Firearms & GT (Split from NYPD Aux. thread)

[stillamarine]

Exactly.  The only thing we should be doing is ducking for cover and calling for help. 

Not to start another tangent, but that's what those poor aux officers were doing.

[lordmonar]

Again, force protection has not been addressed.  All of us know of situations where we compromise the mission to avoid KNOWN hazards.  What about hazards that are not known until you are hip deep in them?

I'm not calling for every member to be armed.  Simply a mechanism to make a firearm available if needed.

The issue of "Firearms safety" with NHQ has been addressed in terms of safety FROM firearms, not safety from the hazards that firearms can protect against.

John, We can't trust wings to enforce uniform regulations.  I just can't endorse allowing anyone to be armed unless there is a valide law requiring them to be.  As Sarmed1 said, 99% of the members would be good and do what they are supposed to do.  But you have got admit that one day a cadet will be on site packing heat, some misguided sm will have way too much heat, some idiot will shoot something he is not supposed to.

And where would that leave CAP?

Again....I just can't see the benifit out weighing the risk.

[lordmonar]

And we have yet to hear a legitimate reason for a ground team to be armed other than "something might happen".  Well, that can happen at any time to any person in any place and the vast majority of folks seem to get along ok. 

I think ground team members should probably worry more about having the proper equipment to treat for bad reactions to bee stings, which is probably more than 100 times as big a risk to our personnel. 

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

[SAR-EMT1]

Im an EMT so Im biased towards having GTE's ->  GT-EMT
As for the GT gun issue- would you support or would the AF allow it IF - ONLY IF you were prior/current service and maintained your training / rating?

[RiverAux]

Now, while ground teams do not need firearms, I do think that there probably should be some training for GTLs and UDF team members on how to spot, avoid, or get themselves out of potentially dangerous "people situations". 

Yes, a lot of it is common sense, but it wouldn't hurt for our folks to have some awareness training about this issue in particular.  After all, cops are able to handle almost all situations by using their heads rather than their weapons. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

All of you guys are making excellent points.  And, I cannot argue with anything that you have said. 

But, I still think that the assurance of an unarmed force in the field is an invitation to trouble.  If a potential attacker, child predator, dope smuggler, or other miscreant has to consider that CAP personnel MAY be armed, that fact alone is a major deterrent factor.

I am not saying that CAP needs to re-work itself into an armed force, or an extension of law enforcement, nor am I suggesting a more aggressive tactical stance.  I am simply suggesting that those officers (not cadets) who have the authority of the state to go armed every other day of their lives should have a mechanism to remain armed on CAP duty. 

Have you ever wondered why there are so many school shootings?  Where else in America does a criminal have the legal assurance of an unarmed target population?  Providing such assurance to criminals with regard to our own operations is not, in my opinion, in our interest.

[lordmonar]

All of you guys are making excellent points.  And, I cannot argue with anything that you have said. 

But, I still think that the assurance of an unarmed force in the field is an invitation to trouble.  If a potential attacker, child predator, dope smuggler, or other miscreant has to consider that CAP personnel MAY be armed, that fact alone is a major deterrent factor.

John....first who is preying on CAP?  Are there really guys out there who hear that CAP is on the scene and rush out for the chance to nab a little kiddie?  Or that Drug smugglers planning a dash across the Rio Grande are really factoring in CAP ground teams?

I am not saying that CAP needs to re-work itself into an armed force, or an extension of law enforcement, nor am I suggesting a more aggressive tactical stance.  I am simply suggesting that those officers (not cadets) who have the authority of the state to go armed every other day of their lives should have a mechanism to remain armed on CAP duty.

Already exists. 

a. A member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the Wing Commander.
b. Firearms may be carried in survival gear in CAP aircraft when required by law. When firearms are so authorized, they will not be removed from the survival gear unless an emergency situation exists.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many school shootings?  Where else in America does a criminal have the legal assurance of an unarmed target population?  Providing such assurance to criminals with regard to our own operations is not, in my opinion, in our interest.

How many of the school shootings was because someone was looking for easy targets.  90% of school schootings are gang related, another 9% are your common "domestic violence" type fights (someone mad at someone else).  The random "I'm looking for targets that can't shoot back" type are very rare.

[Flying Pig]

I would caution using a military background as a prereq to carrying a weapon.  The issue with most isn't that they can't shoot, its knowing when to shoot. 

As far as school shootings ( can  see this thread splitting again )  Thats not all correct about an unarmed target population.   I teach Active Shooter courses to law enforcement.  Many of the high profile school shootings, the suspects knew there were campus police officers on campus, and were actively engaged by them at the onset of the shooting.  Columbine, Santana HS for example.  In the other school shootings, the suspect had no plan for escape and didnt try to flee.  They were suicidal.  And then you have your gang element also which doesnt get much publicity outside that particular community.

I dont know John, I definitely see you point about a hard target.  I just think there are a lot of hidden elements to consider.  Vastly different levels of training that vary from county to county for CCW's.  If your on a SAR and you cross into other county or state where you CCW isnt valid.  In some states your CCW is valid only in your county.  On an air mission, crossing state lines?  What if your mission takes you to a military base.  Now where do you put your weapon? 
Legal considerations?  I was in an officer involved shooting that went to court.  After Four years, a 2-week jury trial and $225,000 in legal fees paid by the city, I won.  That was the most stressful four years of my life.  Hearings, meetings with Psychs, use of force experts, depositions.   And my shooting was pretty cut and dry. Does CAP have that kind of money?  A guy on his own shooting some guy is one thing.  No lawyer cares about that.  Attach that same incident to a corporation or the government and you have vultures circling road kill.

And then Im sure we've all worked with them.  And who knows, some of us here may be "them".  Im referring to that Senior Member who everyone shakes their head at everytime he opens his mouth, now has a tricked out Springfield 1911 strapped to his hip.

Im all for citizens carrying guns.  I just think that if we opened that can of worms in CAP we will rapidly transform into something we didnt intend and will begin to attract people who are looking for something we are not. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

OK I guess you guys have convinced me I'm wrong.

I'm still more than a little uncomfortable presenting a soft target to anybody with criminal thoughts, softer in my opinion than it has to be.  And I'm also uncomfortable having to consider that our officer standards are so low that we must write regulations with the assumption that a certain percentage of the people we entrust with leadership are brain-dead.  And that includes some of the people entrusted with leadership of a wing.

But your counterpoints are valid, and that, after all, is the purpose of discussion.

[ZigZag911]

Exactly.  The only thing we should be doing is ducking for cover and calling for help. 

Not to start another tangent, but that's what those poor aux officers were doing.

Actually, I believe they were pursuing the suspect....showing great courage, though contrary to NYPD Aux policy, which is 'observe and report'.

[ZigZag911]

I am not saying that CAP needs to re-work itself into an armed force, or an extension of law enforcement, nor am I suggesting a more aggressive tactical stance.  I am simply suggesting that those officers (not cadets) who have the authority of the state to go armed every other day of their lives should have a mechanism to remain armed on CAP duty. 

If you are referring to law enforcement personnel, I could support that.

I'm not so eager to see private citizens who happen to have carry permits attending CAP events while armed....I don't see the necessity...for instance, you mentioned child predators.....there is probably more internal danger from this (someone slips through the system and has access), than an individual stalking a CAP squadron somehow.

[stillamarine]

Exactly.  The only thing we should be doing is ducking for cover and calling for help. 

Not to start another tangent, but that's what those poor aux officers were doing.

Actually, I believe they were pursuing the suspect....showing great courage, though contrary to NYPD Aux policy, which is 'observe and report'.

According to the story on mutible wires, they were following at a distance and keeping NYPD officers avised of the suspect's direction of travel.  I don't believe that is against NYPD Aux policies as they were not attempting to stop or arrest the person. The suspect observed them following him and CROSSED the street to shoot them.

[lordmonar]

And I'm also uncomfortable having to consider that our officer standards are so low that we must write regulations with the assumption that a certain percentage of the people we entrust with leadership are brain-dead.  And that includes some of the people entrusted with leadership of a wing.

Just dealing with reality man!  That is why we had to write no hazing rules and spell out the no senior's dating cadets rules.   We all know that most CAP officers know what they are doing and are competant...but it's that 10% that scares us.  It's the 10% that goes to an USAF base poses as a real officer and checks out 10 M-16's.  It's that 10% that involves his cadets in a mock hostage taking with flash bangs and blank ammo.  It that 10% who wears his DI hat to impress the cadets with macho neat skills.

Wish it wern't so....but got to accept it in planning and execution.

[lordmonar]

I am not saying that CAP needs to re-work itself into an armed force, or an extension of law enforcement, nor am I suggesting a more aggressive tactical stance.  I am simply suggesting that those officers (not cadets) who have the authority of the state to go armed every other day of their lives should have a mechanism to remain armed on CAP duty. 

If you are referring to law enforcement personnel, I could support that.

I'm not so eager to see private citizens who happen to have carry permits attending CAP events while armed....I don't see the necessity...for instance, you mentioned child predators.....there is probably more internal danger from this (someone slips through the system and has access), than an individual stalking a CAP squadron somehow.

I'm not even sure I would support law enforcement officers to carry unless required by law.  We all have seen that DEA agent shooting himself in the foot during a class in school about the dangers of firearms!

Not that he was a bad cop or anything...but things go wrong...and is CAP willing to take that risk.  $255K in legal fees is almost a whole plane.  It is a whole lot of flying hours.  And that was for a "straight forward shooting".

Today...even 100% obvious "good shootings" often end up in court because lawyers only have to convince 12 people that some cops are bad and that life on the streets are dangerous.  Here in Vegas they have 3-4 cop related shootings this year....and all of the "victims" or the family had lawyers withing hours!

A CAP shooting....would result in a law suit.  Even if we win we would be out $250K!

Not to trivialize the situation...if you die on a corporate mission....your family only gets $5K!

[Major Lord]

Last year I was involved in a life or death shooting situation with a pack of feral dogs in Louisiana, after Katrina. If not for my trusty Strayer- Voight Infinity ( and you real shooters will know what that is) I would have been killed and eaten, and failed in my FEMA protection mission. ( My AR-15 was still in the car-live and learn!) As a GTL, I have been in some pretty serious country on missions, but the only time I was ever concerned was when bears were trying to batter down our door in Seqouia National Park, where my CCW and other permits would not count anyway. Of course, the 900-3 reg makes it evil to carry a gun, so I am sure no one ever does that...As I have pointed out before, the 900 Regs are incompatible with California Law and are somewhat anti-American, but I have heard some pretty un-constitutional rheotric by CAP people in the past.

Capt. Lord

[lordmonar]

Last year I was involved in a life or death shooting situation with a pack of feral dogs in Louisiana, after Katrina. If not for my trusty Strayer- Voight Infinity ( and you real shooters will know what that is) I would have been killed and eaten, and failed in my FEMA protection mission. ( My AR-15 was still in the car-live and learn!) As a GTL, I have been in some pretty serious country on missions, but the only time I was ever concerned was when bears were trying to batter down our door in Seqouia National Park, where my CCW and other permits would not count anyway. Of course, the 900-3 reg makes it evil to carry a gun, so I am sure no one ever does that...As I have pointed out before, the 900 Regs are incompatible with California Law and are somewhat anti-American, but I have heard some pretty un-constitutional rheotric by CAP people in the past.

Capt. Lord

Are you saying you had a fire arm while on a CAP mission?  Or were you there in another capacity?

Just for my curiosity....what laws in CA are in compatiable with the CAPR 900's?

[SAR-EMT1]

On the idea of ALTERNATIVES to having CAP carry weapons: can anyone see issuing flack vests or surplus interceptors to GTs? OR using a kevlar "seat cushion" if you are on a Drug flight.
- For an animal issue I know... though kevlar might stop bear claws 
But he'd still eat your legs.... and arms.... and.... Im done.

[RiverAux]

It's that 10% that involves his cadets in a mock hostage taking with flash bangs and blank ammo.

Seen AF security police do that with cadets on an encampment before (mid-1980s) with no warning to the cadets that they were about to participate in such an exercise.

[Major Lord]

Last year I was involved in a life or death shooting situation with a pack of feral dogs in Louisiana, after Katrina. If not for my trusty Strayer- Voight Infinity ( and you real shooters will know what that is) I would have been killed and eaten, and failed in my FEMA protection mission. ( My AR-15 was still in the car-live and learn!) As a GTL, I have been in some pretty serious country on missions, but the only time I was ever concerned was when bears were trying to batter down our door in Seqouia National Park, where my CCW and other permits would not count anyway. Of course, the 900-3 reg makes it evil to carry a gun, so I am sure no one ever does that...As I have pointed out before, the 900 Regs are incompatible with California Law and are somewhat anti-American, but I have heard some pretty un-constitutional rheotric by CAP people in the past.

Capt. Lord

Are you saying you had a fire arm while on a CAP mission?  Or were you there in another capacity?

Just for my curiosity....what laws in CA are in compatiable with the CAPR 900's?

I was not on a CAP mission!  I was working for FEMA through a DOD contractor. 900-3 states that we canot be deputized. There is no provision in law that keeps CAP members from being deputized while not on AFAMS, and we are legally obligated on pain of criminal law penalties to assist Law enforcement when requested. ( At least in California)

Capt. Lord

[Flying Pig]

Yup....in Ca if you are over 18, I can order you to assist me....you dont, you go to jail.  And Ive never read any exemption in Ca law regarding CAP..actually, the only exemption is that you have to be 18+

Of course, in 10 years I have never had to do that.  And dont know anyone who has. I have been helped by civilians out of their own initiative.

As far as issuing Flak vests or kevlar.   Sure, it would look great in luggage comartment as I fly along the border in 120 degree heat.  And aint no way you'd get me to hump that thing on a ground mission.  The ony way a seat plate would help if they shot from directly underneath.  Even then, if its a rifle your screwed.
Of course, we did have a helo shot down when a murder suspect shot the main rotor with an AR15.  Everyone landed OK.  Suspect.....not OK