CAP Talk

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: 

Quote from: blackrain on May 06, 2014, 12:43:52 AM
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. 

Quote4) 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. 

Quote5) 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.

QuoteBut 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. 

QuoteI 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.

Quote6) 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.   

Quote7) 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.

Quote from: blackrain on May 06, 2014, 12:43:52 AM
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.

Quote from: JeffDG on May 06, 2014, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: blackrain on May 06, 2014, 12:43:52 AM
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

Quote from: blackrain on May 07, 2014, 10:55:36 PMAs 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.

Quote from: blackrain on May 07, 2014, 10:55:36 PM
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:

Quote from: CAP Bylaws and Constitution
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.

Quote from: LSThiker on May 07, 2014, 11:13:26 PM

Quote from: blackrain on May 07, 2014, 10:55:36 PM
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:

Quote from: CAP Bylaws and Constitution
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.

Quote from: blackrain on May 07, 2014, 10:55:36 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on May 06, 2014, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: blackrain on May 06, 2014, 12:43:52 AM
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.

Quote from: blackrain on May 08, 2014, 01:32:58 AM
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. 

QuoteHowever 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 (http://www.workplacefairness.org/searches)

Quote from: blackrain on May 08, 2014, 01:32:58 AMbut 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.

Quote from: JeffDG on May 08, 2014, 02:15:17 AM

Quote from: blackrain on May 07, 2014, 10:55:36 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on May 06, 2014, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: blackrain on May 06, 2014, 12:43:52 AM
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.

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.   

Quote from: blackrain on May 07, 2014, 10:55:36 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on May 06, 2014, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: blackrain on May 06, 2014, 12:43:52 AM
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.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 08, 2014, 04:16:26 AM
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.   8)

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

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

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.

>:D

Quote from: blackrain on May 09, 2014, 11:51:45 PM
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.

>:D

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

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 10, 2014, 04:07:09 PM

Quote from: blackrain on May 09, 2014, 11:51:45 PM
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.

>:D

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

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

Quote from: blackrain on May 09, 2014, 11:51:45 PM
Based on comments received I guess Hellfires under the wings are out of the question  ;D....

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.

>:D

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.

Quote from: SunDog on May 11, 2014, 12:56:15 AM

Quote from: blackrain on May 09, 2014, 11:51:45 PM
Based on comments received I guess Hellfires under the wings are out of the question  ;D....

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.

>:D

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.....

Quote from: SunDog on May 11, 2014, 12:56:15 AM
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.

The Apache was tested in 1987 using AIM-9 Sidewinders, but it was canceled in favor of the AIM-92 Stinger.

http://www.voodoo-world.cz/ah64/pics/ah105.jpg (http://www.voodoo-world.cz/ah64/pics/ah105.jpg)

Quote from: SunDog on May 11, 2014, 12:56:15 AM

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.

A Sidewinder plus launcher weighs about 300 pounds.

Somehow 100lbs is the number I remember for the Hellfire...though I think that's just the missile without the hardware....I do know the Iraqi's had them mounted on Cessna 208s......love watching the Hellfire video's

100-108 Lbs depending on the model.

That's just the missile. The launcher is another 150 lb.

So this degenerated quickly...from carrying guns on a ground team to arming our C182s with Hellfire missiles. Can we paint them ABU-style? (just to get this thing where it is eventually headed)

Quote from: SarDragon on May 11, 2014, 10:30:12 PM
That's just the missile. The launcher is another 150 lb.

No...the launcher is just a rail...at least for the MQ-1....maybe 10-20 Lbs if that much.  The quad rail for the MQ-9 is a lot heavier...as that is a full on Jettisonable hard point.

Oh I know the thread took a sharp left turn at Albuquerque. 

But what the heck......but if we discuss ABU (or Multi Cam) clad Forward Air Controllers embedded with ground teams and prepared to call in support from artillery and Hellfires to mitigate threats to cadet safety then we're right back on track.

Quote from: blackrain on May 12, 2014, 03:00:30 AM
Oh I know the thread took a sharp left turn at Albuquerque. 

But what the heck......but if we discuss ABU (or Multi Cam) clad Forward Air Controllers embedded with ground teams and prepared to call in support from artillery and Hellfires to mitigate threats to cadet safety then we're right back on track.

The SQTR for JTAC has already been written.  :)   We have a whole training course on "how to sound like a JTAC without going to the field in 3 easy lessons" for the Green Flag Mission. 

So.....way ahead of you!  :)

Quote from: lordmonar on May 12, 2014, 05:05:43 AM
The SQTR for JTAC has already been written.  :)   We have a whole training course on "how to sound like a JTAC without going to the field in 3 easy lessons" for the Green Flag Mission. 

So.....way ahead of you!  :)

Do they get to wear a black beret too  >:D

Quote from: LSThiker on May 12, 2014, 02:01:07 PM
Do they get to wear a black beret too  >:D

Why not?  Besides, Id bet you money that someone in CAP is wearing one as we speak, probably with their Afghan scarf and desert assault vest. 

 :clap: :clap:

Nice link between threads....!

Quote from: blackrain on May 07, 2014, 10:55:36 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on May 06, 2014, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: blackrain on May 06, 2014, 12:43:52 AM
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

Cap is hand in hand with the government.  We also use alot of taxpayers money like stated above.  I think that the constitution applies to everyone.  Why would it not?

Quote from: nomiddlemas on May 12, 2014, 08:51:24 PM
Cap is hand in hand with the government.

We partner with the government, yes. We are not the government though.

Quote from: nomiddlemas on May 12, 2014, 08:51:24 PM
I think that the constitution applies to everyone.  Why would it not?

Yes and no. To put it VERY simply, the constitution is all about what the Government can do or has to do. The Bill of Rights is all about what the Government may not do to you. That's why the Government cannot tell what to say or not say, but still allows your parents to say, "say that word again and I'll smack you into next week." In other words, CAP is a private corporation and may tell anyone within it not to carry firearms without there being any 2nd Amendment argument.

I wonder how she felt about her ORM after it was all said and done. You just never know

I hope they find and prosecute the bear to the fullest extent of the law...though I'm sure a smart attorney will bring up the bears abusive childhood and psychological make-up preventing her understanding right from wrong.....Or maybe the bear will just invoke the "Castle Doctrine"...as she was likely in her place of residence......... >:D

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/20/alaska-woman-called-heroic-after-surviving-bear-attack-while-jogging/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/20/alaska-woman-called-heroic-after-surviving-bear-attack-while-jogging/)

Quote from: blackrain on May 20, 2014, 08:04:07 PM
I wonder how she felt about her ORM after it was all said and done. You just never know

I hope they find and prosecute the bear to the fullest extent of the law...though I'm sure a smart attorney will bring up the bears abusive childhood and psychological make-up preventing her understanding right from wrong.....Or maybe the bear will just invoke the "Castle Doctrine"...as she was likely in her place of residence......... >:D

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/20/alaska-woman-called-heroic-after-surviving-bear-attack-while-jogging/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/20/alaska-woman-called-heroic-after-surviving-bear-attack-while-jogging/)

If some jackwagon can sue McDonald's for too-hot coffee, then I foresee this bear getting all sorts of media attention and a mini-series, as well as the lawsuit against the so-called victim. It's a seller's market now.

Or at least a South Park episode.

Quote from: blackrain on May 20, 2014, 08:04:07 PM
I wonder how she felt about her ORM after it was all said and done. You just never know

Perhaps lacking.  I would be interested to find out how much time she had between spotting the bear and the bear attack.  I find it odd that FoxNews leaves out the fact that the base recommends carrying bear spray when out in the area.  Other news networks have reported on this.  Never mind, it is FoxNews.

From CNN:

Quote
Maj. Angela Webb, a spokeswoman for the Air Force, said the area is popular with runners and bicyclists, who are warned to bring bear spray.

But even the Air Force Times reports incorrect information as even conservation officers cannot get my question correct:

Quote from: AirForceTimesIf you are attacked by a bear — whether brown or black — the recommendation is the same: "You play dead," Sledge said.

For brown bears, you play dead.  They traditionally attack due to feeling threatened as in this case.  For black bears, you do not play dead.  You trying to make yourself look big and defend yourself.  Black bears usually attack because they are hungry.  Playing dead only makes it easier for them. 

Quote from: blackrain on May 20, 2014, 08:04:07 PM
I wonder how she felt about her ORM after it was all said and done. You just never know

I hope they find and prosecute the bear to the fullest extent of the law...though I'm sure a smart attorney will bring up the bears abusive childhood and psychological make-up preventing her understanding right from wrong.....Or maybe the bear will just invoke the "Castle Doctrine"...as she was likely in her place of residence......... >:D

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/20/alaska-woman-called-heroic-after-surviving-bear-attack-while-jogging/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/20/alaska-woman-called-heroic-after-surviving-bear-attack-while-jogging/)

From the article; "Playing dead is the appropriate response when meeting a female bear protecting cubs."  8)

I like Starbucks and Chipotle too much to bring my shootin' eyerons to CAP or any other activities.

^ exactly.

I like my frappuccino with a double shot of expresso, no pun intended.  8)

Quote from: Private Investigator on May 21, 2014, 05:05:52 PM
^ exactly.

I like my frappuccino with a double shot of expresso, no pun intended.  8)

Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 04:57:33 PM
I like Starbucks and Chipotle too much to bring my shootin' eyerons to CAP or any other activities.

:clap: :clap:

Bear spray is good....as long as you can get the bear to stay down wind.

I like Starbucks too.....I use the drive thru......but too many shots of espresso makes my aim a little shakey  >:D

I agree long guns in a Chipotle was over the top however. Even seeing law enforcement with long guns in a restaurant can make some people nervous.

Now in the lower 48 bear attacks are still possible but cougar attacks (4 legged not 2 legged) are a possibility in most states. As for the 2 legged nothing can protect you when they are inebriated and going wild at the local VFW. I won't say how I know >:D

Quote from: blackrain on May 21, 2014, 11:19:49 PM
Bear spray is good....as long as you can get the bear to stay down wind.

(http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/bear-warning-sign.jpg)

Pepper spray is just people seasoning for a bear.

It's kinda funny when you think about the average suburbanite - they freak out if they see a raccoon near their garbage,
or a skunk in their back yard, and if the word "coyote" is hinted in the presence of Fluffy, the dog is sentenced to a life time
of looking at the world through glass...

...but they will sleep in an area where 600-lb 9 foot carnivorous beasts with no fear of man are known to be hanging out,
"protected" only by a thin piece of nylon and their theoretical ability to shoot a metal projectile forward faster then
fecal matter backward when one of these things tears through the tent.

QuotePepper spray is just people seasoning for a bear.

Standard means of identifying grizzly bear scat from other bear scat (if size isn't a clue) - it smells like pepper and contains small bells.

Mike

Quote
...they freak out if they see a raccoon near their garbage...

Racoon? Smaller than that! Just tell a suburbanite there is a rat.

They flee and panic!

:P

Private or Public organization is irrelevant.  Try carrying a gun into a Federal Courthouse.  If you aren't a Federal Law Enforcement officer, you might as well leave it in the car.  State and Local law enforcement can't even carry firearms into the Federal Courthouse even when on official business.

Jumping into the deep end on my first post here.

I've been out of CAP since 2005, but debating on whether to return or not. I started as a Cadet in New Jersey and moved to Central Florida in 2002, finally becoming a 2nd Lt SM.

I mention that because NJ is a highly restricted firearms state, no one other than law enforcement is authorized to carry a concealed firearm, unless they get the expressed permission of the County Sheriff and can prove a need to carry. [The only exception is retired LEO's]. Florida however, is a lot more free about their CCW permits. Take a class, submit your prints and send in the fee and you're good to go.

In NJ, as a cadet on a AFRCC sanctioned "real" mission of an ELT which ended up being an EPIRB, we finally located the signal coming from the cabin of a small fishing boat that was secured by a lock. We notified the local State Police department which sent an officer to the scene and make contact with the owner of the boat. [At that time the NJSP had access to all the boating registration records for both private and commercial vessels] They were unable to make contact with the boat's owner for several hours. As dawn, and more important to the SP officer, shift change approached, the officer asked: "What's it going to take for you to end your search and go home?" To which the GTL replied "We need to shut the signal off before we can leave." He then asked us to step off the boat, drew his .45, shot the lock twice, opened the door to the cabin, and had the GTL shut the unit off. [Bad use of a firearm, at least it would be by a CAP GTM. So I don't condone this use]

That was my first experience with firearms while on a ground team.

Fast forward a few years and 1,000 miles to Florida. While at a SAREx, training as a cadet still, we were in the Ocala National Forest, and we were training with a separate search dog team. While prosecuting the location of a training ELT and using the dog to track the "victim", my hasty team came across a brood of juvenile water mochasins/cottonmouths. We backed away only to run into a full grown 4 foot long adult cotton mouth. (Maybe it was Mama) In any case, the dog was the first to hit on the snake and the handler (who was not a CAP member), saw the snake, drew his own pistol from a concealed pocket holster, and shot the snake in the head. Killing it before it could kill the dog or bite one of us. [Perfect use of a firearm and a strong reason to carry a firearm while on a ground team.]

Besides being a GTM since I was 14, I was an EMT when I turned 16 and worked in rural, suburb, and urban (Atlantic City and Orlando) areas. I have been shot at by gang members while trying to pick up a victim of a drive-by even after the "Scene was secured by the PD", I've been chased and shot at while in an ambulance by a vehicle that contained the original shooters who didn't want my patient to survive. It's scary. You are not allowed to carry a firearm on an ambulance pretty much anywhere. I was defenseless. All I was trying to do was save a life. [The same reason many of us/you go out there on these SAR missions, that's what the R stands for, Rescue] It was in those moments that I wish I had a firearm to stop the guys shooting at me. To defend myself.

When I originally went through my GTM training at the NJWG Spring SAR school, we were taught to emulate the USAF pararescue and their motto: "These things we do, That others may live." I have no problem putting myself in danger, after measured calculation of the apparent risks, in order to save the life of another, no matter who or what they are. There are accounts of missions here in Florida where GTMs have been surprised by wildlife including snakes and alligators and had nothing to protect themselves with. Most were able to flee, other's had to stand and fight, using sticks, rocks, or in one case a hatchet and tri-fold shovel.

Short Aside:
For those of you who are not in Florida, there is a FLWG supplement to 900-3. FLWGR 900-3 S1 and a FLWGF 19 for the acknowledgement by the wing that an off duty LEO can carry a concealed weapon while conducting CAP buisness and in CAP uniform in order to comply with regulations by the state that LEO's be armed and able to respond to an emergent situation instantly.

When I walk into a dangerous environment, I want to be prepared. And no matter how much risk evaluation you do before undertaking a mission, things change in an instant. I can't plan on not running into any dangerous wildlife while searching the woods in the middle of the night. I can't plan on not running into an armed person "protecting their property" whether it is legal or illegal while I am searching in the rural areas for an ELT.

I'm not saying that a UDF Team should be able to carry a firearm. Though walking around in the middle of Camden, NJ with a DF unit wearing BDUs may attract some unwanted attention and possibly some harassment. But I do think that GTMs out in the middle of the wilderness should be able to defend themselves from wildlife, or in the extremely rare survival situation, have the ability to use a firearm to hunt. Any firearms should be concealed, not in a tactical thigh holster like some Tier 1 operator wannabe. A sub-compact pistol like a .40 Glock 27, which easily fits into a normal pants pocket and carries 9 or more rounds is more than enough to DEFEND yourself.

Like I said, my main concern for a GT would be wildlife, especially alligators here in FL, but there is also the possibility of being confronted by someone else who is armed while you are on a mission. I'm recalling my disaster relief missions after Hurricanes Irene and Jeanne in the panhandle of FL, but what about our Louisiana Wing GTs after Katrina? I'm sure there were safety concerns that hindered CAP GTs from being fully effective in their disaster relief efforts. In the panhandle, we were mindful and slightly on edge for any looting attempts or raiding of our personal supplies. CAP safety officials would tell you to let the aggressor take what ever they want and to not resist. But who's going to replace my $1000+ of personal comm gear and other SAR equipment? Certainly not CAP! They wouldn't pay for it the first time. Why would I expect them to cover the loss.

If as a citizen I am allowed to defend myself with a firearm, why should the fact that I am searching for a missing person or an ELT rob me of that same right to defend myself from unforeseen dangers?

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
Jumping into the deep end on my first post here.
If as a citizen I am allowed to defend myself with a firearm, why should the fact that I am searching for a missing person or an ELT rob me of that same right to defend myself from unforeseen dangers?

The people who made up the rules for this organization said "no guns". And you swore to obey the rules of this organization when you joined.

If you don't wish to follow that rule there are other oganizations you can join that also serve the community that may let you be armed while in the field.
But in CAP it's not allowed. Simple as that.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
To which the GTL replied "We need to shut the signal off before we can leave."

Not only was that a reckless use of a firearm, but the GTL was in the wrong.  You can leave without shutting off an ELT.  If the police were aware of the situation and were on scene, then you can pass it off to the police.  The IC would call the NOC and inform them of the situation.  Mission over.

Quote
We backed away only to run into a full grown 4 foot long adult cotton mouth. (Maybe it was Mama) In any case, the dog was the first to hit on the snake and the handler (who was not a CAP member), saw the snake, drew his own pistol from a concealed pocket holster, and shot the snake in the head. Killing it before it could kill the dog or bite one of us.

So you immediately make the assumption it was going to kill?  It was protecting its young, not out to kill.  In the thousands of snakes (poisonous and non-poisonous) that I have encountered, a simple backing away without provocation has always worked.

QuoteThere are accounts of missions here in Florida where GTMs have been surprised by wildlife including snakes and alligators and had nothing to protect themselves with. Most were able to flee, other's had to stand and fight, using sticks, rocks, or in one case a hatchet and tri-fold shovel.

Interesting that you automatically assume that a gun is the only form of protection.  You said they had nothing to protect themselves, yet you listed ways of protecting yourself.  Sticks, rocks, blunt force objects are all means of protection.  Fleeing is also a form of protection.  That thing that sits between your ears that allowed humans to become the dominant animal is the greatest form of protection. 

QuoteWhen I walk into a dangerous environment, I want to be prepared. And no matter how much risk evaluation you do before undertaking a mission, things change in an instant. I can't plan on not running into any dangerous wildlife while searching the woods in the middle of the night. I can't plan on not running into an armed person "protecting their property" whether it is legal or illegal while I am searching in the rural areas for an ELT.

The best form of preparing for dangerous wildlife is educate yourself.  The better you understand the animal's behavior, the easier it is evade, flee, and protect yourself.  Also, there are other alternative forms of protection that do not require the use of firearms.  Since this is the second time you associate protection with gun, I suggest you educate yourself in order to be prepared.

QuoteBut I do think that GTMs out in the middle of the wilderness should be able to defend themselves from wildlife, or in the extremely rare survival situation, have the ability to use a firearm to hunt.

If they cannot defend themselves from wildlife, then perhaps they are not prepared to be on a GT.  Also, in a survival situation, food is actually not a high priority as you can live weeks without food.  If you are worried about that rare survival situation, then I would suggest:

carrying a water purification system
know how to start a fire using a bow-method or hand-method (and actually do it, not just watch a video)
know and actually perform how to set-up a shelter

Quote
If as a citizen I am allowed to defend myself with a firearm, why should the fact that I am searching for a missing person or an ELT rob me of that same right to defend myself from unforeseen dangers?

Because CAP is a private corporation that has exercised its Constitutional Rights to limit the use of firearms and you have agreed to abide by that rule by signing the membership. 

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PM

In NJ, as a cadet on a AFRCC sanctioned "real" mission of an ELT which ended up being an EPIRB, we finally located the signal coming from the cabin of a small fishing boat that was secured by a lock. We notified the local State Police department which sent an officer to the scene and make contact with the owner of the boat. [At that time the NJSP had access to all the boating registration records for both private and commercial vessels] They were unable to make contact with the boat's owner for several hours. As dawn, and more important to the SP officer, shift change approached, the officer asked: "What's it going to take for you to end your search and go home?" To which the GTL replied "We need to shut the signal off before we can leave." He then asked us to step off the boat, drew his .45, shot the lock twice, opened the door to the cabin, and had the GTL shut the unit off. [Bad use of a firearm, at least it would be by a CAP GTM. So I don't condone this use]

That was my first experience with firearms while on a ground team.

Bull. No other way to say it. Any trooper that did that would find himself guarding that plane full of rubber stuff Maverick would have been flying.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PMTo which the GTL replied "We need to shut the signal off before we can leave."

Incorrect, which helps invalidate any false justification of the destruction of private property.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
Fast forward a few years and 1,000 miles to Florida. While at a SAREx, training as a cadet still, we were in the Ocala National Forest, and we were training with a separate search dog team. While prosecuting the location of a training ELT and using the dog to track the "victim", my hasty team came across a brood of juvenile water mochasins/cottonmouths. We backed away only to run into a full grown 4 foot long adult cotton mouth. (Maybe it was Mama) In any case, the dog was the first to hit on the snake and the handler (who was not a CAP member), saw the snake, drew his own pistol from a concealed pocket holster, and shot the snake in the head. Killing it before it could kill the dog or bite one of us. [Perfect use of a firearm and a strong reason to carry a firearm while on a ground team.]

Perfect example of a poor training plan, lack of ORM, and pretty much zero common sense.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
Besides being a GTM since I was 14, I was an EMT when I turned 16 and worked in rural, suburb, and urban (Atlantic City and Orlando) areas. I have been shot at by gang members while trying to pick up a victim of a drive-by even after the "Scene was secured by the PD", I've been chased and shot at while in an ambulance by a vehicle that contained the original shooters who didn't want my patient to survive. It's scary. You are not allowed to carry a firearm on an ambulance pretty much anywhere. I was defenseless. All I was trying to do was save a life. [The same reason many of us/you go out there on these SAR missions, that's what the R stands for, Rescue] It was in those moments that I wish I had a firearm to stop the guys shooting at me. To defend myself.

Bad situation, irrelevant to a CAP conversation.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
When I originally went through my GTM training at the NJWG Spring SAR school, we were taught to emulate the USAF pararescue and their motto: "These things we do, That others may live." I have no problem putting myself in danger, after measured calculation of the apparent risks, in order to save the life of another, no matter who or what they are. There are accounts of missions here in Florida where GTMs have been surprised by wildlife including snakes and alligators and had nothing to protect themselves with. Most were able to flee, other's had to stand and fight, using sticks, rocks, or in one case a hatchet and tri-fold shovel.

When I walk into a dangerous environment, I want to be prepared. And no matter how much risk evaluation you do before undertaking a mission, things change in an instant. I can't plan on not running into any dangerous wildlife while searching the woods in the middle of the night. I can't plan on not running into an armed person "protecting their property" whether it is legal or illegal while I am searching in the rural areas for an ELT.

I'm not saying that a UDF Team should be able to carry a firearm. Though walking around in the middle of Camden, NJ with a DF unit wearing BDUs may attract some unwanted attention and possibly some harassment. But I do think that GTMs out in the middle of the wilderness should be able to defend themselves from wildlife, or in the extremely rare survival situation, have the ability to use a firearm to hunt. Any firearms should be concealed, not in a tactical thigh holster like some Tier 1 operator wannabe. A sub-compact pistol like a .40 Glock 27, which easily fits into a normal pants pocket and carries 9 or more rounds is more than enough to DEFEND yourself.

Like I said, my main concern for a GT would be wildlife, especially alligators here in FL, but there is also the possibility of being confronted by someone else who is armed while you are on a mission. I'm recalling my disaster relief missions after Hurricanes Irene and Jeanne in the panhandle of FL, but what about our Louisiana Wing GTs after Katrina? I'm sure there were safety concerns that hindered CAP GTs from being fully effective in their disaster relief efforts. In the panhandle, we were mindful and slightly on edge for any looting attempts or raiding of our personal supplies. CAP safety officials would tell you to let the aggressor take what ever they want and to not resist. But who's going to replace my $1000+ of personal comm gear and other SAR equipment? Certainly not CAP! They wouldn't pay for it the first time. Why would I expect them to cover the loss.

If as a citizen I am allowed to defend myself with a firearm, why should the fact that I am searching for a missing person or an ELT rob me of that same right to defend myself from unforeseen dangers?

Again, if you're being "surprised by wildlife" or, as a CAP member, are in any way in danger, the ORM is incorrect.  There is no reason to
send CAP members into hazardous areas WHATSOEVER.  We can fly over areas to find the objective, and point at it for paid professionals
who are properly equipped and trained.

Put frankly, there are many, MANY missions CAP members simply have no business being involved in, and I would say your anecdotes above are excellent examples.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
In any case, the dog was the first to hit on the snake and the handler (who was not a CAP member), saw the snake, drew his own pistol from a concealed pocket holster, and shot the snake in the head.

Shooting a snake in the head with a handgun is no easy feat.  There's a reason they make snakeshot ammo...

Call me skeptical.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
If as a citizen I am allowed to defend myself with a firearm, why should the fact that I am searching for a missing person or an ELT rob me of that same right to defend myself from unforeseen dangers?

It doesn't.   BEING A CAP MEMBER you agree to follow CAP rules.   Completely voluntary.   You don't need to be a CAP member.  And if you don't follow CAP rules you my find that you are not a CAP member.

It is that simple.

You want to start your own SAR organization.....go for it.  You want to play with our SAR organization you follow our rules.

Normally, I completely advocate going easy on a first-poster.  But, after reading GSARMedic's anecdotes, I started to wonder if I had come across another Mall Ninja.  For those who don't know what I'm talking about, please refer to this webpage: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/ (http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/)

There's not a whole lot new I could contribute to this thread that others have already screamed to the tops of their lungs.  Firearms just have no place on a CAP ground team unless you are in a State like Alaska that have legislation requiring you to have one.  Period.  The End. Next Topic Please.

Frankly, GSARMedic (sorry, bud), based on his anecdotes, would be a prime example of someone I wouldn't trust to carry a firearm on a ground team.  Nothing personal, but he wouldn't be alone in that category of people in CAP I wouldn't trust to use good judgement with a firearm.  I trust those who reluctantly carry them only because they have no other choice.  I don't trust those who really want to carry them because they might run into a snake on a search line.  But because of the liability, regs, and just the plain fact that they're not necessary for what we do, that should be the end of any discussion to it.

Oh, by the way...hunting with them on a GSAR mission is not a valid reason by any stretch of the imagination. If you're hunting with a firearm, it's because not only have you gone through all the supplies in your 72-hour kit, it's also because you are now lost and have become the mission.  First rule of SAR is don't become the mission.

"Short Aside:
For those of you who are not in Florida, there is a FLWG supplement to 900-3. FLWGR 900-3 S1 and a FLWGF 19 for the acknowledgement by the wing that an off duty LEO can carry a concealed weapon while conducting CAP business and in CAP uniform in order to comply with regulations by the state that LEO's be armed and able to respond to an emergent situation instantly."

Can you cite what state law requires LEOs to be armed off duty?  I am in FL.  There is no "law" in FL that I know of that requires officers to be armed off-duty. Although I will admit I am new to FL LE.   Many agencies have policies that either require it, or highly recommend it and have guidelines in place for discipline if you are involved in an incident and were not armed.  But then there are also several exceptions... if you have been drinking, at a private place that does not allow firearms, in a place of worship, Federal Court or other secure federal buildings.  Heck.... several local courts in FL have policies that officers testifying on-duty in court in civilian clothes have to store their weapons.  Even for plain clothes detectives. 

Its great that FL recognizes that many FL LEOs walk a line where they face discipline at work vs being able to volunteer.  But there are also many places where CAP operates where cops cant bring guns.   Military bases for one... So Im a CAP member on an activity complying with my agency policy, supported by the FLWG supplement.  I can tell you the USAF security police at Eglin AFB don't care that my Sheriff wants me to carry a gun.  So now what?  Do I wait in the car while everyone else goes on their base tour?  Or was this a case where I could have just opted out of carrying my gun off-duty for the day? 

Read the source documents - it's not in response to a FL law.  The FLWG Form 19 asks the submitter, "Have you attached a copy of your POLICE AGENCY written policy requiring you to carry a firearm when off duty?"

No FL law - only maybe a local policy.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 12, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
While prosecuting the location of a training ELT and using the dog to track the "victim", my hasty team came across a brood of juvenile water mochasins/cottonmouths. We backed away only to run into a full grown 4 foot long adult cotton mouth. (Maybe it was Mama) In any case, the dog was the first to hit on the snake and the handler (who was not a CAP member), saw the snake, drew his own pistol from a concealed pocket holster, and shot the snake in the head. Killing it before it could kill the dog or bite one of us. [Perfect use of a firearm and a strong reason to carry a firearm while on a ground team.]

In my hastiness of posting, I did not apply critical thinking on this.  Some species of snakes will protect its young after hatching for a short period.  However, cottonmouths are oviviparous.  Once the eggs hatch inside the mother and she "gives birth", she immediately abandons them.  The young snakes do not stay together and start to leave the area after birth.  So I am doubting this story. 

Quote from: AirDX on June 13, 2014, 05:43:08 PM
Read the source documents - it's not in response to a FL law.  The FLWG Form 19 asks the submitter, "Have you attached a copy of your POLICE AGENCY written policy requiring you to carry a firearm when off duty?"

No FL law - only maybe a local policy.

Right... my question was that the original poster said.  That in FL "regulations by the state that LEO's be armed and able to respond to an emergent situation instantly."   Not sure what State "Regulation" requires that.   I work for an LE agency in FL so I was clarifying.   No cops that I know of knew of any "state regulation".  So if someone is arguing the point about carrying in CAP uniform, probably a good idea to keep it in the proper context.

Guys - school's out and Twitspace must have been responding slowly.

Quote from: LSThiker on June 13, 2014, 02:41:30 AM
To which the GTL replied "We need to shut the signal off before we can leave."

Not only was that a reckless use of a firearm, but the GTL was in the wrong.  You can leave without shutting off an ELT.  If the police were aware of the situation and were on scene, then you can pass it off to the police.  The IC would call the NOC and inform them of the situation.  Mission over.

I absolutely agree with you on both counts. I was a 14 year old child at the time, maybe 6 months into CAP, on one of my first missions. After going through GTM and GTL training and becoming certified, I know that the GTL was incorrect. In fact there was a mission in Central Florida where myself and my unit commander were able to locate the ELT going off in a hangar where the sliding doors were locked by a chain and padlock. We notified the higher ups and closed the mission. Went back to the FBO the next day on my own and found out that after the close of the FBO the previous day, the pilot had an extra hard landing but was unharmed and the older ELT had gone off, but there was no one at the airfield to know that the signal was going off. So yes I do 100% agree with you.

Quote
We backed away only to run into a full grown 4 foot long adult cotton mouth. (Maybe it was Mama) In any case, the dog was the first to hit on the snake and the handler (who was not a CAP member), saw the snake, drew his own pistol from a concealed pocket holster, and shot the snake in the head. Killing it before it could kill the dog or bite one of us.

So you immediately make the assumption it was going to kill?  It was protecting its young, not out to kill.  In the thousands of snakes (poisonous and non-poisonous) that I have encountered, a simple backing away without provocation has always worked.

A herpetologist can correct me on this, but my understanding is that snakes have little to no maternal instinct. They don't protect their young.
My snake survival training was that you flee first, fight only if cornered, and in fact that is the same thing the snakes themselves survive by. We did flee the first group of juveniles who are less discriminant in their attack and also have less control over their venom injection volumes. I was more afraid of them than the adult. However, the adult was being antagonized by the search dog. Lastly, I did not shoot the snake. The handler did. Do I agree with what he did. Absolutely. I was afraid of getting bit by a highly poisonous snake.

I read your follow up about doubting that an adult was anywhere near the juveniles. You may want to take into account that I have no idea whether the adult was the parent of the juveniles. That is pure speculation, however, to doubt that more than one snake is in the same area is a bit stupid. Yes, they are solitary reptiles, but are often found to have multiple snakes in food rich environments.

QuoteThere are accounts of missions here in Florida where GTMs have been surprised by wildlife including snakes and alligators and had nothing to protect themselves with. Most were able to flee, other's had to stand and fight, using sticks, rocks, or in one case a hatchet and tri-fold shovel.

Interesting that you automatically assume that a gun is the only form of protection.  You said they had nothing to protect themselves, yet you listed ways of protecting yourself.  Sticks, rocks, blunt force objects are all means of protection.  Fleeing is also a form of protection.  That thing that sits between your ears that allowed humans to become the dominant animal is the greatest form of protection. 

What I find more interesting is that you assumed for me, that a gun is the only form of protection. I did not state that. More accurately I would state that a gun is often the best form of protection. But there are exceptions to every theory. You can't shoot a swarm of hornets/bees, so in that situation it is ineffective. Point conceded, a gun is not the best in EVERY situation.

Also, my statement was that they had nothing to protect themselves with, which is 100% accurate. They had to IMPROVISE with what was around them to defend themselves. But which would you prefer to defend yourself with when stuck in some swamp muck up to you knee and a 7 foot gator is headed toward you, a stick or a gun? [/hyperbole]

My point is, which had apparently been lost to many of the other posters, having a gun to defend yourself WHEN YOU NEED it is much more preferable than when all of your safety planning goes out the window and you are faced with a dangerous animal. We can plan for a lot, but not for everything.

Also, that thing that sits between my ears, tells me and every form of human hunter since the beginning of time that a gun is better than a stick, rock, arrow, sword, etc. Hence why we have been able to become the dominant species, we have constantly evolved our weapons for hunting and protection to our current weapon of maximum efficiency, a gun.

QuoteWhen I walk into a dangerous environment, I want to be prepared. And no matter how much risk evaluation you do before undertaking a mission, things change in an instant. I can't plan on not running into any dangerous wildlife while searching the woods in the middle of the night. I can't plan on not running into an armed person "protecting their property" whether it is legal or illegal while I am searching in the rural areas for an ELT.

The best form of preparing for dangerous wildlife is educate yourself.  The better you understand the animal's behavior, the easier it is evade, flee, and protect yourself.  Also, there are other alternative forms of protection that do not require the use of firearms.  Since this is the second time you associate protection with gun, I suggest you educate yourself in order to be prepared.

I am very educated and experienced. You have no basis of my knowledge to even attempt to call into question what I know about animals, hunting, survival, etc. Steve Irwin was highly educated with animals, didn't stop him from dying. And before anyone goes there, NO I do not think that a gun would have protected him, that's not my point.

I have gone through private survival schools taught by Tom Brown Survival and Tracker school graduates as well as Hawk Mountain Expert Rangers. I'm pretty well informed. I've also spent years in the woods hunting and exploring.

QuoteBut I do think that GTMs out in the middle of the wilderness should be able to defend themselves from wildlife, or in the extremely rare survival situation, have the ability to use a firearm to hunt.

If they cannot defend themselves from wildlife, then perhaps they are not prepared to be on a GT.  Also, in a survival situation, food is actually not a high priority as you can live weeks without food.  If you are worried about that rare survival situation, then I would suggest:

carrying a water purification system
know how to start a fire using a bow-method or hand-method (and actually do it, not just watch a video)
know and actually perform how to set-up a shelter

How exactly does a persons ability to defend themselves from a feral hog, gator, poisonous snake, bobcat, coyote, black bear, etc. have to do with their ability to be on a GT? Again, I concede that the first line of protection from wildlife is to avoid contact. No argument. I am only bringing up the what if situations.

Water, Shelter, Fire, Food. The basic needs in order of priority. The fifth step/priority is getting out. And getting out requires energy. Energy requires proteins and carbs. If you don't put in more than you are using, your going to die a lot faster than a few weeks. Lack of nutrients in a wet environment, can cause the body to enter hypothermia even if you have shelter and a fire. That is why CAP also teaches trapping, and hunting club use as part of it's survival training. Or at least they did. I don't know now.

But as for your suggestions, I do carry a charcoal based filter for my camelbak, but I know where to find clean water or collect it with a solar still. I am proficient with a string/bow stick method at fire starting, but I still carry a lighter and a flint and magnesium block. I have spent three nights in an lean-to, but I still carry a tent or jungle hammock in my gear. Don't worry I'm prepared to survive when I have to. But just follow the train of thought in these examples. There is a basic ability and a modern remedy. Lean-to > Tent, Solar Still > Water purification and camelbaks. Sticks, rocks, string traps > knife, gun, metal trap.

Quote
If as a citizen I am allowed to defend myself with a firearm, why should the fact that I am searching for a missing person or an ELT rob me of that same right to defend myself from unforeseen dangers?

Because CAP is a private corporation that has exercised its Constitutional Rights to limit the use of firearms and you have agreed to abide by that rule by signing the membership. 

I do not disagree. But that does not hinder me from questioning that decision. There is no CAP regulation stymieing my 1st amendment right to question the decisions of the decision makers.

Quote
The people who made up the rules for this organization said "no guns". And you swore to obey the rules of this organization when you joined.

If you don't wish to follow that rule there are other oganizations you can join that also serve the community that may let you be armed while in the field.
But in CAP it's not allowed. Simple as that.

Actually, I have an issue with the accuracy of this statement.

1. Members of one of the original 4 CAP units, patrol units based in Atlantic City, NJ at Bader Field, not only did they carry sidearms, but a few even carried hand dropped bombs from WWI that they got out of the Atlantic City Armory. I actually had the opportunity to sit down and talk to two of the original members and hear their accounts, but it was 15 years ago and inconveniently I cannot recall their names to support my statements.

2. If there were NO GUNS, then there would be no reason for CAPR 900-3.

3. I don't recall ever having been required to place my hand on the Bible and swear an oath to blindly follow the rules of "the organization". So, calling into question the "rules of the organization" is how we can effect a change on those rules. An open dialog and a free exchange of ideas based on the experiences of its members is how any organization/company/government can learn to be more effective.

4. Not being a LEO, I do follow the rules, or at least did when I was a current member. But that doesn't mean that I am unable to have an opinion that differs from the rules.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 13, 2014, 04:43:23 PM
"Short Aside:
For those of you who are not in Florida, there is a FLWG supplement to 900-3. FLWGR 900-3 S1 and a FLWGF 19 for the acknowledgement by the wing that an off duty LEO can carry a concealed weapon while conducting CAP business and in CAP uniform in order to comply with regulations by the state that LEO's be armed and able to respond to an emergent situation instantly."

Can you cite what state law requires LEOs to be armed off duty?  I am in FL.  There is no "law" in FL that I know of that requires officers to be armed off-duty. Although I will admit I am new to FL LE.   Many agencies have policies that either require it, or highly recommend it and have guidelines in place for discipline if you are involved in an incident and were not armed.  But then there are also several exceptions... if you have been drinking, at a private place that does not allow firearms, in a place of worship, Federal Court or other secure federal buildings.  Heck.... several local courts in FL have policies that officers testifying on-duty in court in civilian clothes have to store their weapons.  Even for plain clothes detectives. 

Its great that FL recognizes that many FL LEOs walk a line where they face discipline at work vs being able to volunteer.  But there are also many places where CAP operates where cops cant bring guns.   Military bases for one... So Im a CAP member on an activity complying with my agency policy, supported by the FLWG supplement.  I can tell you the USAF security police at Eglin AFB don't care that my Sheriff wants me to carry a gun.  So now what?  Do I wait in the car while everyone else goes on their base tour?  Or was this a case where I could have just opted out of carrying my gun off-duty for the day? 

There is no law or statute that I am aware of. Hence, my characterization of "state regulations" not state law. By which I meant, as you stated, there are department policies throughout the state that require their officers to be armed while off duty. Maybe I was using to broad of a distinction and it was misrepresented to my actual meaning. "Various department regulations throughout the state." Maybe that is more accurate. My apologies.

Likewise, I don't think anywhere in my statement did I say that they should be violating federal laws by bringing guns into federal buildings or courthouses (including county courthouses). You are absolutely right. Don't bring your gun into those places. But the core of my statement was referencing being in the wilderness. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that if you have your department issued weapons secured in your patrol vehicle, and you notify the base commander before hand and the information is then disseminated down to the gate security personnel, they may allow you access without any issue. Especially if you are a regular, like attending CAP meetings at MacDill AFB after your patrol shift has ended. There are rules and then there are rules that can be modified by the base commander. All you can do is ask, and the worst they can say is no. If no, comply forthwit.

Normally, a patrol officer would not be responding to a call from a military base, nor should they ever respond while in a CAP distinctive uniform. But special circumstances exist in the world.

For example, let's say you are a Tampa PD or similar department SWAT officer. And you are also a CAP member. You attend CAP meetings on MacDill AFB. And you often drive your department issued vehicle with your equipment and weapons as your regular transportation in order to have an instant response time. Not only are you a law enforcement officer, but you also have been able to show discipline and judgement in order to obtain SWAT status. The base CO may grant you a standing order of access, strictly for your CAP meetings, with a call ahead requirement for any other CAP business not conducted during normal CAP meeting times, ie, SAR mission briefing at your CAP building on base.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 06:54:36 PMFor example, let's say you are a Tampa PD or similar department SWAT officer. And you are also a CAP member. You attend CAP meetings on MacDill AFB.

You will be in a CAP uniform, bound by CAP regulations.  If Florida law requires an LEO to carry a weapon, then
you will need to arrange for that in advance, and have it approved by the CAP wing CC in advance, before
you attend a single CAP meeting carrying a weapon.

CAP's authority does not trump the base CC's authority, so if he says "no", it's "no", regardless of state law.

If that is an untenable situation, you have to make a choice between CAP and your employment.  Most would simply find
another outlet for their volunteer initiative.

For example, let's say you are a Tampa PD or similar department SWAT officer. And you are also a CAP member. You attend CAP meetings on MacDill AFB. And you often drive your department issued vehicle with your equipment and weapons as your regular transportation in order to have an instant response time. Not only are you a law enforcement officer, but you also have been able to show discipline and judgement in order to obtain SWAT status. The base CO may grant you a standing order of access, strictly for your CAP meetings, with a call ahead requirement for any other CAP business not conducted during normal CAP meeting times, i.e., SAR mission briefing at your CAP building on base.


State Regulations vs County policy are pretty different.  State regs I could see CAP making exceptions for.  County policy is pretty broad.

Wow... thats a pretty intense scenario.  Ive never known a cop who had to drive around in his agency ride even off duty in the event of maybe getting a SWAT call out.  heck.. even when I was on SWAT I didnt get to use my Dept car for personal use "just in case" I got a call.  But maybe there are places like that. 

Wait, just so I am clear....you are neither a LEO nor a member but you are making statements and giving hypotheticals for both and you are perpetuating some GT urban legends at the same time?

And the order is shelter, water, fire, food. I taught you better than that....do yourself a favor and retreat while you are behind...

Quote from: Panzerbjorn on June 13, 2014, 04:12:01 PM
Normally, I completely advocate going easy on a first-poster.  But, after reading GSARMedic's anecdotes, I started to wonder if I had come across another Mall Ninja.  For those who don't know what I'm talking about, please refer to this webpage: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/ (http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/)

There's not a whole lot new I could contribute to this thread that others have already screamed to the tops of their lungs.  Firearms just have no place on a CAP ground team unless you are in a State like Alaska that have legislation requiring you to have one.  Period.  The End. Next Topic Please.

Frankly, GSARMedic (sorry, bud), based on his anecdotes, would be a prime example of someone I wouldn't trust to carry a firearm on a ground team.  Nothing personal, but he wouldn't be alone in that category of people in CAP I wouldn't trust to use good judgement with a firearm.  I trust those who reluctantly carry them only because they have no other choice.  I don't trust those who really want to carry them because they might run into a snake on a search line.  But because of the liability, regs, and just the plain fact that they're not necessary for what we do, that should be the end of any discussion to it.

I'll brush off the inference that I am a "Mall Ninja" I don't own tactical gear. Nor present myself as some sort of Special Forces wannabe whahoo. I have too much respect for our operators, especially my father and uncles, and the others who have trained me on what it means to be a soldier. I am not a veteran, nor do I go around wearing my CAP uniform attempting to portray a veteran.

I do have concealable firearms that I carry pretty much everywhere. I respect the requests of private organizations when they ask that I not carry on their property. Ex Disney World, churches, hospitals, etc. But whenever I can carry I do, only to protect myself, my family, or the life of my fellow human.

The anecdotes, were not meant to be funny, but rather examples of situations that I witnessed. When I thought it was wrong, I stated so. When I thought it was an example of why a firearm would be a useful tool, I stated so. Whether you decide to make a judgement call on my ability to utilize proper judgement based off of something I saw and not something I did or didn't do is a bit narrow minded, but it is your right none the less.

I don't trust people who are reluctant to carry a firearm, because those same people are reluctant to use them when the need arises. While my one example had to do with a snake, other situations, especially in the state of Florida can be just as much a reason; gators, bobcats, black bear, feral hogs, or coyotes are abundant in the various parts of Florida. We have had 2 bear maulings in a upper-middle class neighborhood since the beginning of the year. Don't believe me? Google it. There are also news reports of people who have been attacked by feral hogs, some were out there hunting the hogs, others were just in their backyards.

My point is, we don't know where we will be when a dangerous situation will arise. That's all. I could be on a UDF team in Seminole County FL and come across a black bear or more than one, because they are so prevalent even in populated areas. Also, ask anyone who has lived in Florida for most of their life. You treat everybody of water as if there is an alligator in it. Even retention ponds.


Finally, Liability, regs, etc.
Yes, these limitations prevent the use of firearms, however, they could also be argued to prevent the use of vehicles and aircraft. But what did the organization do to overcome these liabilities?

They created regulations to control the proper use and to form a basis of qualification for the user to obtain authorization. So in theory, just like a CAP driver's license being necessary to operate a CAP vehicle, beyond having a valid state driver's license, CAP could generate the same regs and qualifications to authorize GTMs or GTLs to carry a firearm in the field only. And require them to provide proof of proficiency and proper knowledge/judgement.

GSARmedic.

I will repeat.  CAP is a volunteer agency.   You don't have to join.  If you feel uncomfortable going unarmed....then CAP is not for you.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about 2d Amendment, what if's, "then why do we have cars", etc.  Bottom line.  No guns at CAP activities.   Unless you area LEO in a state where it is required by law.

If you cannot understand that simple rule, then you can't be in CAP and I don't want you in CAP.

Thank you for your interest.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 06:54:36 PM
A herpetologist can correct me on this, but my understanding is that snakes have little to no maternal instinct. They don't protect their young.

As you would read in my correction, there are some snake species that do protect their young for short periods. 

QuoteMy snake survival training was that you flee first, fight only if cornered, and in fact that is the same thing the snakes themselves survive by. We did flee the first group of juveniles who are less discriminant in their attack and also have less control over their venom injection volumes. I was more afraid of them than the adult. However, the adult was being antagonized by the search dog.

The use of a gun here was not the appropriate action, nor was it required.  You would have been just as effective walking away from the adult. 

QuoteWhat I find more interesting is that you assumed for me, that a gun is the only form of protection. I did not state that. More accurately I would state that a gun is often the best form of protection. But there are exceptions to every theory. You can't shoot a swarm of hornets/bees, so in that situation it is ineffective. Point conceded, a gun is not the best in EVERY situation.

Also, my statement was that they had nothing to protect themselves with, which is 100% accurate. They had to IMPROVISE with what was around them to defend themselves.

I did not assume.  Your statement said it and you said it again.  You stated they did not have protection, when in fact they did:  sticks, rocks, blunt force objects.  So again, your statement that they had nothing to protect themselves is wrong.  They did:  rocks, sticks, etc.  The fact that they did not have a gun does not mean they did not have anything to protect themselves with.  The best form of protection is still the brain, which is what those people used for protection.

QuoteAlso, that thing that sits between my ears, tells me and every form of human hunter since the beginning of time that a gun is better than a stick, rock, arrow, sword, etc. Hence why we have been able to become the dominant species, we have constantly evolved our weapons for hunting and protection to our current weapon of maximum efficiency, a gun.

You are not hunting on a ground team, so that is not applicable.  The use of a gun for protection is not the current weapon of maximum efficiency.  It is the last resort. 

QuoteI am very educated and experienced. You have no basis of my knowledge to even attempt to call into question what I know about animals, hunting, survival, etc. Steve Irwin was highly educated with animals, didn't stop him from dying. And before anyone goes there, NO I do not think that a gun would have protected him, that's not my point.

Steve Irwin is not a good example.  While he had experience, he was also over confident.  He made a fatal mistake that pretty much sealed his death.

If you honestly believe that the gun is the  current weapon of maximum efficiency for protection, then I will call in your knowledge about animals and survival.  Hunting?  Maybe sure I do not know as I do not hunt for sport.

QuoteI have gone through private survival schools taught by Tom Brown Survival and Tracker school graduates as well as Hawk Mountain Expert Rangers. I'm pretty well informed. I've also spent years in the woods hunting and exploring.

::)

QuoteHow exactly does a persons ability to defend themselves from a feral hog, gator, poisonous snake, bobcat, coyote, black bear, etc. have to do with their ability to be on a GT? Again, I concede that the first line of protection from wildlife is to avoid contact. No argument. I am only bringing up the what if situations.

You answered your question. 

QuoteWater, Shelter, Fire, Food. The basic needs in order of priority. The fifth step/priority is getting out. And getting out requires energy. Energy requires proteins and carbs. If you don't put in more than you are using, your going to die a lot faster than a few weeks.

Hmm say that to the people in poor countries.  Ghandi survived 21 days without food and only a few sips of water.  There are medical reports of people surviving as long as 61 days without food.  Average is around 31 to 45 days as long as you stay hydrated.   Yes you can survive weeks without food as your body will use methods such as glycogenolysis, lipolysis, and proteolysis.  Food is a lower priority than getting out? 

Either way, the use of a gun to hunt in a rare GT survival situation is not necessary. 

No base CC is going to allow one specific LEO to carry on base who is not assigned to a SF/MA/MP unit or their respective agencies.  Civ agencies generally are allowed to carry while on official business only. 

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 07:43:59 PM
We have had 2 bear maulings in a upper-middle class neighborhood since the beginning of the year. Don't believe me? Google it. There are also news reports of people who have been attacked by feral hogs, some were out there hunting the hogs, others were just in their backyards.

Why does every one think black bears are some vicious animal?  Most people do not know what to do during bear encounters.  I will ask you, if you encounter a bear (and no gun), what is the best course of action?

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 07:43:59 PM
Finally, Liability, regs, etc.
Yes, these limitations prevent the use of firearms, however, they could also be argued to prevent the use of vehicles and aircraft. But what did the organization do to overcome these liabilities?

The use of vehicles and aircraft is essential to the accomplishment of our mission.  The use of firearms is not.

Quote from: THRAWN on June 13, 2014, 07:30:20 PM
Wait, just so I am clear....you are neither a LEO nor a member but you are making statements and giving hypotheticals for both and you are perpetuating some GT urban legends at the same time?

And the order is shelter, water, fire, food. I taught you better than that....do yourself a favor and retreat while you are behind...

I don't need to be a cop to know what gun regulations are or what police departments require their officers to do. It helps that I have had roommates and current friends who are police officers to get that point of view. Much as a journalist does not need to be a scientist, to do an op-ed on the large hadron collider. Just need to obtain and understand the facts.

I am a former member of CAP with 8 years of service. I don't see how the fact that I am currently unable to attend meetings and make myself fully available to a unit, limits my ability to comment on a topic.

Everything is a hypothetical until it is a reality. The whole point is to talk about hypotheticals to determine the right course of action. Isn't that what you do when you conduct an ORM? Think about all the things that could go wrong to determine whether or not it is safe for you to move forward?

I was an eye witness to the two examples that I talked about. They are not GT urban legends, but if you choose to believe they are that is your right. The only thing that is hearsay, is the accounts that I was told by other CAP members about their experiences. To that I will concede, it is hearsay.

Water, Shelter, Fire, Food. I want to set up my shelter as close to my water source as possible. Not build a nice shelter and then have to hike multiple miles to obtain my daily need for water. You can die from exposure in 24 hours. You can die from dehydration in 24 hours. They are about equal. The durations are more dependent on the environmental factors, but they are pretty much equal. I prefer to find the water first if I have the opportunity, before setting up my shelter. Personal preference I guess.

Lastly, I don't know you. I can only assume that you didn't teach any of my survival classes, nor attended any of the same courses as me. So, you can check your pious attitude about that and allow another person their right to express their thoughts.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 13, 2014, 08:01:14 PM
GSARmedic.

I will repeat.  CAP is a volunteer agency.   You don't have to join.  If you feel uncomfortable going unarmed....then CAP is not for you.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about 2d Amendment, what if's, "then why do we have cars", etc.  Bottom line.  No guns at CAP activities.   Unless you area LEO in a state where it is required by law.

If you cannot understand that simple rule, then you can't be in CAP and I don't want you in CAP.

Thank you for your interest.

I want to first start out by saying I'm not the one that started this topic, in fact there are more than one threads on this topic. I only offered my opinion as to why I would understand a GTMs reasoning for having a firearm. I don't think cadets should have them, only responsible adults over the age of 21 who have proper training and established proficiency and judgement.

As I stated, I was a volunteer for 8 years. I can appreciate and follow orders and regulations. I am not arguing 2nd amendment rights, nor am I forcing that argument on, as we all acknowledge, a private organization.

I'm not sure if there is a problem with my postings being read in the wrong context or what have you. I'm trying to be clear and fair, while expressing my idea. There is no need for forceful statements and denunciations if you disagree, I would challenge you that that behavior goes against OUR Moral Leadership and Ethics Training.

Even as an outsider, I want nothing more than the best future for the CAP, that's why I came to this forum. I want CAP to be better than it was, not worse. (To be clear I am not advocating that by allowing firearms would make CAP better, these are two separate opinions) I want my son or daughter to join CAP in the future. When I have the availability I want to come back to CAP.

To that extent, if you disagree with my opinions that is fine. Opinions are like butts, everyone has one and they all stink. But to say that you wouldn't want me or anyone else in CAP, an organization that supports the community and country, because you disagree with their opinions is just wrong and was a reason that I did see so many people join then leave quickly when I was an active member.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 08:30:49 PM
I want to set up my shelter as close to my water source as possible. Not build a nice shelter and then have to hike multiple miles to obtain my daily need for water.

This is actually somewhat incorrect.  While yes, you do not want to walk miles to a water source, but you do not want to build a shelter near a water source either.  Water sources attract insects and other animals.  Also it presents a possible natural hazard if it floods.  It would be better to build a shelter a few hundred yards off of a water source.  I prefer 300-500 yards if possible.

Yes, you do know me. If you moved to Florida in 02 as you said. I was responsible for training every GTM in NJ between 96 and 02. All of them.

And no, since youre not a cop your assessment and limited knowlege of law enforcement regulations as well as your perpetuation of urban myths makes your points moot.

What was the mission number of your alleged NJSP shooting? GTL? IC? What marina? What was the name of the expert marksman that shot the snake? Dont snow the snowman...

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 07:43:59 PM
I'll brush off the inference that I am a "Mall Ninja" I don't own tactical gear. Nor present myself as some sort of Special Forces wannabe whahoo. I have too much respect for our operators, especially my father and uncles, and the others who have trained me on what it means to be a soldier. I am not a veteran, nor do I go around wearing my CAP uniform attempting to portray a veteran.

Actually, I was referring to the outlandish situations where your skills and equipment were called into action.  Tactical gear doesn't make the Mall Ninja.  Mall Ninja is a mindset, and you're displaying that mindset.

QuoteI do have concealable firearms that I carry pretty much everywhere. I respect the requests of private organizations when they ask that I not carry on their property. Ex Disney World, churches, hospitals, etc. But whenever I can carry I do, only to protect myself, my family, or the life of my fellow human.

Okay...then please consider it requested by the CAP that you do not carry your firearms during any CAP activity.

QuoteThe anecdotes, were not meant to be funny, but rather examples of situations that I witnessed. When I thought it was wrong, I stated so. When I thought it was an example of why a firearm would be a useful tool, I stated so. Whether you decide to make a judgement call on my ability to utilize proper judgement based off of something I saw and not something I did or didn't do is a bit narrow minded, but it is your right none the less.

I have to admit that the visual of you being chased by gang bangers while in the back of an ambulance made me chuckle.  The added visual of you as a paramedic having a firearm and shooting BACK in the middle of a high speed ambulance chase gave me a good giggle.

I'm not judging you in the least bit.  But that's not the same as you remaining credible in my eyes.

QuoteI don't trust people who are reluctant to carry a firearm, because those same people are reluctant to use them when the need arises. While my one example had to do with a snake, other situations, especially in the state of Florida can be just as much a reason; gators, bobcats, black bear, feral hogs, or coyotes are abundant in the various parts of Florida. We have had 2 bear maulings in a upper-middle class neighborhood since the beginning of the year. Don't believe me? Google it. There are also news reports of people who have been attacked by feral hogs, some were out there hunting the hogs, others were just in their backyards.

I didn't say afraid of them.  I said reluctant to carry them.  Professionals carry the tools they need to get a job done.  Amateurs carry things for the coolness factor or because they visualize an unlikely scenario in their head where they'll need a particular tool for.  So think about this...why would I ever want you on a ground team with me if your first instinct on seeing a snake is to draw down and blaze away?

If you're looking at a situation where you believe that you may need a firearm....perhaps your first thought should be to realize that you're the wrong resource to send.

QuoteMy point is, we don't know where we will be when a dangerous situation will arise. That's all. I could be on a UDF team in Seminole County FL and come across a black bear or more than one, because they are so prevalent even in populated areas. Also, ask anyone who has lived in Florida for most of their life. You treat everybody of water as if there is an alligator in it. Even retention ponds.

So your first thought is to shoot the bear?  If you're on a UDF team, perhaps your first thought should be to seek refuge in the van you're driving around.  If you're on a UDF team, you're not going to be far from your vehicle.

Okay...alligators.  Don't go swimming while you're on a ground team in Florida in bodies of water that you can't see the bottom in.  I've been within 10 feet of wild alligators without them deciding that they're going to chase me down.  Keep your distance from them.  Seems simple to me.

QuoteFinally, Liability, regs, etc.
Yes, these limitations prevent the use of firearms, however, they could also be argued to prevent the use of vehicles and aircraft. But what did the organization do to overcome these liabilities?

Seriously?  We're going down this lane?  But okay....Do you have any idea of all the hoops one has to jump through to sit in the left seat of a CAP aircraft?  If you do, that answers your question.

QuoteThey created regulations to control the proper use and to form a basis of qualification for the user to obtain authorization. So in theory, just like a CAP driver's license being necessary to operate a CAP vehicle, beyond having a valid state driver's license, CAP could generate the same regs and qualifications to authorize GTMs or GTLs to carry a firearm in the field only. And require them to provide proof of proficiency and proper knowledge/judgement.

No....Just.....No.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 08:30:49 PMI am a former member of CAP with 8 years of service. I don't see how the fact that I am currently unable to attend meetings and make myself fully available to a unit, limits my ability to comment on a topic.

The majority of which was as a cadet, one admittedly ill-informed enough to not know shooting a door lock off wasn't "OK".
(As a commander, if I ever read an AAR that contained sentences like that, there's be a bunch of people with suspended quals, at a minimum.)

Also no need to respond in blue, it just makes it difficult to read.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 13, 2014, 09:33:01 PM

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 08:30:49 PMI am a former member of CAP with 8 years of service. I don't see how the fact that I am currently unable to attend meetings and make myself fully available to a unit, limits my ability to comment on a topic.

The majority of which was as a cadet, one admittedly ill-informed enough to not know shooting a door lock off wasn't "OK".
(As a commander, if I ever read an AAR that contained sentences like that, there's be a bunch of people with suspended quals, at a minimum.)

Also no need to respond in blue, it just makes it difficult to read.

Not to mention the fact that no cop in his right mind is going to shoot a door lock off a door. It aint Hollywood....

Quote from: THRAWN on June 13, 2014, 09:43:09 PM
Not to mention the fact that no cop in his right mind is going to shoot a door lock off a door. It aint Hollywood....

Agree with 99%.  There are some stupid cops out there.  After all, there was the agent that shot himself in the foot in front of a classroom while showing off his pistol. 

GSARmedic

I did not say I do not want you in CAP because you disagree with me.  I said I would not want you in CAP because you cannot understand the simple rule....No Guns.

Yes...this thread is old.

Yes...you are just stating your opinion.

But....because this is an old opinionated thread......you have stated the same old arguments that actually support CAP's position of why we don't allow guns.

Bear in the woods....walk away.
Snake Pit....walk away.
Locked door.....wait for the owner.
Too scared to go down town for the meeting....don't go.

Sorry if this seems harsh.   I have to be harsh because I have seen too many people interpret discussion of the benefits of allowing arms to be implicit authorization to do so.

So....no.  No guns in CAP.

Quote from: LSThiker on June 13, 2014, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on June 13, 2014, 09:43:09 PM
Not to mention the fact that no cop in his right mind is going to shoot a door lock off a door. It aint Hollywood....

Agree with 99%.  There are some stupid cops out there.  After all, there was the agent that shot himself in the foot in front of a classroom while showing off his pistol.

Agreed. There are morons in all professions however...shooting off a lock? Beside the fact that it would have gotten a bit of attention like Eclipse said, its not as simple as it looks.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 13, 2014, 10:00:17 PM
GSARmedic

I did not say I do not want you in CAP because you disagree with me.  I said I would not want you in CAP because you cannot understand the simple rule....No Guns.

Yes...this thread is old.

Yes...you are just stating your opinion.

But....because this is an old opinionated thread......you have stated the same old arguments that actually support CAP's position of why we don't allow guns.

Bear in the woods....walk away.
Snake Pit....walk away.
Locked door.....wait for the owner.
Too scared to go down town for the meeting....don't go.

Sorry if this seems harsh.   I have to be harsh because I have seen too many people interpret discussion of the benefits of allowing arms to be implicit authorization to do so.

So....no.  No guns in CAP.

Why walk away from a bear when you can shoot it? Youre right though. Its simple. CAP made the decision of no guns. Keep it home.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 13, 2014, 10:00:17 PM
GSARmedic

I did not say I do not want you in CAP because you disagree with me.  I said I would not want you in CAP because you cannot understand the simple rule....No Guns.

Yes...this thread is old.

Yes...you are just stating your opinion.

But....because this is an old opinionated thread......you have stated the same old arguments that actually support CAP's position of why we don't allow guns.

Bear in the woods....walk away.
Snake Pit....walk away.
Locked door.....wait for the owner.
Too scared to go down town for the meeting....don't go.

Sorry if this seems harsh.   I have to be harsh because I have seen too many people interpret discussion of the benefits of allowing arms to be implicit authorization to do so.

So....no.  No guns in CAP.

Thank you for the polite response. Again I was only offering an opinion and then had to vehemently defend myself from counter-arguments that were out of the context that I was intending.

I will therefore not-so-gracefully bow out on this subject.

Quote from: Panzerbjorn on June 13, 2014, 09:07:00 PM
I'll brush off the inference that I am a "Mall Ninja" I don't own tactical gear. Nor present myself as some sort of Special Forces wannabe whahoo. I have too much respect for our operators, especially my father and uncles, and the others who have trained me on what it means to be a soldier. I am not a veteran, nor do I go around wearing my CAP uniform attempting to portray a veteran.

Actually, I was referring to the outlandish situations where your skills and equipment were called into action.  Tactical gear doesn't make the Mall Ninja.  Mall Ninja is a mindset, and you're displaying that mindset.

I am only using bold in the post to define my responses from the other poster.

Whatever you may think of the situation. Outlandish or what not. I never said that I did anything except witness what others did and run from two sets of snakes. How does that make me a Mall Ninja?
[/color]

QuoteThe anecdotes, were not meant to be funny, but rather examples of situations that I witnessed. When I thought it was wrong, I stated so. When I thought it was an example of why a firearm would be a useful tool, I stated so. Whether you decide to make a judgement call on my ability to utilize proper judgement based off of something I saw and not something I did or didn't do is a bit narrow minded, but it is your right none the less.

I have to admit that the visual of you being chased by gang bangers while in the back of an ambulance made me chuckle.  The added visual of you as a paramedic having a firearm and shooting BACK in the middle of a high speed ambulance chase gave me a good giggle.

I'm not judging you in the least bit.  But that's not the same as you remaining credible in my eyes.

The first instance of being shot at, I was not in the ambulance. We were on scene and had to duck behind a car and a tree for protection. The chase was only stopped by us driving through a set up police barrier where the police returned fire and were able to apprehend all of the suspects alive. In hindsight I would have wanted to have a gun to fire back and scare them off. Whether or not that would have been feasible or effective, I don't know. It's just how I feel after feeling helpless.

QuoteI don't trust people who are reluctant to carry a firearm, because those same people are reluctant to use them when the need arises. While my one example had to do with a snake, other situations, especially in the state of Florida can be just as much a reason; gators, bobcats, black bear, feral hogs, or coyotes are abundant in the various parts of Florida. We have had 2 bear maulings in a upper-middle class neighborhood since the beginning of the year. Don't believe me? Google it. There are also news reports of people who have been attacked by feral hogs, some were out there hunting the hogs, others were just in their backyards.

I didn't say afraid of them.  I said reluctant to carry them.  Professionals carry the tools they need to get a job done.  Amateurs carry things for the coolness factor or because they visualize an unlikely scenario in their head where they'll need a particular tool for.  So think about this...why would I ever want you on a ground team with me if your first instinct on seeing a snake is to draw down and blaze away?

If you're looking at a situation where you believe that you may need a firearm....perhaps your first thought should be to realize that you're the wrong resource to send.

As I have stated it is not my first response, but my last option. Only IF I have the option.

QuoteMy point is, we don't know where we will be when a dangerous situation will arise. That's all. I could be on a UDF team in Seminole County FL and come across a black bear or more than one, because they are so prevalent even in populated areas. Also, ask anyone who has lived in Florida for most of their life. You treat everybody of water as if there is an alligator in it. Even retention ponds.

So your first thought is to shoot the bear?  If you're on a UDF team, perhaps your first thought should be to seek refuge in the van you're driving around.  If you're on a UDF team, you're not going to be far from your vehicle.

Agreed and previously posted that UDF teams were not what I was considering when I gave my opinion. I was again only talking about the lack of our control over the environment.

Okay...alligators.  Don't go swimming while you're on a ground team in Florida in bodies of water that you can't see the bottom in.  I've been within 10 feet of wild alligators without them deciding that they're going to chase me down.  Keep your distance from them.  Seems simple to me.

QuoteFinally, Liability, regs, etc.
Yes, these limitations prevent the use of firearms, however, they could also be argued to prevent the use of vehicles and aircraft. But what did the organization do to overcome these liabilities?

Seriously?  We're going down this lane?  But okay....Do you have any idea of all the hoops one has to jump through to sit in the left seat of a CAP aircraft?  If you do, that answers your question.

QuoteThey created regulations to control the proper use and to form a basis of qualification for the user to obtain authorization. So in theory, just like a CAP driver's license being necessary to operate a CAP vehicle, beyond having a valid state driver's license, CAP could generate the same regs and qualifications to authorize GTMs or GTLs to carry a firearm in the field only. And require them to provide proof of proficiency and proper knowledge/judgement.

No....Just.....No.
[/quote]

Here's the  MythBusters segment  (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/mega-movie-myths-shootin-locks.htm) where they were unable to shoot open a padlock with a handgun, even with multiple rounds.

(But did very well well with the 30-06 and shotgun slug, if you don't mind the shrapnel.)

Quote from: THRAWN on June 13, 2014, 10:00:55 PM
its not as simple as it looks.

Agreed.  I always laugh when someone does it with a single bullet (pistol no less) in a movie.  It is like the old "shoot the door above the lock somehow unlocks the door".  Absolute magic.

 

Quote from: Ned on June 13, 2014, 10:13:31 PM
Here's the  MythBusters segment  (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/mega-movie-myths-shootin-locks.htm) where they were unable to shoot open a padlock with a handgun, even with multiple rounds.

(But did very well well with the 30-06 and shotgun slug, if you don't mind the shrapnel.)

Oh I forgot about that episode.  Good one.

Or...or...

You could put a propane tank up against the lock, attach a length of garden hose, sealed with gum, turn on the propane, get a blank starter gun, fire it in the hose, and the resulting explosion will blow not only the lock, but the door and what/whoever happens to be immediately behind the door.

Saw it on an episode of My Name Is Earl a few years ago.

What?

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 13, 2014, 10:27:57 PM
Or...or...

You could put a propane tank up against the lock, attach a length of garden hose, sealed with gum, turn on the propane, get a blank starter gun, fire it in the hose, and the resulting explosion will blow not only the lock, but the door and what/whoever happens to be immediately behind the door.

Saw it on an episode of My Name Is Earl a few years ago.

What?

Or, MacGuyver, if you had a paperplate, cement mixer and a roll of duct tape....

But for all intents, it might as well be a wall of tissue paper. Because we can't cross it. Gun, lighter, scissors, whatever.

Quote from: THRAWN on June 13, 2014, 10:34:47 PM
Or, MacGuyver, if you had a paperplate, cement mixer and a roll of duct tape....

Psh.  Two words:  Sonic screwdriver

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
(Too broke to read)

Just use the quote function and stop trying to be creative, or break it into multiple messages.

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
In hindsight I would have wanted to have a gun to fire back and scare them off.

Scare them off?  No that is not the purpose of a firearm.  The only time you pull a firearm is with the intention of killing. 

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
The first instance of being shot at, I was not in the ambulance. We were on scene and had to duck behind a car and a tree for protection. The chase was only stopped by us driving through a set up police barrier where the police returned fire and were able to apprehend all of the suspects alive. In hindsight I would have wanted to have a gun to fire back and scare them off. Whether or not that would have been feasible or effective, I don't know. It's just how I feel after feeling helpless.

Yessir....that's exactly what you said:

QuoteBesides being a GTM since I was 14, I was an EMT when I turned 16 and worked in rural, suburb, and urban (Atlantic City and Orlando) areas. I have been shot at by gang members while trying to pick up a victim of a drive-by even after the "Scene was secured by the PD", I've been chased and shot at while in an ambulance by a vehicle that contained the original shooters who didn't want my patient to survive. It's scary. You are not allowed to carry a firearm on an ambulance pretty much anywhere. I was defenseless. All I was trying to do was save a life. [The same reason many of us/you go out there on these SAR missions, that's what the R stands for, Rescue] It was in those moments that I wish I had a firearm to stop the guys shooting at me. To defend myself.

Anyway, I'm afraid you've stopped being taken seriously...At least by me, if not by most people here.  Thank you for the entertainment.  I'm done. 

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
Do you have any idea of all the hoops one has to jump through to sit in the left seat of a CAP aircraft?  If you do, that answers your question.

Hoops?

You need...a PPL, a current medical, and a check ride.  Hardly "hoops".

Quote from: Eclipse on June 14, 2014, 12:27:35 AM

Quote from: GSARmedic on June 13, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
Do you have any idea of all the hoops one has to jump through to sit in the left seat of a CAP aircraft?  If you do, that answers your question.

Hoops?

You need...a PPL, a current medical, and a check ride.  Hardly "hoops".

PPL is a pretty big hoop, my friend.  Then there's the check ride every year, and every new different aircraft (C172, C182, G1000, etc.). Every flight you make there are hoops to jump through before you crank the engine.  The system is designed to check you out and make sure you're not going to bend the aircraft or the people on board.

Hoops.

I fired you for a reason OP. You still havent learned. Im done with this topic and thread. Good luck.

GSARM-

You are forgetting the following found on Senior Member Applications. Re-read it if you forgot it. Pay special attention to those bold areas... As a matter of fact, there are a number of seniors who join then complain when they do not like those regulations they swore to obey. I was a member of a squadron that when a senior member promotes, they have to repeat this oath in front of the entire squadron, cadets and senior members alike!

Quote
OATH OF MEMBERSHIP
(READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING)

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that:

I understand membership in the Civil Air Patrol is a privilege, not a right, and that membership is on a year - to - year basis subject to recurring renewal by CAP. I further understand failure to meet membership eligibility criteria will result in automatic termination at any time.

I voluntarily subscribe to the objectives and purposes of the Civil Air Patrol and agree to be guided by CAP Core Values, Ethics Policies, Constitution & Bylaws, Regulations and all applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws.

I understand only the Civil Air Patrol corporate officers are authorized to obligate funds, equipment, or services.

I understand the Civil Air Patrol is not liable for loss or damage to my personal property when operated for or by the Civil Air Patrol. I further understand that safety is critical for the protection of all members and protection of CAP resources. I will at all times follow safe practices and take an active role in safety for myself and others.

I agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority of the Civil Air Patrol.

I certify that all information on this application is presently correct and any false statement may be cause to deny membership. I understand I am obligated to notify the Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes pertaining to the information on the front of this form and further understand that failure to report such changes may be grounds for membership termination.

I fully understand that this Oath of Membership is an integral part of this application for senior membership in the Civil Air Patrol and that my signature on the form constitutes evidence of that understanding and agreement to comply with all contents of this oath of membership.

Quote from: Panzerbjorn on June 14, 2014, 12:50:23 AM
PPL is a pretty big hoop, my friend.  Then there's the check ride every year, and every new different aircraft (C172, C182, G1000, etc.). Every flight you make there are hoops to jump through before you crank the engine.  The system is designed to check you out and make sure you're not going to bend the aircraft or the people on board.

Hoops.

If you can find some place that will let you play with their $350k airplane for free and pay for the gas on top of it (including most times driving to the airport),
with less hoops, let me know.

A PPL for >me< is a hoop, since I don't have one, for people who would have one anyway, it's not a hoop, it just "is".  I have yet to
meet pilot maintaining their license >only< for CAP, so only those who actually do can tal about "hoops" (and I'd tell them not to).

"$350k airplane for free and pay for the gas on top of it (including most times driving to the airport)"

Paid for by the US Taxpayer at least partially from an income tax established by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution

Quote from: blackrain on June 15, 2014, 04:39:57 PMPaid for by the US Taxpayer at least partially from an income tax established by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution

Point?

Ok-

I will use the same reasoning when one of my students defaces the wall on a school, or etches a message on the desk. Her father paid for the paint they just destroyed, his mom paid with her taxes for that desk he just etched with the keys, so I am not going to reprimand them...

Or,

Why not take that computer home that sits on the hallway of that courthouse? It is paid with my taxes! Let's see how many steps you can take... Let's see whether the judge will accept your It's mine, I paid for it with my taxes!  :P

Guys we are getting a little off topic dont you think? ::)

Quote from: nomiddlemas on June 15, 2014, 05:25:58 PM
Guys we are getting a little off topic dont you think? ::)

It hasn't come down to what type of uniform they want to wear while carrying, so no.  >:D

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 15, 2014, 05:48:31 PM

Quote from: nomiddlemas on June 15, 2014, 05:25:58 PM
Guys we are getting a little off topic dont you think? ::)

It hasn't come down to what type of uniform they want to wear while carrying, so no.  >:D

Just as long as its an ABU with a boonie...

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 13, 2014, 06:28:13 PM

Right... my question was that the original poster said.

Ayep.  I was trying to aim at the OP.  Missed a bit.  Sorry.  :-)

(http://www.photocrati.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/stay-on-target-500x370.png)

It's a hit!

NO....It just impacted on the surface!