has no obligation to respect your 2nd Amendment rights.  If you don't like the policies, you are not obligated to be a member.

Regardless of concealed carry laws, for example, if I don't want you carrying in my house, I have every right to tell you that, and you can either stow your weapon somewhere else, or get the hell off my property if you don't like my rules.

Is that your thought on all the Amendments to the Constitution as related to CAP? Or just the Second Amendment.

As far as CAP being private they sure have a pretty close relationship the US Government and they certainly use a LOT of US taxpayer money....Just a soon as they don't use taxpayer money then I'll agree it's private.

Pretty sure the PBX operator at, say, the nearest FAA office has a pretty close relationship with the US Government and most of her income is from US taxpayer money, but I wouldn't say that the 2nd Amendment means she can carry a firearm at work.

[Private Investigator]

Here are my thoughts.

1)  CAP "POLICY" is no guns unless required by law and a note from your wing commander.   Period End OF Story.  Right, Wrong or Indifferent...that is POLICY.

2)  What your commander/team leader/peers/subordinates don't know....can't hurt you.   If you absolutely, must carry for what ever reason (political, psychological, Physiological).  If you do just that...conceal carry.....ain't no one going to be able to say anything.  Just don't let find out anything I got to do paper work on!  Just remember rule 1.

3)  Remember it is just CAP.....ain't not a lot of things we are doing that really justifies putting our lives on the line.   If the ORM is really so high that you got carry to feel safe......then maybe the ORM is too high to do the mission.   

+ 45 (no pun intended.

Plenty of urban legends in CAP re: firearms and Ground Teams. Like a Lt Col and 20+ year member who shot a lock off a locked gate to gain access and his CAP retirement was quickly approved afterwards.   

[Flying Pig]

My Kimber 1911 concealed under my tucked in blues short sleeve shirt always made my shirt stays to tight. 

[blackrain]

Based on comments received I guess Hellfires under the wings are out of the question  ....

After further consideration (at the last squadron meeting) I've come to the conclusion there is an even bigger threat to ground teams...at least the senior members...and that is cardiovascular disease. Maybe that threat can be mitigated by requiring regular physicals, height and weight standards and PT tests.

[Flying Pig]

I've come to the conclusion there is an even bigger threat to ground teams...at least the senior members...and that is cardiovascular disease. Maybe that threat can be mitigated by requiring regular physicals, height and weight standards and PT tests.

Now you've gone to far!  This has no bearing on whether or not my love handles cover my mag pouches!

[PHall]

I've come to the conclusion there is an even bigger threat to ground teams...at least the senior members...and that is cardiovascular disease. Maybe that threat can be mitigated by requiring regular physicals, height and weight standards and PT tests.

Now you've gone to far!  This has no bearing on whether or not my love handles cover my mag pouches!

Come on Rob, you passed the DET!!!   (Doughnut Eating Test)

[SunDog]

Based on comments received I guess Hellfires under the wings are out of the question  ....

After further consideration (at the last squadron meeting) I've come to the conclusion there is an even bigger threat to ground teams...at least the senior members...and that is cardiovascular disease. Maybe that threat can be mitigated by requiring regular physicals, height and weight standards and PT tests.

I may be wrong - fuzzy memory?  But I think a Sidewinder prototype was fired from a Cessna at China Lake, back in the day - even before my time.  I can't remember the weight anymore, and I would be remembering a later model, anyway, but I think 200 pounds or less is ball park. . . how much does a Hellfire weigh?

And the newer Sidewinders will lock onto a bad sunburn; or the heat generated by the friction of airflow.  Was shocked not too many years ago to encounter a Marine Cobra with a load-out that included Sidewinders. . .last chance to cover the infantry if a bad guy fast mover got through; or if the Harriers were broke again.

[PHall]

Based on comments received I guess Hellfires under the wings are out of the question  ....

After further consideration (at the last squadron meeting) I've come to the conclusion there is an even bigger threat to ground teams...at least the senior members...and that is cardiovascular disease. Maybe that threat can be mitigated by requiring regular physicals, height and weight standards and PT tests.

I may be wrong - fuzzy memory?  But I think a Sidewinder prototype was fired from a Cessna at China Lake, back in the day - even before my time.  I can't remember the weight anymore, and I would be remembering a later model, anyway, but I think 200 pounds or less is ball park. . . how much does a Hellfire weigh?

And the newer Sidewinders will lock onto a bad sunburn; or the heat generated by the friction of airflow.  Was shocked not too many years ago to encounter a Marine Cobra with a load-out that included Sidewinders. . .last chance to cover the infantry if a bad guy fast mover got through; or if the Harriers were broke again.

How about self protection for the Cobras.....