CAP Talk

Operations => Safety => Topic started by: Hardshell Clam on October 24, 2011, 10:58:28 PM

Title: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 24, 2011, 10:58:28 PM
I have a question after reading all the posts concerning armed CAP members:

Are there any (authorized) armed members out there?

And right up front, I am NOT in favor of armed members by virtue of a "CCW" permit as obtaining one can be a lengthy process or a simple mater of plunking down the cost of the permit and not having any felony record.

At a minimum, I would require 40 hours of range training and another 40 hours of classroom/legal training, a background investigation (not just a fingerprint check) and a mental exam such as the written MMPI test and a follow up interview with the shrink before considering allowing CAP members to be armed.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 24, 2011, 11:01:37 PM
There are no armed CAP members.  That implies that CAP is arming them or that the use of weapons is somehow part of CAP's program. 

There are individuals who are CAP members may continue carrying a weapon while conducting CAP activities. 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tsrup on October 24, 2011, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2011, 11:01:37 PM
There are no armed CAP members.  That implies that CAP is arming them or that the use of weapons is somehow part of CAP's program. 

There are individuals who are CAP members may who, despite a blatant violation of CAP regulations, continue carrying a weapon while conducting CAP activities.

FTFY,

just to clarify.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 24, 2011, 11:19:31 PM
Uh, you might want to check the actual regulation before "clarifying" my post in that way.  For example, from 900-3
QuoteA member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the wing commander.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 24, 2011, 11:28:40 PM
When I was a law enforcement officer I was required to carry while in the jurisdiction where I worked.  I just made it concealed when participating is CAP activities.

Also IIRC there are places where Pilots are required to carry or at least have an accessible Firearm...Alaska comes to mind.  Anybody please feel free to correct that.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 24, 2011, 11:40:35 PM
My wing has a captain that is also a US Marshal. When he is on call, he is required to carry. He just conceals it and moves on with his day.

Heck, my handgun of choice (92FS) is never very far from me. Its not ON me, but it isn't far at all.  ;)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tsrup on October 24, 2011, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2011, 11:19:31 PM
Uh, you might want to check the actual regulation before "clarifying" my post in that way.  For example, from 900-3
QuoteA member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the wing commander.

Conceded,
Forgot about LE and Alaska.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
And keep in mind that its not just any law enforcement officer that falls under that exception.  It has to be required BY LAW, not just department policy that the officer must be armed even when off duty. 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tsrup on October 25, 2011, 01:07:29 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
And keep in mind that its not just any law enforcement officer that falls under that exception.  It has to be required BY LAW, not just department policy that the officer must be armed even when off duty.

I seem to recall now a previous thread in which this was all discussed...
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 01:10:36 AM
True, though it appears that Hardshell Clam is actually proposing to loosen the requirements and expand the number of people that could carry a weapon.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tsrup on October 25, 2011, 01:12:25 AM
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10328.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10328.0)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 01:18:32 AM
Just to clear up a few things:

1. Well DUH... I know the CAP is not an armed force. Please re-read my question and respond to the question asked. Please try to avoid getting off issue.

2. U.S. Marshals are not REQUIRED by law to be armed off duty. (I.e: "May" vs "Must".) Just a thought: Seems silly to be armed in your CAP uniform while "on call" as you can't respond in CAP uniform, so why not keep it in your bag with your "work cloths?

3. RiverAux: I am not perposing anything, just asking a question.

4. Tsruo: I stated I have read the former threads/posts.

So, with my question in mind,(Pleae reread it)...
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tsrup on October 25, 2011, 01:25:40 AM
Okay, on the subject at hand,

Who would conduct/certify the range training and classroom/legal training?

What would the objectives of these courses be?

I ask the second question from a Curriculum Design standpoint.  How about some tangible objectives.



I see no reason to open up the regulation as it currently is.  Either keep it the way it is or allow those who already have a CCW carry with the wing commander's approval.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: PHall on October 25, 2011, 01:31:59 AM
Folks, CAPR 900-3 is pretty clear about this. We don't carry, period.
There are exceptions. Read the reg to see what they are.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 25, 2011, 01:33:41 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
  It has to be required BY LAW, not just department policy that the officer must be armed even when off duty.

A weird little nuance...but what happens when your department policy is adopted by reference into the City Charter and therefore ordinance?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Eclipse on October 25, 2011, 01:37:51 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 01:18:32 AM
3. RiverAux: I am not perposing anything, just asking a question.

Fair enough.  Why?

There are probably less members in CAP who would be required to carry a firearm during CAP duty then there are NCO's wearing grade from another service.  For those required to carry, no one needs to know.

For the record, you did, in fact, make a proposal in your original post.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 01:47:40 AM

Tsrup: The training was just my thoughts of a mininum requirement for anyone armed and acting to defend othetrs.

PHall: I've read the regs and my question stands: Is there any auth peron (with a letter) armed while on CAP duties?

SARDOC: Is there any place that actully requires (by law) that off duty officers carry firearms? I would be interested to know who has that in their charter. HUGE liability as it makes the city/county, etc. absorb libility, just like when on duty. Even the NYPD dropped that years ago and department policy is not law.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 01:52:56 AM
Sorry about my poor spelling, I'm on my phone and letters are way to small...

I'm about to give up as no one has responded to my question without convoluting same:

Are there any members auth (by reg and letter from wing CO) to carry firearms?

Easy question, easy answer.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tsrup on October 25, 2011, 01:53:43 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 01:47:40 AM

Tsrup: The training was just my thoughts of a mininum requirement for anyone armed and acting to defend othetrs.


I gathered that.

I just asked you to expand and justify.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 02:03:39 AM
Quote from: tsrup on October 25, 2011, 01:53:43 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 01:47:40 AM

Tsrup: The training was just my thoughts of a mininum requirement for anyone armed and acting to defend othetrs.


I gathered that.

I just asked you to expand and justify.

OK then: I would not anyone around me, my family, cadets etc. who is armed by official permission to act as a defender with firearms unless I know they are well trained and mentality stable enough to do so.

Getting a CCW in a "must issue" state is not that hard. I know a lot of folks who have CCW permits and I would not let them guard my dog. I do not want to offend anyone, but in my state you pay the CCW fee and have no disqualifying crimes and woo-hoo you can carry a gun. Some folks go out and buy a CCW badge, and that is a real warning flag as far as I'm concerned...
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Extremepredjudice on October 25, 2011, 02:13:25 AM
Why would we need to carry?
What purpose would it serve? We are a SAR organization.

The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)


Just throwing something in the ring.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: titanII on October 25, 2011, 02:19:28 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 25, 2011, 02:13:25 AM
The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)
IMO there are better alternatives for this purpose: "bear spray," i.e. pepper spray.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: cap235629 on October 25, 2011, 02:22:07 AM
Quote from: titanII on October 25, 2011, 02:19:28 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 25, 2011, 02:13:25 AM
The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)
IMO there are better alternatives for this purpose: "bear spray," i.e. pepper spray.

If you are close enough to spray a bear with pepper spray, you are dinner.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SarDragon on October 25, 2011, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on October 25, 2011, 02:22:07 AM
Quote from: titanII on October 25, 2011, 02:19:28 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 25, 2011, 02:13:25 AM
The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)
IMO there are better alternatives for this purpose: "bear spray," i.e. pepper spray.

If you are close enough to spray a bear with pepper spray, you are dinner.

"The National Park Rangers are advising hikers in Glacier National Park and other Rocky Mountain parks to be alert for bears and take extra precautions to avoid an encounter.

They advise park visitors to wear little bells on their clothes so they make noise when hiking.  The bell noise allows bears to hear them coming from a distance and not be startled by a hiker accidentally sneaking up on them.  This might cause a bear to charge.

Visitors should also carry a pepper spray can just in case a bear is encountered.  Spraying the pepper into the air will irritate the bear's sensitive nose and it will run away.

It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area.  People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.

Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur.  Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper."
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Extremepredjudice on October 25, 2011, 02:31:56 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 25, 2011, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on October 25, 2011, 02:22:07 AM
Quote from: titanII on October 25, 2011, 02:19:28 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 25, 2011, 02:13:25 AM
The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)
IMO there are better alternatives for this purpose: "bear spray," i.e. pepper spray.

If you are close enough to spray a bear with pepper spray, you are dinner.


It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area.  People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.

Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur.  Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper."
Personally, I'll just leave the area for any type of scat.  8)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tsrup on October 25, 2011, 02:32:21 AM
Sound's like you should write to your congressman, because it sounds like you're far more likely to encounter people that you deem unqualified to carry outside of CAP than inside. 

And what does grant you the person to make those distinctions?

Again, who would be the certifying authority for these classes and range instruction.  Where would the cost come from?  And from your reasoning alone, then why limit it only to CAP members?



Maybe some people see the right to carry a Right, and not a privilege granted from an authority akin to the DMV...
That being said, I have no problem conforming to the regulations of CAP as they are written.  CAP is voluntary, and by joining we agree to act in accordance with their regulations.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 02:34:47 AM
Eclipse:  I made no proposal. I expressed a thought and wow, you even got to get an "NCO" dig in!

Tsrup: You asked a question, twice and I gave your an opinion, period. No one said it should be policy and/or I should judge anyone, etc, blah, blah, blah.

All LEO types: Department regs are NOT "required by law" and would not excuse one for carrying a firearm if caught doing so.

Now folks are going on about pepper spray and bear poop... Geeze, is it possible to get a straight answer without all the off topic bull?

I should have known better then ask the question and for that I must say "my bad".


Moderator, PLEASE end this now.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: johnnyb47 on October 25, 2011, 02:55:34 AM
I do not and I know of no members who are armed while performing CAP duties or activities.
That doesn't mean they don't exist but as the regs are terribly specific about it I doubt you'd get anyone to admit to it if they did carry on "duty".

Even if i was required by law, had a written letter of permission from the national commander and the president of the us followed me around letting people know it was OK I wouldn't advertise it. This could be why you aren't getting any "yeah I carry my glock...." answers.
hope that helps.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 25, 2011, 02:59:27 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 01:47:40 AM
SARDOC: Is there any place that actully requires (by law) that off duty officers carry firearms? I would be interested to know who has that in their charter. HUGE liability as it makes the city/county, etc. absorb libility, just like when on duty. Even the NYPD dropped that years ago and department policy is not law.

Yes...Technically, My former department did indeed require it and that our department policies are adopted by reference into the City Charter.  The liability is really no different if they required you to carry or authorized you to carry off duty.  The only issue we had was that if we were required to do so that there would be an FLSA compensation issue...because the Chief law enforcement officer in our city is the Sheriff which by another weird quirk is considered a State Constitutional Officer we were combination Local/State LEO's.  The local PBA sued for overtime wages because of the requirement but the State Circuit Court ruled that we were exempt from the FLSA because we were appointees from an elected official.  State Rights vs Federal Gov't issue.   In the Time since I've retired the requirement is still on the Books, but from what I understand it's not enforced like it used to be...New Sheriff.  But they won't change it because they refuse to admit it is dumb.

NYPD dropped it a LONG time ago...My Dad retired from there around 1986 and he wasn't required to carry off duty.  Matter of Fact I remember that when he did bring his gun home he did so illegally because he had to drive through New Jersey to get home.   Which at the time was against the law because NJ required a permit, which my Dad did not have because he was not a NJ resident and there was no Out of State LEO exception.  There were a few stories about NYPD cops getting charged for having an illegal firearm in NJ by Jersey Troopers.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tsrup on October 25, 2011, 03:10:35 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 02:34:47 AM
Eclipse:  I made no proposal. I expressed a thought and wow, you even got to get an "NCO" dig in!

Tsrup: You asked a question, twice and I gave your an opinion, period. No one said it should be policy and/or I should judge anyone, etc, blah, blah, blah.

All LEO types: Department regs are NOT "required by law" and would not excuse one for carrying a firearm if caught doing so.

Now folks are going on about pepper spray and bear poop... Geeze, is it possible to get a straight answer without all the off topic bull?

I should have known better then ask the question and for that I must say "my bad".


Moderator, PLEASE end this now.

Well what kinds of answers were you expecting? 

It's called a Forum, because that's what happens.  You start a topic, and you get feedback.  You cant ask the mods to close it just because you don't like the response.

I'm just asking for you to expand your "thoughts".  If you really want change, then talk about it. 

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: a2capt on October 25, 2011, 03:14:22 AM
Don't like response? Don't read the thread anymore. Simple.
I've yet to see a request for lock, end, or delete honored here, simply because it's desired. OTOH. If the thread goes off and gets stupid, that is a different story. But deleted, rarely. Still there for google to sniff...
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:17:52 AM
 "The liability is really no different if they required you to carry or authorized you to carry off duty."

Back the cart up but there is a LOT of difference... A huge one as a matter of fact and that is why 99% gave that up a long time ago Again: "HUGH" libility and difference. 

If you had a "bad shoot" off duty the department was just as much on the hook just as if it was on duty. A lot of case law stating just that. Feds dropped that (even the FBI) a long tome ago as well.

I would be interested in reading any "required law".

Folks: As far as "asking" to lock the thread, it was made tounge in cheek at the inane responses...

As far as wanting any change to the CAP rule, I would say, oh heck no, I do not want armed CAP staf unless they have a letter from wing, just like the rules say. They are worded the way they are to prevent folks from carrying with a CCW or "off duty" because they can. The wing CO is not going to give out a letter unless there is a real need and a law (not a local dept reg) requiring the weapon.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: johnnyb47 on October 25, 2011, 03:26:44 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:17:52 AM
"The liability is really no different if they required you to carry or authorized you to carry off duty."


If you had a "bad shoot" off duty the department was just as much on the hook just as if it was on duty. A lot of case law stating just that.


:)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 25, 2011, 03:27:49 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:17:52 AM
"The liability is really no different if they required you to carry or authorized you to carry off duty."

Back the cart up but there is a LOT of difference... A huge one as a matter of fact and that is why 99% gave that up a long time ago Again: "HUGH" libility and difference. 

If you had a "bad shoot" off duty the department was just as much on the hook just as if it was on duty. A lot of case law stating just that.

I would be interested in rading any "required law".


I think you are kinda making my point.  Yes, a "Bad Shoot" is just as bad off duty as it would be on duty.  That still has no bearing on whether or not the Department requires you to carry off duty.  Two very separate issues.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 25, 2011, 03:35:53 AM
That being said I disagree with CAP members carrying Firearms...it is a lot more responsibility than people realize it is.  My Earlier Posts, I mentioned that my Department Required off duty members to carry, while true, most LEO's disagreed with it because of the level of personal responsibility it placed on us in our off duty hours...so much that we actually sued our employer over it.  Nobody in the Civil Air Patrol should ever really consider allowing members to carry other than where required to do so by law.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SarDragon on October 25, 2011, 03:39:22 AM
When preceded by "If CAP allowed weapons,..." this could certainly be implied to be a proposal:

QuoteAt a minimum, I would require 40 hours of range training and another 40 hours of classroom/legal training, a background investigation (not just a fingerprint check) and a mental exam such as the written MMPI test and a follow up interview with the shrink before considering allowing CAP members to be armed.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:43:15 AM
SARDOC: Ok, I will make it it even simpler: The police departmet/insurance co HAS to pay out $$$ in any "bad shoot" on duty, but to avoid the same thing "off duty" the departments stopped requiring off duty carry to avoid all the $$ payouts. Sad to say, but plain simple math did in the "required carry" rules.

If any officer thinks your department would not feed you to the wolfs in a bad off duty shoot even faster then an on duty one, they are delusional. That is why 99.9% of real fed agents (not "security police" or guards, etc.) carry special insurance offered through FLEOA, unions etc.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 25, 2011, 04:00:57 AM
See...I'm more of the "City is going to screw us for a bad shoot whether we are on duty or not" crowd.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 25, 2011, 04:02:10 AM
I have been armed by CAP, and fired weapons, many times under CAP's authority, including the firing of fully automatic ( 3 round burst, technically) assault rifles, and I know many others have too. As far as my personally going CCW, it does not happen on CAP's time. When I was actively involved in workplace violence conflict resolution, I carried a 4 Million dollar E&O policy, which thankfully, I never had to make use! Now I view a personal weapon as part of my insurance, not as a thing I need to be protected from, by a usurious insurance policy. If I have to shoot anyone (or anything) now, I am confident that the powers that be will make my life miserable, but it will still be my life, a subtle, but important differentiation!

Major Lord
p.s. My favorite question on the MMPI is "Are you a special agent from god?" it makes me laugh every time I see it.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 04:05:31 AM
Just real quick back to my posting about the marshal...

It's not a fight the wing wanted to pick. He is an outstanding SM, puts in tons of time, and has great connections with other federal agencies.

The man does a very hard and very dangerous job; he has also made several enemies in his line of work. He said he needed to be armed (not all the time, just when on alert) and so it is allowed in the wing.

If you all want to chase someone like that away, than so be it, but it's a wonder CAP has such a hard time playing nice with other agencies.

Now back to your regularly scheduled argument....
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tsrup on October 25, 2011, 04:05:46 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on October 25, 2011, 04:02:10 AM
I have been armed by CAP, and fired weapons, many times under CAP's authority, including the firing of fully automatic ( 3 round burst, technically) assault rifles, and I know many others have too.
???
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 04:08:42 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on October 25, 2011, 04:02:10 AM
I have been armed by CAP, and fired weapons, many times under CAP's authority, including the firing of fully automatic ( 3 round burst, technically) assault rifles, and I know many others have too. As far as my personally going CCW, it does not happen on CAP's time. When I was actively involved in workplace violence conflict resolution, I carried a 4 Million dollar E&O policy, which thankfully, I never had to make use! Now I view a personal weapon as part of my insurance, not as a thing I need to be protected from, by a usurious insurance policy. If I have to shoot anyone (or anything) now, I am confident that the powers that be will make my life miserable, but it will still be my life, a subtle, but important differentiation!

Major Lord
p.s. My favorite question on the MMPI is "Are you a special agent from god?" it makes me laugh every time I see it.

If by "armed" by the CAP, you mean you were allowed to shoot weapons under the supervision of another agency at a range, then good on you, but if you mean the CAP armed and allowed you to carry, I would have to call bull on you.

The MMPI is just a tool and heck, I always considered myself an agent of good, therefore an agent of God! ;)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 04:19:14 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 04:05:31 AM
Just real quick back to my posting about the marshal...

It's not a fight the wing wanted to pick. He is an outstanding SM, puts in tons of time, and has great connections with other federal agencies.

The man does a very hard and very dangerous job; he has also made several enemies in his line of work. He said he needed to be armed (not all the time, just when on alert) and so it is allowed in the wing.

Now back to your regularly scheduled argument....

Hey, I agree, I spent my years in as a Special Agent rep in OCDEF. (a multi agency group that is designed to attack the high level narcotics and money laundering traffickers), as a 95B (Military Police) and 97B (you know who we were..) a local yocal and spent a year as a liaison to interpol (if anyone tells you they were an interpol agent, they are a real wanker). So I know a bit about being armed.

It is hard to put down my gun during CAP meeting but I do and FYI: Any authority to carry under HR218 is not valid at a CAP meeting. (If you know then you know...)

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 11:04:43 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on October 25, 2011, 01:33:41 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
  It has to be required BY LAW, not just department policy that the officer must be armed even when off duty.

A weird little nuance...but what happens when your department policy is adopted by reference into the City Charter and therefore ordinance?
Much as I like to play lawyer that one may go a little beyond my "knowledge" of this area.  Guess I'd say that would be a Wing Commander judgment call.  Personally, I'd say that it would meet the exception if there were actual civil or criminal penalties for violating the ordinance.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Spaceman3750 on October 25, 2011, 12:47:34 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 04:19:14 AM
It is hard to put down my gun during CAP meeting but I do and FYI: Any authority to carry under HR218 is not valid at a CAP meeting. (If you know then you know...)

Well... LEOSA is technically still valid even at CAP activities, it's just that CAP says that they'll probably kick you out if you exercise your rights under it. Your call.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: N Harmon on October 25, 2011, 02:02:24 PM
What are the rules about CAP members carrying anti-bear spray? Are there any?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 25, 2011, 02:06:13 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 04:08:42 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on October 25, 2011, 04:02:10 AM
I have been armed by CAP, and fired weapons, many times under CAP's authority, including the firing of fully automatic ( 3 round burst, technically) assault rifles, and I know many others have too. As far as my personally going CCW, it does not happen on CAP's time. When I was actively involved in workplace violence conflict resolution, I carried a 4 Million dollar E&O policy, which thankfully, I never had to make use! Now I view a personal weapon as part of my insurance, not as a thing I need to be protected from, by a usurious insurance policy. If I have to shoot anyone (or anything) now, I am confident that the powers that be will make my life miserable, but it will still be my life, a subtle, but important differentiation!

Major Lord
p.s. My favorite question on the MMPI is "Are you a special agent from god?" it makes me laugh every time I see it.

If by "armed" by the CAP, you mean you were allowed to shoot weapons under the supervision of another agency at a range, then good on you, but if you mean the CAP armed and allowed you to carry, I would have to call bull on you.

The MMPI is just a tool and heck, I always considered myself an agent of good, therefore an agent of God! ;)

Before Tsrup's head explodes, yes, I have carried CAR's and M-16's, single shot 22, and O/U shotguns as both a range officer at encampment and in conjunction with our (former) dual charter as a BSA group. In one instance, I went "active" when a mountain lion started stalking our cadets and police explorers during a night time game of capture the flag , and the Ranger handed me his 870 and he grabbed his AR with "shoot on site" orders. The Mountain lion liked the game better when he was just planning on eating campers, not when two armed adults planned on making him into a throw rug.

FYI, two days later, a cadet told his school that he was given an M-16, and helped to hunt and kill a mountain lion during this activity. The school absolutely freaked, and much paper was generated as a result. On balance, it might have been better to let the kitty have one of our slower cadets ( or police explorers) This same Cadet also had a S/M uniform made up and was shown in the national CAP magazine impersonating a a S/M! Gotta love those little badgers.....

Major Lord
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Eclipse on October 25, 2011, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: N Harmon on October 25, 2011, 02:02:24 PM
What are the rules about CAP members carrying anti-bear spray? Are there any?

Make sure you read the "point towards bear" label correctly.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:39:27 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 25, 2011, 12:47:34 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 04:19:14 AM

Well... LEOSA is technically still valid even at CAP activities, it's just that CAP says that they'll probably kick you out if you exercise your rights under it. Your call.

Sorry, by the LEOSA specifically does not apply at CAP meeting and if at a school, then you have even more problems.

LEOSA does not override federal law or federal regulations. (CAP rules are a codified federal regulations) and case law has affirmed that when a federal agency, unit, etc. has under its control an area, (by renting or "temporary possession"), the agencies rules apply, period, no fourm debate can change that. So if the CAP uses a room in lets say a church, that area being used is "under control" of the CAP. Nothing need be signed. Now here is a twist: It most likely would not apply to a party packing just going through the area because that person is not subject to CAP regulations.

The prohibition on carrying firearms within 1000 feet of a school contained within the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995, which authorizes on-duty law enforcement officers to carry firearms in such circumstances still applies to off-duty and retired law enforcement officers who would otherwise be allowed to carry firearms under LEOSA. Off duty officers HAVE been convicted of violation this law. Take the time to research it and you will see that this is correct.

And another twist: Some states have legal clauses in the laws that allow you to drop off your kid outside of the school and then leave while carrying your pistol with a CCW permit. However, (and this will upset the LEO types) your badge does not grant you the same privileges if you are off duty... Several cases have affirmed this and officers have been convicted. And please do your research before saying calling bull on me. And FYI the old "I'm always on duty" has been discounted by the courts numerous times. You are "on duty" only when you are being paid (full or "on-call" pay), or driving an official vehicle.

This information come from legal opinion published in the FBI bulletin, the FOP and "Chief Magazine"
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 25, 2011, 03:44:55 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:39:27 PM
(CAP rules are a codified federal regulations)

That's a crock of bull. CAP regs are the internal rules of a private corporation.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Spaceman3750 on October 25, 2011, 03:46:30 PM
Where are CAP regs incorporated as federal regulation? Also, we're AUXOFF during regular meetings (since it's not an AFAM) therefore not a federal entity during the period in which we control a specific area.

I actually didn't know about the Gun Free School Zones Act vs. LEOSA bit, so that's an interesting tidbit.

Not calling bull, you know way more than I do. Just making a couple of points.

(By the way, I'm not a cop, I just play one on TV)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2011, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: N Harmon on October 25, 2011, 02:02:24 PM
What are the rules about CAP members carrying anti-bear spray? Are there any?

Make sure you read the "point towards bear" label correctly.

More inane responses, but your is a valid question.

If you read the regulation, and then your state law, which the regulation makes reference, you will see what it prohibits. And a good response is never ask a question that you don't already know the answer... Or don't want to hear the answer.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 25, 2011, 03:46:30 PM
Where are CAP regs incorporated as federal regulation? Also, we're AUXOFF during regular meetings (since it's not an AFAM) therefore not a federal entity during the period in which we control a specific area.

I actually didn't know about the Gun Free School Zones Act vs. LEOSA bit, so that's an interesting tidbit.

Not calling bull, you know way more than I do. Just making a couple of points.

(By the way, I'm not a cop, I just play one on TV)

Good points. And that may well be the case. With one exception: The govt and military are specifically authorized to make regulations for their employees and they need not be published in the federal register, only "approved and published" to have the effect, as they apply only to the conduct of their employees. Our regs are approved and published.

And for the purposes of this forum we are "employees".

As to the LEOSA, what I have said is the best of the prevailing professional and legal opinions available, and not just off the top of my head. I included references so if you are going to call bull on me, have the forethought to have some supporting references...

I am NOT anti gun or cop, but rather pro law and made my career in same. While not a practicing attorney, I was admitted to a local bar (not the drinking type, I am often admitted to those ) a number of years ago.

Being a criminal investigator/special agent vs a local cop is as difference as day vs night in a lot of respects. I am thankful I was a local cop before being an agent and I brought some useful prospective with me that was most helpful.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Eclipse on October 25, 2011, 03:59:39 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PMAnd for the purposes of this forum we are "employees".

No, we are not.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Spaceman3750 on October 25, 2011, 04:04:41 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PM
And for the purposes of this forum we are "employees".

IMHO, the only time we are considered employees is when FECA and FTCA come into play on an AFAM. Any other time, AUXON or AUXOFF, we are volunteers.

Being an employee would be nice - the extra paycheck would be helpful.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2011, 03:59:39 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PMAnd for the purposes of this forum we are "employees".

No, we are not.

Wow, what an insightful comeback, OK Eclipse, you pick a word that shows were are subject to the regulations.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 04:21:27 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 25, 2011, 04:04:41 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PM
And for the purposes of this forum we are "employees".

IMHO, the only time we are considered employees is when FECA and FTCA come into play on an AFAM. Any other time, AUXON or AUXOFF, we are volunteers.

Being an employee would be nice - the extra paycheck would be helpful.

Now this is a thinking mans reply! You are correct.

However I stated for the 'proposes of this forum only".  More often then not, volunteers are considered the same as "employees" in respect to rules of conduct.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 25, 2011, 04:30:53 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PM
The govt and military are specifically authorized to make regulations for their employees and they need not be published in the federal register, only "approved and published" to have the effect, as they apply only to the conduct of their employees. Our regs are approved and published.

This is relevant how? We are not government nor military. We are a non profit corporation.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Eclipse on October 25, 2011, 04:32:54 PM
We are not "employees" in any sense.

The rules of conduct are in respect to "membership" not "employment". That we may be granted certain benefits as part of that membership
does not make us "employees".
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2011, 04:32:54 PM
We are not "employees" in any sense.

The rules of conduct are in respect to "membership" not "employment". That we may be granted certain benefits as part of that membership
does not make us "employees".

You can pick away at a minor improper use of a word, but you did not bring anything to the table in reguards to the gist of what I said, only the misuse of a word.

Bottom line: You carry a weapon in violation of CAP regs, you will be You can pick away at a minor improper use of a word, but you did not bring anything to the table in reguards to the gist of what I said, only the misuse of a word.


Bottom line: You carry a weapon in violation of CAP regs, you will be cashiered.  In all likeliness you will NOT be prosecuted, but your membership is history.

In all likeliness you will NOT be prosecuted, but your membership is history.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 04:51:32 PM
well, this went down the "troll" lane very quickly  ::)

BTW, just asked the wing legal officer (who is also a circuit court judge) about our "rules and regs being codified federal regulations".
He laughed so hard, and informed me that in no way shape or form can that happen.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 04:54:20 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 25, 2011, 04:30:53 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 03:57:48 PM
The govt and military are specifically authorized to make regulations for their employees and they need not be published in the federal register, only "approved and published" to have the effect, as they apply only to the conduct of their employees. Our regs are approved and published.

This is relevant how? We are not government nor military. We are a non profit corporation.

You are right, but what type of corporation?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 05:05:36 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 04:51:32 PM
well, this went down the "troll" lane very quickly  ::)

BTW, just asked the wing legal officer (who is also a circuit court judge) about our "rules and regs being codified federal regulations".
He laughed so hard, and informed me that in no way shape or form can that happen.

You are absolutely correct. I had to go back and re-read what I said. I should not have used the word codified but rather "published" regulations and that makes a wanker out of me. Go back and ask your source about published.

Off point: I assume he is a local and not a federal judge? FYI: Most local attorneys/judges do not understand the ins and outs of federal law and have to apply to the federal bar to be admitted.  It was amusing watching local attorneys them make fools of themselves and sadly, hurting their clients when bumbling around in federal courts. Not to say your man is not qualified attorney. Just brought back memories.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 05:18:30 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 05:05:36 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 04:51:32 PM
well, this went down the "troll" lane very quickly  ::)

BTW, just asked the wing legal officer (who is also a circuit court judge) about our "rules and regs being codified federal regulations".
He laughed so hard, and informed me that in no way shape or form can that happen.

You are absolutely correct. I had to go back and re-read what I said. I should not have used the word codified but rather "published" regulations and that makes a wanker out of me. Go back and ask your source about published.

Off point: I assume he is a local and not a federal judge? FYI: Most local attorneys/judges do not understand the ins and outs of federal law and have to apply to the federal bar to be admitted.  It was amusing watching local attorneys them make fools of themselves and sadly, hurting their clients when bumbling around in federal courts. Not to say your man is not qualified attorney. Just brought back memories.

I just did, and good thing we are having a wing work day.

He says and I wrote it down... "just because a groups regulations or rules is "published" does not mean in any way it can be thought of as a ANY sort of law. If that were the case the UCMJ would apply to everyone, because its published. If that were the case coast guard Aux. rules would be law. We could go on and on about this, but its very simple. CAP has the right to governor themselves when on  CAP duty, but just because we are the AF aux (sometimes) does not mean our rules and regulations carry any weight at all, other than to members on CAP duty"

He is a state circuit judge for our neighboring state of Kansas.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 05:42:25 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 05:18:30 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 05:05:36 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 04:51:32 PM
well, this went down the "troll" lane very quickly  ::)

BTW, just asked the wing legal officer (who is also a circuit court judge) about our "rules and regs being codified federal regulations".
He laughed so hard, and informed me that in no way shape or form can that happen.

You are absolutely correct. I had to go back and re-read what I said. I should not have used the word codified but rather "published" regulations and that makes a wanker out of me. Go back and ask your source about published.

Off point: I assume he is a local and not a federal judge? FYI: Most local attorneys/judges do not understand the ins and outs of federal law and have to apply to the federal bar to be admitted.  It was amusing watching local attorneys them make fools of themselves and sadly, hurting their clients when bumbling around in federal courts. Not to say your man is not qualified attorney. Just brought back memories.

I just did, and good thing we are having a wing work day.

He says and I wrote it down... "just because a groups regulations or rules is "published" does not mean in any way it can be thought of as a ANY sort of law. If that were the case the UCMJ would apply to everyone, because its published. If that were the case coast guard Aux. rules would be law. We could go on and on about this, but its very simple. CAP has the right to governor themselves when on  CAP duty, but just because we are the AF aux (sometimes) does not mean our rules and regulations carry any weight at all, other than to members on CAP duty"

He is a state circuit judge for our neighboring state of Kansas.

I don't recall ever stating the CAP rule/regs were "law". I e-mailed a CAP legal officer who read the thread and he told me three things:

1. In his opinion I was correct in that the LEOSA does NOT apply at CAP functions and would not excuse the carrying of a firearm. The only way you are allowed to carry is with written permission by the Wing CO, IF AND WHEN a law required you possess the weapon. Any unofficial authorization will not protect you from the rules and regulations of the CAP.

2. What I had to say about the LEOSA was correct as to schools, LEO's carrying etc.

3. I'm a fool for getting into this debate on-line.

I fully agree with number 3!

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: tonyairplane on October 25, 2011, 07:24:43 PM
Wow, blue lights were bad enough......
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Flying Pig on October 25, 2011, 07:43:17 PM
I have been reading through the posts, and found several occasions where people ask, "Are there any CAP members who are authorized to carry firearms".  Although it hasnt happened, the question seems to be setting up for someone to respond, "Oh yeah...Capt Jones from Sq 123 does."  If there is a CAP member, that for some reason is required by law or has a CAP exemption to carry a firearm, its probably not the worlds business who it is.

I actually know of no agency that is mandated by law to carry 24/7 nor have I ever heard of one, local, State or Fed.  None of the Fed agencies I work with are.  DEA, USSS, HSI, FBI, USMS nor are any of the military agencies, CID, NCIS, OSI.
I dont even know of any agencies whos internal policies require 24/7 carry.  When your off, your off.  If anyone knows of an agency who is required by law to carry all the time, even when off duty, I would like to know what agency that is because Im very curious.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hawk200 on October 25, 2011, 07:48:02 PM
I wouldn't carry while on a CAP duty, but something in the trunk of my car wouldn't necessarily be out of the question. Unless I have to bring it out, nobody is gonna know anyway. (Can't boot be if you didn't know I did it.)

I don't think CAP should deny the allowance if you possess a permit. But, the person carrying should be perfectly willing to accept consequences if something happens. And they should not advertise the fact.

When it comes to agencies required, that's a different story than authorized. But, if you've been in law enforcement any length of time, you know that not carrying is a bad idea.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 08:03:34 PM
my last thoughts:

1. I do not carry firearms in violation to any law or rule.

2. I was asking one simple question: Are there any persons authorized and I agree that its not the worlds business...

3. I have only been in the professional LEO field for all my adult life and a fed for most of that and can tell you this: More cops have gotten into trouble with their off duty guns then have ever needed them. I carry sometimes but I just don't see the need to carry 24/7 but that is my choice. I know agent/officers who weare guns in their own back yards and that is just sad...
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Phil Hirons, Jr. on October 25, 2011, 08:08:02 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2011, 07:43:17 PM
I have been reading through the posts, and found several occasions where people ask, "Are there any CAP members who are authorized to carry firearms".  Although it hasnt happened, the question seems to be setting up for someone to respond, "Oh yeah...Capt Jones from Sq 123 does."  If there is a CAP member, that for some reason is required by law or has a CAP exemption to carry a firearm, its probably not the worlds business who it is.

After all, concealed is the first C in CCW. When I had a CCW and had a weapon I did not advertise the fact and would not have appreciated others doing it for me.

From the discussion it appears very few LEOs are required to carry off duty so the number of Wing CC authorizations should be close to zero.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 25, 2011, 08:15:47 PM
I have not heard of any Law Enforcement Agency requiring full time CCW, and a lot of Cops and Lawfully armed citizens become complacent if no one tries to kill them for a little while, and so leave their gun at home, the trunk, etc.. My Squadron meets on an Air Base, my CCW permit means absolutely nothing to them, and I would no doubt be enjoying a raging good time while the SP's and civilian guards got to do a felony stop at the front gate, and I don't think my CAP ID would do much to help either! I agree that as a condition of my relationship with CAP, not to carry a firearm, date cadets ( my wife would be miffed too) etc. If I thought I needed my sidearm on a CAP mission, I would have to weigh the consequences carefully, and consider risk versus reward.

Since Warren V District of Columbia, the Courts have said that police have no general duty to protect individuals (remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!)  so depending upon how you are feeling that day, you might choose to intercede in a felony with or without your gun....., but since you are more likely to get in trouble for taking action than being a good security guard and standing back to "observe and report" ( or video with your camera) there is little motivation for an off-duty officer to draw his gun except in self defense. He will still get tortured, interrogated, and drug tested, so carrying your gun while bar hopping is not a great idea either.

Bear spray is nasty stuff, and is much higher in concentration of Capsaicin ( It sounds like something made for CAP, doesn't it?) and if sprayed in a human's face can result in death, so treat it like a deadly weapon when it comes to using it on humanoid-style creatures.

Major Lord
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 25, 2011, 10:45:13 PM
You....know this is one of those "I got you rules".

If member A is CCW and I as a commander don't know about it.....I don't know about it.
If member A pulls the gun out and says "looky here y'all" then I got a reg to back up the 2b he is going to get.
If member A says "but I'm a cop" again we got rules to back us up to 2b him.  (i.e. he can't show the relevent law and/or no note fromt he wing commander).

I know that I am too busy to do a patt down to every member and guest as the enter the building.  I know that I am not going to go through everyone's 24 hour gear to check that they don't have some bear protection.

We can argue all day about 2d amendment rights, and the rights of the organisation, and what LEO requires off duty carry.

Bottom line......don't do anything that your commander is going to have to do paperwork on!
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 10:54:42 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 25, 2011, 10:45:13 PM
I know that I am too busy to do a patt down to every member and guest as the enter the building.  I know that I am not going to go through everyone's 24 hour gear to check that they don't have some bear protection. Bottom line......don't do anything that your commander is going to have to do paperwork on!

And you d not have the authority to do pat-downs. The "don't do anything that your commander is going to have to do paperwork on" is good advise and I would carry it a tad further: Don't disobey regs and if you must carry, move on.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 25, 2011, 11:05:53 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 10:54:42 PMAnd you d not have the authority to do pat-downs.

Like I said we can argue legalistics all day long.  >:D
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ned on October 25, 2011, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 10:54:42 PM
And you do not have the authority to do pat-downs.

Why do you say that?

What sort of "authority" do you think is "required" for a CAP commander to check to see if a member is violating regulations?

I think we can all agree that CAP unit commanders are not cops and have no law enforcement powers.  And of course the protections of the BOR were designed to protect citizens from unreasonable government intrusions.

But I can't think of any law or regulation that would prohibit reasonable precautions by unit commanders to ensure that members are following our rules.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: ol'fido on October 25, 2011, 11:22:47 PM
Just going to try to answer the original question. I know of no one currently authorized to carry a weapon in the name of CAP. Someone has already mentioned the Alaska exception and you've all debated the LE/CCW thing for a couple of pages now. However, if you go look at some of the historic photos from the WW2 days, you will see some aircrew members wearing .38s and  .45s.

http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper (http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper) categories/Bases 17 & 19/pages/H_Base17%2619_012.htm

http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper%20categories/Bases%206%20&%2016/pages/H_Base6%2616_014.html (http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper%20categories/Bases%206%20&%2016/pages/H_Base6%2616_014.html)

And the best one:    http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper%20categories/Base%2010/pages/H_Base10_009.html (http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper%20categories/Base%2010/pages/H_Base10_009.html)   ;D
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 11:41:51 PM
"What sort of "authority" do you think is "required" for a CAP commander to check to see if a member is violating regulations?"

To do a pat-down, a lot more then they have now. If a CAP commander ordered a member to submit to a pat-down they should  just walk away, if they laid a hand on them, well let just say their kid's college would be paid for by the commander....

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: ol'fido on October 25, 2011, 11:42:14 PM
Another one I really like:

http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/CAP%20categories/World%20War%20II/WWII%20Subchasers/pages/CAP_104_177.html (http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/CAP%20categories/World%20War%20II/WWII%20Subchasers/pages/CAP_104_177.html)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: a2capt on October 25, 2011, 11:45:23 PM
Ya know, I really do have to wonder what the motive of this thread was. Because it sure does seem like an evolving trolling session.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: JeffDG on October 25, 2011, 11:49:06 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 11:41:51 PM
"What sort of "authority" do you think is "required" for a CAP commander to check to see if a member is violating regulations?"

To do a pat-down, a lot more then they have now. If a CAP commander ordered a member to submit to a pat-down they should  just walk away, if they laid a hand on them, well let just say their kid's college would be paid for by the commander....
Under what law would such kid's college be paid for?

You are aware that things like the 4th Amendment have zero applicability to CAP, right?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Because the CAP commander could potentially be charged with assault and could also be sued. 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 12:14:29 AM
Not likely.  If he says "You're not coming in here unless I search you for weapons" and you come in, you've consented.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 12:26:44 AM
The post that mentioned pat downs didn't say that the CAP member was consenting to them and from the context it was clear that were not talking about consenual searches. 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 26, 2011, 01:11:05 AM
Its sounds like it might be fun, like going through Cadet's gear when they show up to encampment! My son the Spaatzenfuher for check told me about finding a kid with several hundred condoms. Its nice to know our cadets are optimistic.......

Patting fellow CAP members down? Does not sound like a great idea to me, but maybe your members make death threats against each other or smuggle ferrets illegally between States. Please god, no more Regs! If one our members can articulate a reasonable explanation why I should be searched, I get to pick which one I think is cutest. Its only fair.

Who knows what evil lies in the go-bag of a GTM? Smoke grenades? Altoids? I can't imagine a CAP memeber doing a vehicle search for contraband prior to field deployment, but I have had my gear list checked to make sure all the stuff we will need and is on the list is present. How in the world could I ever shut off an ELT on a flight line without my Machete and extra toilet paper?

Major Lord
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ned on October 26, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 11:41:51 PMTo do a pat-down, a lot more then they have now. If a CAP commander ordered a member to submit to a pat-down they should  just walk away, if they laid a hand on them, well let just say their kid's college would be paid for by the commander....

Of course the member is free to walk away from any request made by a commander.  No one is suggesting that physical force should ever, ever be used to ensure compliance.

But if I were a unit commander and I asked to check the gear of a senior member to ensure compliance with regulations and that senior chooses to refuse and "walks away," they certainly have every right to do so.  (Like I said, commanders do not have any cop-like powers to physically force members to do anything.)

But a senior member who chooses not to submit would also be walking away from their membership and any further CAP participation.  If I were the commander.

But they sure get to choose. just like any adult.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: cap235629 on October 26, 2011, 02:32:40 AM
Quote from: ol'fido on October 25, 2011, 11:22:47 PM
Just going to try to answer the original question. I know of no one currently authorized to carry a weapon in the name of CAP. Someone has already mentioned the Alaska exception and you've all debated the LE/CCW thing for a couple of pages now. However, if you go look at some of the historic photos from the WW2 days, you will see some aircrew members wearing .38s and  .45s.

http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper (http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper) categories/Bases 17 & 19/pages/H_Base17%2619_012.htm

http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper%20categories/Bases%206%20&%2016/pages/H_Base6%2616_014.html (http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper%20categories/Bases%206%20&%2016/pages/H_Base6%2616_014.html)

And the best one:    http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper%20categories/Base%2010/pages/H_Base10_009.html (http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Hopper%20categories/Base%2010/pages/H_Base10_009.html)   ;D

Even funnier to me is that most forget hat these weapons were more than likely ISSUED to CAP by the Air Corps.  Also remember that the bombs strapped to our planes during WWII were not member supplied.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hawk200 on October 26, 2011, 04:32:35 AM
Quote from: Ned on October 26, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
But a senior member who chooses not to submit would also be walking away from their membership and any further CAP participation.  If I were the commander.
Dangerous ground. After all, if you're gonna check for weapons, what else will it eventually evolve into checking for? And it will evolve into something far worse.

You try to tell me that you're gonna pat me down, and if I don't I get terminated, you'd best lawyer up. I'd be fairly certain that CAP would wash their hands of you.

You wanna pat people down? Go join the TSA.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: cap235629 on October 26, 2011, 04:41:53 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on October 26, 2011, 04:32:35 AM
Quote from: Ned on October 26, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
But a senior member who chooses not to submit would also be walking away from their membership and any further CAP participation.  If I were the commander.
Dangerous ground. After all, if you're gonna check for weapons, what else will it eventually evolve into checking for? And it will evolve into something far worse.

You try to tell me that you're gonna pat me down, and if I don't I get terminated, you'd best lawyer up. I'd be fairly certain that CAP would wash their hands of you.

You wanna pat people down? Go join the TSA.

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 04:49:19 AM
Quote from: Ned on October 26, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 11:41:51 PMTo do a pat-down, a lot more then they have now. If a CAP commander ordered a member to submit to a pat-down they should  just walk away, if they laid a hand on them, well let just say their kid's college would be paid for by the commander....

Of course the member is free to walk away from any request made by a commander.  No one is suggesting that physical force should ever, ever be used to ensure compliance.

But if I were a unit commander and I asked to check the gear of a senior member to ensure compliance with regulations and that senior chooses to refuse and "walks away," they certainly have every right to do so.  (Like I said, commanders do not have any cop-like powers to physically force members to do anything.)

But a senior member who chooses not to submit would also be walking away from their membership and any further CAP participation.  If I were the commander.

But they sure get to choose. just like any adult.

Wait, what?

Um, no CAP commander of a VOLUNTEER organization has a right or need to "pat" anyone down. Even working as a police officer I needed probable cause to pat someone down, and im sure showing up to a cap meeting does not meet the smell test on PC Ned.

That might fly in the united people's republic of kalifornia, but it won't fly in the Midwest. We like our right to privacy, and so does our court system out here....
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 26, 2011, 05:25:50 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 04:49:19 AM
Quote from: Ned on October 26, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 11:41:51 PMTo do a pat-down, a lot more then they have now. If a CAP commander ordered a member to submit to a pat-down they should  just walk away, if they laid a hand on them, well let just say their kid's college would be paid for by the commander....

Of course the member is free to walk away from any request made by a commander.  No one is suggesting that physical force should ever, ever be used to ensure compliance.

But if I were a unit commander and I asked to check the gear of a senior member to ensure compliance with regulations and that senior chooses to refuse and "walks away," they certainly have every right to do so.  (Like I said, commanders do not have any cop-like powers to physically force members to do anything.)

But a senior member who chooses not to submit would also be walking away from their membership and any further CAP participation.  If I were the commander.

But they sure get to choose. just like any adult.

Wait, what?

Um, no CAP commander of a VOLUNTEER organization has a right or need to "pat" anyone down. Even working as a police officer I needed probable cause to pat someone down, and im sure showing up to a cap meeting does not meet the smell test on PC Ned.

That might fly in the united people's republic of kalifornia, but it won't fly in the Midwest. We like our right to privacy, and so does our court system out here....

I'm quite surprised that a lawyer, of all people, is suggesting this...
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ed Bos on October 26, 2011, 06:53:03 AM
This was an interesting thread to follow, but to clarify:

The State of Alaska mandates certain survival equipment be carried on all flights within the state.

The relevant statute (Refer to AS 02.35.110 Emergency Rations and Equipment) used to include a firearm for protection from animals.

The firearm requirement is not longer a part of that statute.

Alaska Wing no longer has any authorized members that have firearms included in any of their equipment.

When this was law the firearms were intended to be stowed in the aircrew's survival gear, and not kept on their person. There was also problems with members not properly maintaining the firearms that were stowed in their gear (loaded with the same ammunition for several years at a time, and not being cleaned or checked on any regular schedule).

Just don't want misinformation about AK operations to keep being propagated.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 07:13:56 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on October 26, 2011, 04:32:35 AM
Quote from: Ned on October 26, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
But a senior member who chooses not to submit would also be walking away from their membership and any further CAP participation.  If I were the commander.
Dangerous ground. After all, if you're gonna check for weapons, what else will it eventually evolve into checking for? And it will evolve into something far worse.

You try to tell me that you're gonna pat me down, and if I don't I get terminated, you'd best lawyer up. I'd be fairly certain that CAP would wash their hands of you.

You wanna pat people down? Go join the TSA.
The difference being...the TSA is the goverenment that falls under one set of rules....and CAP falling under another.

Not that I am advocating a pat down/strip search in CAP.......but membership is a privlage not a right.  If the commander suspect that you are holding a concealed weapon, illicit drugs or other times considered illegal or dangerous to his members.....he can issue an order to search your person.  If you decide not to allow it.....well then he is within his authority as a commander to 2b you for not following orders.

Granted this is very far fetched.....but as a theoritical experiment into the powers and authority of a commander.....it is not outside the range of possibilities.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 10:22:08 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 04:49:19 AM
Wait, what?

Um, no CAP commander of a VOLUNTEER organization has a right or need to "pat" anyone down. Even working as a police officer I needed probable cause to pat someone down, and im sure showing up to a cap meeting does not meet the smell test on PC Ned.

That might fly in the united people's republic of kalifornia, but it won't fly in the Midwest. We like our right to privacy, and so does our court system out here....
Um...that's the point.  CAP is not the police, so things like "probable cause" are completely irrelevant.  You can always choose to leave rather than submit to the search.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 07:13:56 AM
Not that I am advocating a pat down/strip search in CAP.......but membership is a privlage not a right.  If the commander suspect that you are holding a concealed weapon, illicit drugs or other times considered illegal or dangerous to his members.....he can issue an order to search your person.  If you decide not to allow it.....well then he is within his authority as a commander to 2b you for not following orders.

A commander has to have authority to issue such an order in the first place if they expect a 2b based on the failure to follow an order to be upheld.  Is an order to submit to a pat-down valid?  How about an order to stand on one leg in the corner of the room?  An order to buy the commander a pizza?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 10:22:08 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 04:49:19 AM
Wait, what?

Um, no CAP commander of a VOLUNTEER organization has a right or need to "pat" anyone down. Even working as a police officer I needed probable cause to pat someone down, and im sure showing up to a cap meeting does not meet the smell test on PC Ned.

That might fly in the united people's republic of kalifornia, but it won't fly in the Midwest. We like our right to privacy, and so does our court system out here....
Um...that's the point.  CAP is not the police, so things like "probable cause" are completely irrelevant.  You can always choose to leave rather than submit to the search.

Ya, I am going to call BS. No one in CAP has the right to search you. If they feel like you are breaking the law they can call the police. If they feel you are being unsafe, they can send you home. That's about it. No CAP commander gets to pat me or anyone else down when I am around.

Is the corporation ready for discrimination lawsuit when the females of a unit are not searched? Is the corporation ready for the assault charges im going to file when a CAP squadron commander (also know as joe blow under the law, because a squadron commander is no different than anyone else under it) touches me in ANY way shape or form? Is the corporation ready for the sexual harassment lawsuits that are bound to come out of it when one squadron commander gets a little bit "grabby" during a search?

Are the squadron commanders trained in how to conduct a proper search? Who certified them? What sort of policy is in place for if something is found?

CAP is never going to allow this....ever. If I am ever searched (or attempted to be) by a CAP member ill get a good lawyer, and never have to work again in my life...

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 01:19:32 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 10:22:08 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 04:49:19 AM
Wait, what?

Um, no CAP commander of a VOLUNTEER organization has a right or need to "pat" anyone down. Even working as a police officer I needed probable cause to pat someone down, and im sure showing up to a cap meeting does not meet the smell test on PC Ned.

That might fly in the united people's republic of kalifornia, but it won't fly in the Midwest. We like our right to privacy, and so does our court system out here....
Um...that's the point.  CAP is not the police, so things like "probable cause" are completely irrelevant.  You can always choose to leave rather than submit to the search.

Ya, I am going to call BS. No one in CAP has the right to search you. If they feel like you are breaking the law they can call the police. If they feel you are being unsafe, they can send you home. That's about it. No CAP commander gets to pat me or anyone else down when I am around.

Is the corporation ready for discrimination lawsuit when the females of a unit are not searched? Is the corporation ready for the assault charges im going to file when a CAP squadron commander (also know as joe blow under the law, because a squadron commander is no different than anyone else under it) touches me in ANY way shape or form? Is the corporation ready for the sexual harassment lawsuits that are bound to come out of it when one squadron commander gets a little bit "grabby" during a search?

Are the squadron commanders trained in how to conduct a proper search? Who certified them? What sort of policy is in place for if something is found?

CAP is never going to allow this....ever. If I am ever searched (or attempted to be) by a CAP member ill get a good lawyer, and never have to work again in my life...
Call BS on what?  That probable cause is irrelevant?

The organizers of an event have the right to exclude you for any reason they deem appropriate.  If they say "You need to be searched or leave" and you choose to stay, then you've made your choice.  This isn't a "special power" that belongs to CAP, but to all private organizations and individuals.  There is no legal requirement for training or non-discrimination.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 01:28:35 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 01:19:32 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 10:22:08 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 04:49:19 AM
Wait, what?

Um, no CAP commander of a VOLUNTEER organization has a right or need to "pat" anyone down. Even working as a police officer I needed probable cause to pat someone down, and im sure showing up to a cap meeting does not meet the smell test on PC Ned.

That might fly in the united people's republic of kalifornia, but it won't fly in the Midwest. We like our right to privacy, and so does our court system out here....
Um...that's the point.  CAP is not the police, so things like "probable cause" are completely irrelevant.  You can always choose to leave rather than submit to the search.

Ya, I am going to call BS. No one in CAP has the right to search you. If they feel like you are breaking the law they can call the police. If they feel you are being unsafe, they can send you home. That's about it. No CAP commander gets to pat me or anyone else down when I am around.

Is the corporation ready for discrimination lawsuit when the females of a unit are not searched? Is the corporation ready for the assault charges im going to file when a CAP squadron commander (also know as joe blow under the law, because a squadron commander is no different than anyone else under it) touches me in ANY way shape or form? Is the corporation ready for the sexual harassment lawsuits that are bound to come out of it when one squadron commander gets a little bit "grabby" during a search?

Are the squadron commanders trained in how to conduct a proper search? Who certified them? What sort of policy is in place for if something is found?

CAP is never going to allow this....ever. If I am ever searched (or attempted to be) by a CAP member ill get a good lawyer, and never have to work again in my life...
Call BS on what?  That probable cause is irrelevant?

The organizers of an event have the right to exclude you for any reason they deem appropriate.  If they say "You need to be searched or leave" and you choose to stay, then you've made your choice.  This isn't a "special power" that belongs to CAP, but to all private organizations and individuals.  There is no legal requirement for training or non-discrimination.

Cap can ask you to leave...that's about it. No cap member gets to search anyone. You feel I am hiding drugs, call the police. You feel I am being unsafe, send me home, but no one in CAP has the right to search a member.

Why don't you call up NHQ and ask if you are clear to conduct a TSA style "pat-down" next Tuesday meeting night, see what they have to say? Im 100% certain they will agree with me.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Spaceman3750 on October 26, 2011, 01:42:28 PM
(http://zedomax.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/homer_simpson_clock.gif)

I think we've jumped the shark again...
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: johnnyb47 on October 26, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
I believe this thread jumped the shark the moment it was started.
The problem is that you have a nearly unanswerable question. Even if a forum member posted that YES they were authorized and YES they did carry while on CAP missions you would have a new conversation in which multiple people would likely argue the legality and need for said authorization.
It's a pointless thread in which multiple times (even I tried to give a short-but-sweet answer) people have said "even if they are armed they aren't going to tell you."
That wasnt good enough so it evolved into "well if they aren't telling me and they aren't authorized we should pat down every member we feel necessary to make sure they aren't doing it......"

At best this thread should be generating laughs in the lobby, not in the safety section. (IMHO)

I've lurked on this forum for months just reading what you all have to say. I've learned a lot, really I have. I think much of what gets put up on this board is valuable information that every member should reference throughout their CAP career; but threads like this and other recent ones would scare me away as a new member or someone looking for information before signing up.

Just sayin'
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: jimmydeanno on October 26, 2011, 02:24:17 PM
I worked security for a few NFL games.  You wanted to enter the stadium, I got to pat you down.  Didn't want to submit, you go home, no refund. Nobody certified me, I just showed up and they said "Make sure these people don't have weapons or food."  It was a little awkward finding unwrapped steak and cheese sandwiches in someone's hood...but I digress.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 02:25:05 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 07:13:56 AM
Not that I am advocating a pat down/strip search in CAP.......but membership is a privlage not a right.  If the commander suspect that you are holding a concealed weapon, illicit drugs or other times considered illegal or dangerous to his members.....he can issue an order to search your person.  If you decide not to allow it.....well then he is within his authority as a commander to 2b you for not following orders.

A commander has to have authority to issue such an order in the first place if they expect a 2b based on the failure to follow an order to be upheld.  Is an order to submit to a pat-down valid?  How about an order to stand on one leg in the corner of the room?  An order to buy the commander a pizza?
Let's us suppose for a second that you think Member A is carrying a weapon.......You have every right....and maybe the duty...to ask Member A to allow you to check.  No different the a contraband search at encampment.  If he refuses....then 2b city.

Standing on one leg has no safety and regulations to back it up.  The pat down is a commander's logical step to enforce CAP regulations.  Are we going to issue regulations but not give commanders the authority to enforce them?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ned on October 26, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 02:25:05 PM
Let's us suppose for a second that you think Member A is carrying a weapon.......You have every right....and maybe the duty...to ask Member A to allow you to check.  No different the a contraband search at encampment.  If he refuses....then 2b city.

Standing on one leg has no safety and regulations to back it up.  The pat down is a commander's logical step to enforce CAP regulations.  Are we going to issue regulations but not give commanders the authority to enforce them?

Pat pretty much nailed it with this one.

This is part of the problem when people start debating fairly obscure legal questions without the benefit of legal advice.  Now I don't think the discussing, enacting, or implementing the law should in any way be restricted to lawyers.  Lay folks have as much or more wisdom and common sense as lawyers, but sometimes it helps to have a little bit of insight from legally-trained folks.

To recap, here's the stuff on which we probably all agree:

1.  CAP regulations pretty clearly prohibit possessing or carrying firearms at CAP activities, with some narrow exceptions for "mandatory-carry LEOs" who have written permission from wing commanders, and AKWG pilots.

2.  CAP commanders have inherent authority to enforce regulations and discipline members who deliberately violate CAP regulations.

3.  CAP commanders have the authority to inspect members and equipment being used for CAP missions.

4.  CAP commanders can inspect members and equipment to ensure serviceability and compliance with regulations with or without reasonable cause to believe that any regulations are being violated or that the equipment is unserviceable/unsafe.  Such inspections must be reasonable, and related to ensuring safety and compliance with regulations.

5.  CAP commanders do not have special law enforcement powers to conduct searches for suspected law violations.

6.  Adult CAP members may voluntarily withdraw from CAP activities at any time, and accordingly need not submit to any inspection if they choose not to do so.


Having said all of that, there appears to be some disagreement with my assertion that a CAP commander who believes that a CAP member may be violating a regulation by possessing or carrying a firearm at a CAP activity may be asked to submit to an inspection to check.

Can anyone articulate why a commander should not be able to check to see if the regulatiion is being violated at an activity?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hawk200 on October 26, 2011, 06:21:10 PM
Quote from: Ned on October 26, 2011, 04:31:14 PMHaving said all of that, there appears to be some disagreement with my assertion that a CAP commander who believes that a CAP member may be violating a regulation by possessing or carrying a firearm at a CAP activity may be asked to submit to an inspection to check.

Can anyone articulate why a commander should not be able to check to see if the regulatiion is being violated at an activity?
At best, you can deny attendance. But, a commander has no right to be able to search an individual's person. If the person walks away, you don't really have any place to terminate. They chose to not participate due to unreasonable request. Myself and others would consider that unreasonable. You don't have any authorization to place your hands on me for reasons of search. You can do it to keep me from immediate harm, or to treat me in the case of injury if I don't have the capacity to consent, but searching me for weapons isn't within your purview.

There have been problems at encampments related to physical searches of an individual. If it's not kosher there, it's not kosher anywhere else. Senior or cadet doesn't matter. Search of property for contraband I can consider reasonable, but search of my person isn't.

As monar said, if you don't know, you don't know. If someone pulls a weapon out saying "look at this," then yeah a 2B would be appropriate. But that's when the violation is clearly backed, not just a suspicion. Choosing to simply search because someone might have a weapon is a problem. And what are you going to do if you don't find anything? I imagine that you and your CO will be talking to the wing king very shortly.

I'd bet that there is probably a policy against physical searches of a member. Might be something to ask the KnowledgeBase, and a specific reference publication wise.

I think it's wisest to not even go there. The corporation can't afford the lawsuits.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ned on October 26, 2011, 07:00:10 PM
Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Let's take it step-by-step.

Quote from: Hawk200 on October 26, 2011, 06:21:10 PM
At best, you can deny attendance.

I think we agree that commanders can deny participation for a member who refuses to permit a reasonable inspection.

QuoteBut, a commander has no right to be able to search an individual's person.

Non-concur.  A commander has every right to request a member submit to an inspection/search during a CAP activity.  We agree that no adult CAP members can be forcibly searched against their will.  Neither I nor anyone else has ever suggested otherwise.

QuoteIf the person walks away, you don't really have any place to terminate.

Non-concur.  A member who refuses a proper request by a commander - whether that is turning a report in on time, returning the squadron radio, or submitting to an inspection while at a CAP activity - may be subject to discipline.  A commander who has a reasonable belief that a member is willfully violating a regulation by improperly possessing a firearm at a CAP activity may be disciplined, whether or not they choose to submit to an inspection to verify the commander's concern.  A refusal to submit accompanied by a departure from an activity will certainly be one factor the commander considers when determining what, if anything, to do.

QuoteThey chose to not participate due to unreasonable request.

Not sure what to do with that.  It sounds like you are creating some sort of hypothetical.  But ultimately, whether a request made by a commander is "reasonable" or improper in some way is not up to the individual member.  It will be up to the commander (and potentially any appeal authority).


QuoteMyself and others would consider that unreasonable.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here.  Undoubtedly many members disagree with decisions made by CAP commanders, and may even consider some decisions to be "unreasonable."  I suspect if that were not the case, CAPTalk would simply cease to exist.


QuoteYou don't have any authorization to place your hands on me for reasons of search.

Non-concur, for the simple reason that the authroization I will have is the consent you give me by acceding to my request to conduct the inspection.  As I have said several times, we all agree that no one in CAP has the authority to use force to check/inspect an adult CAP member.

QuoteYou can do it to keep me from immediate harm, or to treat me in the case of injury if I don't have the capacity to consent, but searching me for weapons isn't within your purview.

Inspecting / checking for violations of CAP regulations is always in a commander's purview.  Otherwise, how could we ever enforce any of our regulations?  But if it helps, I again agree that I cannot touch you without your consent.  But see previous discussions about what will happen if you decline to provide your consent.

QuoteThere have been problems at encampments related to physical searches of an individual.

None that I have seen.  And as the National Cadet Advisor for the last several years, I'm pretty sure I would have seen any significant problems if they had occured recently. 

Of course, it isn't hard to imagine that an over-zealous senior could somehow improperly interact with a cadet, so I can't promise that such a thing has never happened.  But I also don't think it will help this discussion to inject the separate legal issue of in loco parentis.  IOW, adults supervising minors probably do have additional duties and responsibilities that may include reasonable applications of force in rare an unusual situations.  (Think a troubled 12 year-old determined to go AWOL at 0300.  I imagine that such a cadet could be gently restrained until parents and/or child welfare officials arrive to sort things out.  We are not reguired to let her wander off base and try to catch a ride from passing truckers.)

QuoteIf it's not kosher there, it's not kosher anywhere else.

Well, I certainly can't argue with that logic.  But if it IS kosher there . . . .

QuoteSenior or cadet doesn't matter.

True as far as that goes, but "adult" versus "minor" probably would.  But I think that is a red herring for the purposes of our discussion here.

QuoteAs monar said, if you don't know, you don't know. If someone pulls a weapon out saying "look at this," then yeah a 2B would be appropriate. But that's when the violation is clearly backed, not just a suspicion. Choosing to simply search because someone might have a weapon is a problem. And what are you going to do if you don't find anything? I imagine that you and your CO will be talking to the wing king very shortly.

The whole point of most inspections is to find out if anything is wrong without knowing if you will find anything or not.  If we couldn't pull a CI until we had proof that a unit was not in compliance, it kinda defeats the point of an inspection.  As military commander, I was required to conduct inspections of the equipment and quarters of my soldiers.  I looked into their footlockers to see if they had the required equipment and if it was serviceable; not to find dope or other contraband.  But if I found it, then there were consequences. 

Similarly, if a commander heard a rumor that someone did have a weapon at a CAP activity, but couldn't be sure who actually had it at the moment, are you suggesting that the commander could not  ask to check?


QuoteI think it's wisest to not even go there. The corporation can't afford the lawsuits.

See, I know a little about lawsuits.  And taking reasonable precautions to ensure compliance of regulations is not something that is every likely to produce a successful lawsuit.

But what do I know?

[edited to correct quote tags]
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 26, 2011, 07:11:31 PM
Quote from: Ned on October 26, 2011, 07:00:10 PM
QuoteIf the person walks away, you don't really have any place to terminate.

Non-concur.  A member who refuses a proper request by a commander - whether that is turning a report in on time, returning the squadron radio, or submitting to an inspection while at a CAP activity - may be subject to discipline.  A commander who has a reasonable belief that a member is willfully violating a regulation by improperly possessing a firearm at a CAP activity may be disciplined, whether or not they choose to submit to an inspection to verify the commander's concern.  A refusal to submit accompanied by a departure from an activity will certainly be one factor the commander considers when determining what, if anything, to do.

QuoteThey chose to not participate due to unreasonable request.

Not sure what to do with that.  It sounds like you are creating some sort of hypothetical.  But ultimately, whether a request made by a commander is "reasonable" or improper in some way is not up to the individual member.  It will be up to the commander (and potentially any appeal authority).


QuoteMyself and others would consider that unreasonable.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here.  Undoubtedly many members disagree with decisions made by CAP commanders, and may even consider some decisions to be "unreasonable."  I suspect if that were not the case, CAPTalk would simply cease to exist.

I would not consent to a search on principle. I would not consent to a search of my vehicle by a LEO on a routine traffic stop either.

You can not terminate on a suspicion and unless you find the weapon that's all you have. If they refuse consent and refuse to leave you probably have a case. If they refuse consent and then leave, what grounds do you have? Any member may leave at any time.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 07:24:18 PM
Hey Ned,

I just want to make sure I get this straight.

What your saying is, I have a right not to be physically touched, but if I exercise that right, ill be kicked out. Is that what you are saying?

So I get to pick, either be felt up by bob the 67 year old squadron commander, or get kicked out?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 07:27:27 PM
Bascially yes.

It is your choice.

You don't have to submit.....but you can't play unless you do.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 26, 2011, 07:27:51 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 26, 2011, 07:11:31 PM

I would not consent to a search on principle. I would not consent to a search of my vehicle by a LEO on a routine traffic stop either.

You can not terminate on a suspicion and unless you find the weapon that's all you have. If they refuse consent and refuse to leave you probably have a case. If they refuse consent and then leave, what grounds do you have? Any member may leave at any time.

Remember, that while it is your right against the Government against unreasonable search and seizure.  Civil Air Patrol membership is a Privilege and not a right.  A Senior member can be terminated for insubordination, failure to follow regulations and failure to follow orders.  I think that if a commander had reason to believe you were not in compliance with regulations and you refused to demonstrate that you were indeed in compliance, I would see an untimely ending to your Civil Air Patrol service.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 26, 2011, 07:46:01 PM
The above posts seem to suggest that a Commander may make a request to allow a member's consent to a physical search of his person, and that a denial of the request will be sufficient to prohibit that persons participation in the CAP activity at hand. ( Lets assume for the purposes of argument we are not dealing with a member who may not be touched for religious reasons) Absent any articulable suspicion, refusal of the search on pain of excommunication from CAP activities seems a risky strategy on the part of the Commander. Unless they discover a violation of CAP regs ( or god forbid, law!) how would a reviewing body determine whether this was a reasonable request conducted upon ( and forgive me the use of this phrase, but I can't think of one as poignant) Probable Cause or simply some deviant act of a pervert?  ( not that that has ever happened in CAP, of course) One might consider I suppose, how often a Commander felt compelled in the past to conduct a "stop and frisk" of a CAP member, leaving two options" Oh, yes, I frisk my people all the time" ( in my opinion, a very bad answer) or, "No, I never had good reason to do so before." If his decision to conduct a pat down search was based on mere suspicion, and the member felt that  failure to tolerate the search would result in retaliation of any sort ( including denial of otherwise permissible participation) his accedence could be considered compelled by duress. In other words, if you demand to search a CAP member's Person on pain of termination or suspension, you had better find something, or have an explanation that a reasonable man acting in similar circumstances would accept. If I as a parent heard that my hypothetical little girl had been frisked by an adult, even with witnesses, the pain for any and all parties to that action could last for years! ( And those of you who have participated in any way in an IG investigation will know precisely what I mean!) Of course, searching a CAP member incident to arrest is fine, but watch out for dirty needles.

Major Lord
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 26, 2011, 07:51:23 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on October 26, 2011, 07:27:51 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 26, 2011, 07:11:31 PM

I would not consent to a search on principle. I would not consent to a search of my vehicle by a LEO on a routine traffic stop either.

You can not terminate on a suspicion and unless you find the weapon that's all you have. If they refuse consent and refuse to leave you probably have a case. If they refuse consent and then leave, what grounds do you have? Any member may leave at any time.

Remember, that while it is your right against the Government against unreasonable search and seizure.  Civil Air Patrol membership is a Privilege and not a right.  A Senior member can be terminated for insubordination, failure to follow regulations and failure to follow orders.  I think that if a commander had reason to believe you were not in compliance with regulations and you refused to demonstrate that you were indeed in compliance, I would see an untimely ending to your Civil Air Patrol service.

What if the whole thing is just a pretext to cop a feel? Then what? What defense do I have if it turns out I'm not doing anything wrong yet I just got violated by someone?

We terminate people for touching cadets in the wrong way. Why do I not have the same rights to not be touched? Is that not age discrimination?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 08:09:56 PM
The fact that the authority may be abused....does not negate that the authority exists.

Abuse of authority is in-of-itself a violation of the regulations and you as a member have ever right to make an IG complaint if you feel someone is abusing his authority.

But we go back to basics.

Do we or do we not routinely conduct contraband searches at encampments an NCSAs?

This is no different.

The object of the pat down is to ensure compliance with a posted CAP regulation.

Refusual to submit could result in adverse actions.

Nothing is automatic.  Of course the member would have the right to apeal any adverse action and the commander would have to back up his decisions with valid reasons.

But.....the authrority still exists.

And by your accepting membership in CAP you have agreed to following the orders of those appointed over you.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hardshell Clam on October 26, 2011, 08:12:40 PM
Folks I am sorry that it has come this far, but let me end my involvement with the following:

1. There was no "troll", hidden agenda or ulterior  motives when this question was asked jut curious after reading the past threads.

2. If anyone truly believes that as a CAP commander they are not civilly or criminally in for their actions and conduct they should consult their legal officer.

So what can you do: I can't say as I just got my butt chewed by "good legal authority" (my wife who is currently admitted to the bar) for getting involved and giving any legal advise.

But I will say this: CONSULT YOUR WING LEGAL OFFICER PRIOR TO ANY PAT-DOWNS.

Cheers!
:clap:
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:16:22 PM
Quote5.  CAP commanders do not have special law enforcement powers to conduct searches for suspected law violations.
Is not searching a person for a concealed weapon a search for a suspected violation of law as well (unless you are in a state that freely allows anyone to carry a concealed weapon without a permit)? 

Quote3.  CAP commanders have the authority to inspect members and equipment being used for CAP missions.
What regulation specifically authorizes physical searches of CAP members? 

I think there is a good chance that physical searches could be considered violations of the cadet protection policy:
QuoteHazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator.
I would certainly consider a physical search demeaning, humiliating, and oppressive. 

Although you could construe this sentence to mean that touching that isn't sexual in nature, even of the genitals, is allowed (I wouldn't), I think it would also violate this part:
QuoteSexual abuse is defined as sexual molestation, touching, contact, exposure, suggestions, or other incidents of a sexually oriented nature.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Spaceman3750 on October 26, 2011, 08:19:46 PM
What if my commander wants to try out his new box of latex gloves and decides he suspects me of bringing drugs to a meeting and wants to cavity search me? Do I still risk my membership by saying no? After all, he's giving me an order and I'm declining to comply.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
How about if the commander happens to have a breathalyzer and decides its a good idea to require anyone to blow into it before operating a CAP vehicle?  Blood tests for drug use? 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:16:22 PM
What regulation specifically authorizes physical searches of CAP members? 
What regulation authorized you to go to the bathroom while on a CAP activity?

That which is not prohibited is permitted, so where is the regulation that prohibits physical searches?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 26, 2011, 09:01:00 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:16:22 PM
What regulation specifically authorizes physical searches of CAP members? 
What regulation authorized you to go to the bathroom while on a CAP activity?

That which is not prohibited is permitted, so where is the regulation that prohibits physical searches?

CAPR 123-2

Quotecc. "Sexual Harassment" is unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when submission to the conduct (1) is made a term or condition of membership in CAP or membership privileges/benefits; (2) is a basis for decisions affecting CAP membership and or membership privileges/benefits;
(3) creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive volunteer work environment; or
(4) has the purpose/effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's volunteer work.


Putting your hands on me without my permission is sexual harassment.

Quotel. "Hostile Environment" means any threatening environment or atmosphere including, but not limited to, emotional and physical abuse, hazing, stalking, and offensive language.


Saying consent to the harassment or face termination is a hostile environment.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 09:03:36 PM
Well, I tired of all the barracks lawyers on here and decided to call NHQ.

NHQ says that in no way shape or form can a commander conduct a pat down of ANY member SM or cadet. Asking members to empty pockets and gear? Fine. Touching them in any way, NHQ says no way.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Extremepredjudice on October 26, 2011, 09:16:13 PM
So if it isn't in my pockets/suitcase (or backpack) I can keep it(and bring it into the activity)... ??? >:D :P :-\ ::)




Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 09:21:19 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:16:22 PM
Quote5.  CAP commanders do not have special law enforcement powers to conduct searches for suspected law violations.
Is not searching a person for a concealed weapon a search for a suspected violation of law as well (unless you are in a state that freely allows anyone to carry a concealed weapon without a permit)?

No....it is enforcing CAP regulations.  Irregardless if the carrying of the weapon is legal or not....it is against CAP regs.

Quote3.  CAP commanders have the authority to inspect members and equipment being used for CAP missions.
What regulation specifically authorizes physical searches of CAP members? [/quote]

It is implied in the fact that we have regulations.  A commander's responsibility is to enforce the regulations and he must have the authority to back it up.  So it is not beyond his scope of authority to check complaince......no different then a uniform inspection or checking to insure a driver has a valid drivers license before he drives a CAP van, or checking a pilot's certificaitons before a form 5 ride.

QuoteI think there is a good chance that physical searches could be considered violations of the cadet protection policy:
QuoteHazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator.
I would certainly consider a physical search demeaning, humiliating, and oppressive.[ 

Although you could construe this sentence to mean that touching that isn't sexual in nature, even of the genitals, is allowed (I wouldn't), I think it would also violate this part:
QuoteSexual abuse is defined as sexual molestation, touching, contact, exposure, suggestions, or other incidents of a sexually oriented nature.
You answered your question right there.   A lot has to do with the context...the why the physical contact took place.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 09:24:40 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 09:03:36 PM
Well, I tired of all the barracks lawyers on here and decided to call NHQ.

NHQ says that in no way shape or form can a commander conduct a pat down of ANY member SM or cadet. Asking members to empty pockets and gear? Fine. Touching them in any way, NHQ says no way.
A search is a search......just saying.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ned on October 26, 2011, 09:28:10 PM
Again, some thoughtful responses.  Too many for me to address individually, but let me hit a few key points again.

1.  Any inspections / searches of a member would necessarily be by consent of the adult member involved.  (Remember, we are not talking about minor CAP members here, because those situations have additional considerations which tend to distract us from the main discussion.)

2.  I concur that members cannot ordinarily be terminated for mere suspicion of misbehavior.  Normally actual, articulable facts constituting misconduct will be required.

3.  According to  CAPR 35-3  (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_003_B74F5A60C44CF.pdf) seniors may be terminated (among other reasons) for "failure to obey rules, regulations, and orders of higher authority," serious or willful violations of CAP regulations or directives," "conduct unbecoming a member of CAP," and "insubordination."

4.  As I said before, any inspection or search must be reasonable, and related to checking compliance with regulations, and/or the serviceability/safety of members or equipment at a CAP activity.  Of course commanders could in theory carry out an inspection in an abusive or improper manner.  Just like any other CAP member could carry out their duties in an abuse or improper manner.  All members can be held accountable for improper actions.  Looking at our recent history, senior officers have been held accountable for improper actions, including some that were terminated.

5.  It is never wrong to consult higher authority and/or your friendly legal officer for guidance in difficult situations.  Indeed, legal officers are there for exactly that reason.



QuoteI just want to make sure I get this straight.

What your saying is, I have a right not to be physically touched, but if I exercise that right, ill be kicked out. Is that what you are saying?

It is certainly possible.  You have the absolute right to refuse to perform any CAP duties, and yet you may still be terminated for "habitual failure to perform duty." (CAPR 35-3, para 4(b)(5).)  Similarly, you have the absolute right to refuse to pay dues, but you won't be a member after your next renewal date.  IOW, there are no shortage of rights that you can exercise that are incompatible with CAP membership.


QuoteHow about if the commander happens to have a breathalyzer and decides its a good idea to require anyone to blow into it before operating a CAP vehicle?

Sure, I could see it.  I can imagine a situation where you were called in on an ELT search at midnight, and you tell me that you had a glass or two of wine with dinner earlier that night.  If I had some sort of reliable breathalyzer available, we both might think it is a good idea to make sure you are "good to go."  But if you don't want to submit, you surely would not have too.  I may just need to find another driver.

Does that really seem so unreasonable?

QuotePutting your hands on me without my permission is sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is always wrong.  Indeed, CAP has a regulation prohibiting it.  And it is a darn good regulation.

But it goes too far to suggest that every unconsented touching amounts to sexual harassment. 

If you get a award at the meeting, do I commit sexual harassment when I clap you on the back and say "Good job!"?

If I heard your spouse/child/significant other was ill, do I commit sexual harassment when I touch your arm and say "I heard about the illness, is there anything I can do?"?

Touching that was not intended as - and no reasonable person could perceive as being related to -- sexual conduct is simply not sexual harassment.





Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Extremepredjudice on October 26, 2011, 09:35:42 PM
QuoteIf you get a award at the meeting, do I commit sexual harassment when I clap you on the back and say "Good job!"?
Yes, you do.

I witnessed a case, the defendant was introduced to someone(shook their hand, that is it), and that person called the police and got them arrested for assault and battery.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Spaceman3750 on October 26, 2011, 09:37:30 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 26, 2011, 09:35:42 PM
QuoteIf you get a award at the meeting, do I commit sexual harassment when I clap you on the back and say "Good job!"?
Yes, you do.

I witnessed a case, the defendant was introduced to someone(shook their hand, that is it), and that person called the police and got them arrested for assault and battery.

Committing an act and being accused of committing an act by a nutjob are two different animals.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Extremepredjudice on October 26, 2011, 09:38:19 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 26, 2011, 09:37:30 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 26, 2011, 09:35:42 PM
QuoteIf you get a award at the meeting, do I commit sexual harassment when I clap you on the back and say "Good job!"?
Yes, you do.

I witnessed a case, the defendant was introduced to someone(shook their hand, that is it), and that person called the police and got them arrested for assault and battery.

Committing an act and being accused of committing an act by a nutjob are two different animals.
I was at the sentencing hearing. They were already convicted.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 09:42:02 PM
Ned, how do you respond to NHQ's IG's office saying "pat-downs" would not be allowed?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 09:47:34 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 09:42:02 PM
Ned, how do you respond to NHQ's IG's office saying "pat-downs" would not be allowed?
I'm not Ned....but it is just NHQ putting limits on what they think would be reasonable when answering a hypothitical question.

But a search is a search.......If I can ask you to empty your pockets and lift up your coat......I can certainly invistigate the unusual bulge you may be hiding in your pants.....assuming I had a reasonable belief that you were carrying a weapon.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ned on October 26, 2011, 09:48:12 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 26, 2011, 09:35:42 PM
QuoteIf you get a award at the meeting, do I commit sexual harassment when I clap you on the back and say "Good job!"?
Yes, you do.

I witnessed a case, the defendant was introduced to someone(shook their hand, that is it), and that person called the police and got them arrested for assault and battery.

Oh come on.  At this point you appear just to be arguing for the sake of it.  But of the off chance that you were serious, allow me to respond.

1.  I said it was not sexual harassment.  That is not remotely the same thing as "assault and battery."

2.  Touching someone of the back while saying "good job" is not remotely the crime of battery, either.

3.  The crime of battery requires that the unconsented touching be done "in a harmful or offensive manner."  See, e.g., California Penal Code section 242 (defining the crime of "battery.")

4.  Getting arrested for something is not remotely the same as being convicted of it.  If, as you say, the person was convicted, you are either mistaken or have left out one or more significant facts.

5.  In my 30+ years as a police officer, prosecutor, and criminal court judge, I have never, ever seen anyone arrested or convicted for shaking hands while being introduced to someone.

But thank you for thinking about our legal system.  A lot of folks never give out system a second thought.

Thank you for your service.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Extremepredjudice on October 26, 2011, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: Ned on October 26, 2011, 09:48:12 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 26, 2011, 09:35:42 PM
QuoteIf you get a award at the meeting, do I commit sexual harassment when I clap you on the back and say "Good job!"?
Yes, you do.

I witnessed a case, the defendant was introduced to someone(shook their hand, that is it), and that person called the police and got them arrested for assault and battery.

Oh come on.  At this point you appear just to be arguing for the sake of it.  But of the off chance that you were serious, allow me to respond.

1.  I said it was not sexual harassment.  That is not remotely the same thing as "assault and battery."

2.  Touching someone of the back while saying "good job" is not remotely the crime of battery, either.

3.  The crime of battery requires that the unconsented touching be done "in a harmful or offensive manner."  See, e.g., California Penal Code section 242 (defining the crime of "battery.")

4.  Getting arrested for something is not remotely the same as being convicted of it.  If, as you say, the person was convicted, you are either mistaken or have left out one or more significant facts.

I have never, ever seen anyone arrested or convicted for shaking hands while being introduced to someone.

But thank you for thinking about our legal system.  A lot of folks never give out system a second thought.

Couldn't the person have been harmed by the shaking the person's hand?
You can crush someone's hand. Or they have have been a surgeon, and the person might have inhibited their business!
Maybe that person had a traumatic experience with someone shaking their hand? It could have triggered a flashback, and caused emotional distress.

You can't arbitrarily say "shaking hands isn't assault or battery."

From Florida statute 784.03
Quote1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

Maybe the defendant forced the other person to shake their hand?

Edit:
Quote5.  In my 30+ years as a police officer, prosecutor, and criminal court judge,
I volunteer at a local Teen Court (you are probably familiar with the program).

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 26, 2011, 09:55:33 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
How about if the commander happens to have a breathalyzer and decides its a good idea to require anyone to blow into it before operating a CAP vehicle?  Blood tests for drug use?

happens for private employers all the time as part of their safety program.  Maybe you shouldn't say this out loud because something like this isn't completely out of the realm of possibility...especially if it's a condition of employment or their insurance carrier. 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 09:57:06 PM
So Ned, no response to NHQ saying no huh?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 09:58:05 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on October 26, 2011, 09:55:33 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
How about if the commander happens to have a breathalyzer and decides its a good idea to require anyone to blow into it before operating a CAP vehicle?  Blood tests for drug use?

happens for private employers all the time as part of their safety program.  Maybe you shouldn't say this out loud because something like this isn't completely out of the realm of possibility...especially if it's a condition of employment or their insurance carrier.
A few years ago in Vegas they were doing a test drive promotion of H2's on a this cool off road track.  They required everyone to blow into a breath analyzer before they go in the car.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on October 26, 2011, 09:55:33 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
How about if the commander happens to have a breathalyzer and decides its a good idea to require anyone to blow into it before operating a CAP vehicle?  Blood tests for drug use?

happens for private employers all the time as part of their safety program.  Maybe you shouldn't say this out loud because something like this isn't completely out of the realm of possibility...especially if it's a condition of employment or their insurance carrier.
Yes, and they probably have policies that specifically implement such programs. 

Now, if CAP wants actually codify a body search regulation, that would be one thing, but also isn't what we're talking about.

But, to say that a commander or IC or Mission Pilot has the authority to demand and conduct a body search based on some amorphous god-like authority found somewhere (but not specifically) in CAP regulations is just wrong. 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ned on October 26, 2011, 10:09:50 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 09:57:06 PM
So Ned, no response to NHQ saying no huh?

Jeez, give me a break here.

I'm doing the best I can to keep up, given the fact that the taxpayers are expecting me to do some work during the workday.  ;)

Preliminarily, I'm not sure how asking an IG for guidance here is very helpful.  IGs are not lawyers, policy makers, or commanders.  If you have a legal question, you should consider asking a legal officer. 

As to the specific response provided by the IG,  we need to know how the question was posed.  E.g., the context.

For example, if I was sitting at a desk and someone called and said "Hey, can a CAP officer conduct an intrusive pat-down of a member for no good reason?", I would probably respond with "no."

OTOH, if the question posed was "If a commander had information that a member present at a CAP activity was carrying a firearm in violation of CAP regulations and would not respond verbally when asked, could a commander request the member to voluntarily submit to limited pat-down conducted in a respectful manner to ensure the member was in compliance with regulations and not a danger to themselves or other members at the activity?"

Then my answer would likely be "yes."

Context is everything.

And finally, the IG could simply be wrong.  Without any explanation, support, or reasons provided, it is difficult to evaluate their answer.

I have provided my support and reasoning.

You get to decide which guidance, if any, to accept.

I suspect we will both live to see another day either way.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 26, 2011, 10:14:40 PM
^^^  I think that a complete pat down or contact search is completely unnecessary.  It would have to be very specific.  It would all depend on the reason a commander would have a reasonable expectation that the member is violating policy.    Commanders are not trained on doing these physical searches.  I think it comes down to why the Commander suspects it.  I think the Commander would be better off contacting the authorities for a possible violation of the law....If the member is carrying a firearm they would be required to present their CCW to a law Enforcement officer on demand.  You can be pretty sure that at some point whether or not the person is carrying it legally you would have enough information to determine if they are violating the policy.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 10:23:09 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on October 26, 2011, 10:14:40 PM
^^^  I think that a complete pat down or contact search is completely unnecessary.  It would have to be very specific.  It would all depend on the reason a commander would have a reasonable expectation that the member is violating policy.    Commanders are not trained on doing these physical searches.  I think it comes down to why the Commander suspects it.  I think the Commander would be better off contacting the authorities for a possible violation of the law....If the member is carrying a firearm they would be required to present their CCW to a law Enforcement officer on demand.  You can be pretty sure that at some point whether or not the person is carrying it legally you would have enough information to determine if they are violating the policy.
Not a help in CCW state.

The cops would have less authority to do a pat down the a CAP commander.  They would have to have probable cause that a law was broken....and in a CCW state it is not illegal to carry concealed.....so no search.  So you have gotten no further in keeping unauthorised weapons out of CAP activities.

Like I said.....of course all authority is limited by reasonable expectations.  If a visual search or emptying of the pockets is enough....then that is enough.  But if a pat down is a reasonable approch to enforcing the regulation.....then that implies that the commander must have the authority to conduct said search.

This is one of those cool ethical discussion where we have "what's practical", "what's right", "The Law" and "The Regs" and they all don't always match up.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 26, 2011, 10:35:37 PM
My point above is even in a CCW state that if a Law Enforcement officer were summoned to a report of a person possible carrying an illegal weapon they would have cause enough to ask the suspect if they were carrying a weapon and if the answer is Yes...then see if the person is doing so legally or illegally?  The Member carrying would present the appropriate credentials or documentation if carrying legally.  The Law Enforcement officer could determine that no violation of the law occurred and leave.  The Commander could then dismiss the member and go fill out the 2B for violating the policy.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 10:42:50 PM
Ned, I put it just like this.

"Hello, my name is (blank) and I am currently in a debate on CAPTALK. The debate is about if a commander can due "pat-down" style searches of members." He told me he would call me back after reading the debate and speaking to others.

A few hours later he did just that, with a "no" answer. In fact he went on to say that, if a commander believe someone is breaking the law or regulations, the commander needs to immediately ask that person to leave the area. If the person does not, than the commander needs to contact the local authorities and run the problem up the chain of command.

I did not put it in a way that sounded like all heck was breaking lose and my commander wanted to "cop a feel". I let him read the debate (and im sure he read some of your wisdomly words) and get back to me.

So with NHQ saying no, im ganna go with no, and wish those commanders that want to conduct a pat-down with the best of luck.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 10:49:32 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on October 26, 2011, 10:35:37 PM
My point above is even in a CCW state that if a Law Enforcement officer were summoned to a report of a person possible carrying an illegal weapon they would have cause enough to ask the suspect if they were carrying a weapon and if the answer is Yes...then see if the person is doing so legally or illegally?  The Member carrying would present the appropriate credentials or documentation if carrying legally.  The Law Enforcement officer could determine that no violation of the law occurred and leave.  The Commander could then dismiss the member and go fill out the 2B for violating the policy.
Nope......they probably will not respond.   No probable cause.  You would have to have more than "there is a guy at my meeting who may be packing, but he won't show me."   Because we (CAP) don't have the "legal" authority to demand a CCW permit like a cop does.  So if it is otherwise legal (i.e. you are not on school grounds or some other off limits areas) they have no reason to demand him to produce a CCW permit.

Ultimately though....what is the difference between a CAP commander conducting a pat down and a local law enforcement officer conducting a pat down at the request of a CAP officer?

Beyond making a bad situation worse....you have not removed CAP from any liablity if this is an over reaction.....in fact you probably make it even worse as now you have provided the guy's lawer with documented proof of damages (an arrest record could be considered damages to reputation). 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 10:55:56 PM
So there's your answer.

"SM X.....I need you to leave because I think you are packing."

"But I'm not"

"Show me"

"No"

"Good bye".

End of story.   The IG actually said we have the authority to conduct the search.......he just thinks we should not actually do it.

This maybe hair splitting.....but a lot of command authority is just that.
We have a duty to take all reasonable actions to protect our organisation and enforce our regulations.  Do I think it is a good idea to do a pat down?  No.....and I would never do one.....for all the reason you cited.  But I certainly can say "prove to me you aren't packing or go home forever".
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Patrick W Bass on October 26, 2011, 11:03:15 PM
You all come up with the silliest scenarios.  I actually feel embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: bosshawk on October 26, 2011, 11:13:53 PM
At least it isn't an argument about uniforms.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 11:25:59 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on October 26, 2011, 11:13:53 PM
At least it isn't an argument about uniforms.
Is it easier to carry in corporate or AF uniforms? >:D
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RADIOMAN015 on October 26, 2011, 11:42:40 PM
Wow I can just see parents of prospective cadets coming across this thread :angel:

Frankly, if this is about safety, wouldn't it just be prudent whether authorized or not to leave your firearm at home or in your vehicle ???  I know in our area, a national gun manufacturer had a weapons training expert, who injured himself with his weapon, due to an accidental discharge of the weapon.   Accident can happen.  Why take a chance ???.

I'd be very surprised if any wing commander authorized any member to attend any CAP activity with a firearm.  IF the member really feels that threatened and needs a weapon all the time, perhaps organizationally wise it's best they stay way so the rest of us don't become targets by association. :angel:
RM

   
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SarDragon on October 26, 2011, 11:46:57 PM
OK, we need to come up with a Godwin name equivalent for introducing "uniform" into otherwise unrelated threads. Instead of Godwin's Law, we have "[catchy name]'s Law.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 12:09:42 AM
SarDragon's Law?

You brought it up.  >:D
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 27, 2011, 12:41:37 AM
Since many of us are Cops, (Judges?) Private Investigators, etc, or live in States that issue CCW's, I don't think its unreasonable for a Commander to ASK if I am carrying a firearm, ( I generally do) There is no harm in asking, since carrying a sidearm is often like putting your wallet in your back pocket; Its something you just do on autopilot.  Ordinarily, an Officer accepts the word of a brother Officer, even in CAP.  If the word of a fellow Officer is insufficient, you have to ask if your honor and dignity are compromised by complying; if not, no harm. If my Commander suddenly demanded to search me and laid hands upon me without permission, especially if such a thing occurred in public, The issue would have escalated beyond CAP's auspices. ( purely hypothetical, since my female commander is 5 feet nothing soaking wet, and I am 6-3, 220 pounds, I don't foresee a public brawl!) I think we need to clearly distinguish between a routine pre-mission deployment inspection, and a hand-search of a persons body, where the consequences of either an accurate or inaccurate accusation can have equally grim repercussions.

Major Lord
p.s. Walther PPK in shoulder holster for Mess Dress, Colt 1911 A1, in inside the pants holster for Service Dress, Ankle holster for blues and greys, and HK with suppressor with BDU's.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 27, 2011, 01:53:42 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 10:55:56 PM
The IG actually said we have the authority to conduct the search.......he just thinks we should not actually do it.
Where was that said?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Phil Hirons, Jr. on October 27, 2011, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 27, 2011, 01:53:42 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 10:55:56 PM
The IG actually said we have the authority to conduct the search.......he just thinks we should not actually do it.
Where was that said?

Not in RIWG ;D
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: ol'fido on October 27, 2011, 02:57:54 AM
I think we have really pegged the Mickey Mouse and Chicken---- Meters for about the last six pages here. Time to blow off the Screw It Valve. :o
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Flying Pig on October 27, 2011, 06:45:44 PM
If you have to search your members, you have issues that extend far beyond their CCW!

Major Lord, you post nonsense and misleading information!!! Everyone knows the .45 Kimber Ultra Carry II is standard for the Service Dress, not the full size Colt 1911   Sheeeesh.......
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 27, 2011, 07:18:07 PM
Well, naturally any 1911 frame would be suitable, including the Kimber, which is a pretty fair mid-price 1911, Personally, I think my Strayer Voight Infinity is far superior, but you have to figure if our superiors are going to start patting us down, we my have to start carrying a "throw down" piece....maybe a Charter arms, RG, or Davis derringer........

Major Lord
Armed and Dangerous, but only according to regulations. I would rather die than break the "no CCW" rule in CAP. Totally!
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 07:23:42 PM
I carry a musketoon...
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: NCRblues on October 27, 2011, 07:25:54 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 07:23:42 PM
I carry a musketoon...

GASP!! In the united peoples republic of Illinois?? Isn't that like 3 felonies wrapped in one?   >:D

(Thank god I don't live in the land of Lincoln)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: PWK-GT on October 27, 2011, 07:51:11 PM
 
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 07:23:42 PM
I carry a musketoon...

Yeah, but you also adapted your CSU to feature tails...and wear a tri-corner hat!

Oh, crap.....I just made this a uniform thread.
:o
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 28, 2011, 12:08:22 AM
But remember, there is no Federal waiting period for flintlocks....., and they were quite the "assault weapon" for repelling boarders in their day! I am sure California has the Musketoon on its assault weapons list......

Major Lord
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Buzz on October 28, 2011, 12:21:04 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 01:52:56 AM
Sorry about my poor spelling, I'm on my phone and letters are way to small...

I'm about to give up as no one has responded to my question without convoluting same:

Are there any members auth (by reg and letter from wing CO) to carry firearms?

Easy question, easy answer.

And the easy answer is YES.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Buzz on October 28, 2011, 12:22:02 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 07:23:42 PM
I carry a musketoon...

Annette . . ?

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: ol'fido on October 28, 2011, 12:28:25 AM
The Mickey Mouse Club Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9DQnT1Awig#)
Title: Re: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
Quote from: Buzz on October 28, 2011, 12:21:04 AM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 01:52:56 AM
Sorry about my poor spelling, I'm on my phone and letters are way to small...

I'm about to give up as no one has responded to my question without convoluting same:

Are there any members auth (by reg and letter from wing CO) to carry firearms?

Easy question, easy answer.

And the easy answer is YES.

Can you cite the law that requires said person to carry?
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 28, 2011, 12:41:17 AM
With 50 states, one territory, on federal district, hundreds of counties and thousands of cities......and loose interpetation of the laws/regs.....I am 99.999% positive that someone out there convinced his wing commander that he needed to carry 24/7.

Or else they would never had made that change to the regulation in the first place (it was only a couple of years ago).

But like many other things in CAP......there is no way to pull up that data.....and for the most part the individuals involved probably don't go around advertising it.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 28, 2011, 12:46:17 AM
If I was CAP NHQ, I would probably want to have a file of letters of authorization to carry while on CAP duty that were issued by Wing Commanders.  If for no other reason than to know how big an issue that this actually is. 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 28, 2011, 12:49:08 AM
You would think....but that is not how the regulation is written.

It only says you need written authorisation from the wing king....that could be a simple e-mail.

TO: Wing King
From: Joe Blow, CAP and Police Officer,

Boss, Can I carry my duty weapon?

TO: Joe
From: Wing King

Yes.

Title: Re: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 12:49:40 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 28, 2011, 12:41:17 AM
With 50 states, one territory, on federal district, hundreds of counties and thousands of cities......and loose interpetation of the laws/regs.....I am 99.999% positive that someone out there convinced his wing commander that he needed to carry 24/7.

Or else they would never had made that change to the regulation in the first place (it was only a couple of years ago).

But like many other things in CAP......there is no way to pull up that data.....and for the most part the individuals involved probably don't go around advertising it.
When exactly was this changed? I have a sneaking suspicion but need to know when it came into effect.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: cap235629 on October 28, 2011, 12:52:14 AM
when a certain law enforcement official became National Commander
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 28, 2011, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 28, 2011, 12:49:08 AM
You would think....but that is not how the regulation is written.
I didn't say it was written that way.  Frankly, I don't think you would need to put such a requirement in the regulation.  National Commander orders Wing Commanders to forward him a copy of any authorizations.  No big deal.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 28, 2011, 12:53:58 AM
Yes...it was during HWSNBN's tenure.....Can't remember the year of the NB...but I remember reading about in the agenda.

We may have even debated here on CT or CS.
Title: Re: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 12:55:28 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on October 28, 2011, 12:52:14 AM
when a certain law enforcement official became National Commander

I thought so. There probably isn't a law anywhere that requires this exemption.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SarDragon on October 28, 2011, 01:39:20 AM
I have olde E-regs all the way back to 2002, but they're on a different computer. I'll look it up and post the results later tonight.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: indygreg on October 28, 2011, 11:31:46 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 25, 2011, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on October 25, 2011, 02:22:07 AM
Quote from: titanII on October 25, 2011, 02:19:28 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 25, 2011, 02:13:25 AM
The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)
IMO there are better alternatives for this purpose: "bear spray," i.e. pepper spray.

If you are close enough to spray a bear with pepper spray, you are dinner.


It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area.  People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.



(http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/177/2/c/Watch_For_Bear_Scat_by_theguy2.jpg)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 28, 2011, 01:49:21 PM
You might have to explain to cadets and younger members what "Scat " was. (Note to anyone not a coffeehouse beatnik type; "Scat was like "RAP" for another generation) Although RAP is the scatological folk music of a newer generation. Its not well known but " RAP"  is actually an acronym. It stands for "Retards Attempting Poetry. Scat was more like "speaking in tongues" Awesome cartoon! Did you just do that?

Major Lord
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Eclipse on October 28, 2011, 01:55:11 PM
^ One of the best high school English classes ever was when we reviewed words like this.  The conversations were "colorful" for weeks after.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RogueLeader on October 28, 2011, 04:51:00 PM
Sorry that I'm late to this thread. 
To HARDSHELL CLAM and RM:
I happen to pack a M-9 everywhere I go, even to the latrine in my own home, and I also have a M-249 in my 72 hr gear with 5 porkchops.  I also carry 10 extra 30rd magazines for it.  Just in case ::)
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Spaceman3750 on October 28, 2011, 05:03:55 PM
Your 72hr gear must weigh more than you do... >:D
Title: Re: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Buzz on October 28, 2011, 07:15:13 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
Can you cite the law that requires said person to carry?

If it becomes necessary, yes.

Assuaging your curiosity doesn't qualify as "necessary."
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: johnnyb47 on October 28, 2011, 07:21:50 PM
Well played, sir.
:)
Title: Re: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Eclipse on October 28, 2011, 07:23:24 PM
Quote from: Buzz on October 28, 2011, 07:15:13 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
Can you cite the law that requires said person to carry?

If it becomes necessary, yes.

Assuaging your curiosity doesn't qualify as "necessary."

Nice try.
Title: Re: Re: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 07:51:01 PM
Quote from: Buzz on October 28, 2011, 07:15:13 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
Can you cite the law that requires said person to carry?

If it becomes necessary, yes.

Assuaging your curiosity doesn't qualify as "necessary."

You made the claim. Back it up. Otherwise it's just anonymous internet BS.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Flying Pig on October 28, 2011, 08:10:12 PM
  I contacted our District Attorney and the local US Attorney and have talked to agents that fly with me.  FBI, USSS, DEA, HSI/ICE, NCIS, OSI, CID, BNE to name a FEW (No, FEW isnt an agency ;D)

Nobody knows of any LE agency that is mandated by law to carry 24/7.  Maybe there is a state law respective to that state, but not federal.  Law, not department policy.  If your department policy requires it, then have a discussion with your chain of command, explain the need, and I would have to presume it wouldnt be an issue.

Although if your that knee deep in the S--T that you need to be strapped 24/7, I dont know if I want you near me! >:D
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Flying Pig on October 29, 2011, 03:32:46 PM
Maybe Ned can ellaborate.

If there was a law that required an LE officer to carry a firearm 24/7, there would have to be a penalty if they were caught unarmed?  I really cant see a cop being cited, fined, etc for not carrying off duty.  Poor guy at the beach with his family and he gets hooked by the State Parks Police for not having his duty weapon !  That would be awesome!
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 29, 2011, 03:39:42 PM
Thats sort of how I viewed this whole issue.  Frankly, I think that whoever originally proposed this exception either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented department policy as a law.  Perhaps whatever LEO got the ball rolling on this didn't really know that their policy wasn't law or perhaps he/she correctly said that it was policy but the CAP leaders that put it into regulation misunderstood and thought that it was an actual law. 

If, as Flying Pig seems to have found, there are not really any such laws out there, what should we do about this regulation?

Eliminate it entirely? 

Change it to allow carry by LEOs required to do so by department policy?  Personally, I'm fine with that.  However, if we make such an exception we should also make it clear in our regulation that if the LEO is also required to respond at all times if they observe crimes that they are doing so based on their LEO authority and are not doing so as CAP members. 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 29, 2011, 04:40:04 PM
I don't believe you could even show me a law that requires police to be armed at all, let alone compel full time CCW. State Hospital police, etc don't carry guns, but are still actually sworn Officers. Florida as I understand it has Rabbi's that are code enforcement officers and police Kosher establishments to make sure they are in compliance with municipal codes regarding handling and claims of kosher foods. I have not heard of any of them getting in shootouts with Colombian Traif Brisket dealers.

So much of this is dancing on the head of a pin. When CAP members fly Counter-Narcotics flights, its clear ( to me at least) that they are acting as "Police Agents" ( Unless the Agents on board give them no instruction of any kind) while trying to maintain the pretext of being "passive participants" in order to avoid violating the Posse Comitatus Act is just silly. It seems that CAP is in the cycle when the rainbow flag is flown above the American Colors at NHQ, and all those nasty guys with guns are just unenlightened cavemen. The attitude that a police officer should be disarmed when on CAP duty is a red herring; He is ALWAYS a police Officer regardless of whether he has his badge, gun, or donuts on his person, and has certain duties that are concomitant. This baseless phobia of firearms is something we see promulgated by members who envision CAP's association with the Armed Forces of The United States of America as accomplished with one arm holding them at arms length, and the other holding their nose. Let me restate for the record, lest I be tackled by a brute squad of elderly Senior Members, that I accept the limitations and rules of CAP, and adhere to them, even when I find them to be preposterous and somewhat un-American.

Major Lord

Major Lord
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Hawk200 on October 29, 2011, 04:50:50 PM
Well said, Major Lord.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ed Bos on October 29, 2011, 04:58:13 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 29, 2011, 03:39:42 PM
Frankly, I think that whoever originally proposed this exception either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented department policy as a law.  Perhaps whatever LEO got the ball rolling on this didn't really know that their policy wasn't law or perhaps he/she correctly said that it was policy but the CAP leaders that put it into regulation misunderstood and thought that it was an actual law. 

I think you're misunderstanding the "required by law piece."

Perhaps I'm mistaken (doesn't happen THAT often), but I doubt any law enforecement officer has ever been required to carrry a firearm in the off-duty time as part of their employment.

Quote from: CAPR 900-3
1. Firearms. Civil Air Patrol members will not carry, wear, or use firearms, including air guns (pellet or BB) while engaged in Civil Air Patrol activities. The carrying of firearms prohibition is subject to the following exceptions:

a. A member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the wing commander.

b. Firearms may be carried in survival gear in CAP aircraft when required by law. When firearms are so authorized, they will not be removed from the survival gear unless an emergency situation exists.

I am sure that the requirement to carry a firearm must have something to do with situations like the former Alaska Statute that required certain folks to carry firearms for protection from animals. I believe paragraphs a. & b. are related, and that it has nothing to do with law enforcement officials and their off-duty time.

*Modified to correct quote formatting.
Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: davidsinn on October 29, 2011, 05:11:23 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 07:51:01 PM
Quote from: Buzz on October 28, 2011, 07:15:13 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
Can you cite the law that requires said person to carry?

If it becomes necessary, yes.

Assuaging your curiosity doesn't qualify as "necessary."

You made the claim. Back it up. Otherwise it's just anonymous internet BS.

Still waiting.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 29, 2011, 05:24:05 PM
While it is true that the exception in question doesn't specifically limit itself to law enforcement officers, I'm relatively certain that was the context it was placed in when it was proposed.  I imagine that someone could look through the minutes to confirm it.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Ed Bos on October 29, 2011, 05:25:44 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 29, 2011, 05:24:05 PM
While it is true that the exception in question doesn't specifically limit itself to law enforcement officers, I'm relatively certain that was the context it was placed in when it was proposed.  I imagine that someone could look through the minutes to confirm it.

That would be useful as all get-out.
Title: Re: Re: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Buzz on October 29, 2011, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 07:51:01 PM
Quote from: Buzz on October 28, 2011, 07:15:13 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on October 28, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
Can you cite the law that requires said person to carry?

If it becomes necessary, yes.

Assuaging your curiosity doesn't qualify as "necessary."

You made the claim. Back it up. Otherwise it's just anonymous internet BS.

You assume that I care whether or not you know.

Consider that there are things that people know but don't want to put details out on the net.  If you had a legitimate need to know, you WOULD know, so obviously you don't have the need.  If it's that important to you, you can find the information for yourself. 

BTW, an earlier poster is correct -- if agency policy requires full-time carry, and that policy is codified as a town, city or county ordinance, that policy is the law, whether or not the officer is in town.  Many jurisdictions have in fact put that into law for liability purposes and to satisfy state laws regarding CCW.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Buzz on October 29, 2011, 06:48:46 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on October 29, 2011, 04:40:04 PMHe is ALWAYS a police Officer regardless of whether he has his badge, gun, or donuts on his person

Actually, no.  MOST cops are always cops, but some are given limited commission.  For instance, some such as school or transit cops are given specific areas of authority.  For instance, there are two school zones on my way out of the airport where I live.  There used to be a couple of hundred feet between them, until the week after a school cop wrote a traffic ticket to an idiot who blew a stop sign in the not-a-school-zone.  Turns out the school cop can only write for what happens in school zones, and the idiot was an attorney who knew that.  The county also let the word get around that some of the School Police SUVs were being driven by Sheriff's deputies, whose commission wasn't so limited.

Also, a cop on duty may carry past the metal detectors at the airport, that same cop may have to put his pistol in the locker when meeting Auntie Mabel's flight on his day off.

Quoteand has certain duties that are concomitant. This baseless phobia of firearms is something we see promulgated by members who envision CAP's association with the Armed Forces of The United States of America as accomplished with one arm holding them at arms length, and the other holding their nose. Let me restate for the record, lest I be tackled by a brute squad of elderly Senior Members, that I accept the limitations and rules of CAP, and adhere to them, even when I find them to be preposterous and somewhat un-American.

Same here.

I'm a VOLUNTEER, and part of volunteering is agreeing to follow policy.  If any group that I'm volunteering with comes up with a policy that I can't follow, my only option is to leave the group.

I believe that any adult on a ground team should have a pistol, the first two rounds being snake loads.  CAP policy prohibits this.  Living in a desert, and having used several snake loads "in anger" (actually more like in "What the HELL???") just during my normal, non-CAP activities, I feel that the policy puts GT members at risk -- but I follow policy, because I have VOLUNTEERED.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 29, 2011, 07:01:14 PM
Snake loads?  Get real.  If you've got time to pull out and aim a pistol at as small a target as a snake is, then you've got plenty enough time to retreat out of the situation.  Trying to kill the snake is about the best way to get yourself bit. 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Phil Hirons, Jr. on October 29, 2011, 07:04:41 PM
Quote from: Buzz on October 29, 2011, 06:48:46 PM
I'm a VOLUNTEER, and part of volunteering is agreeing to follow policy.  If any group that I'm volunteering with comes up with a policy that I can't follow, my only option is to leave the group.

The other option is to advocate for changes in policy.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RADIOMAN015 on October 29, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
Hmm, if a member is on an assigned Air Force Funded mission, would they be able to carry their firearm even if approved by the wing commander ???   It would seem to me that the approval is only for CAP activities and not AF activities.   The Air Force regulation is very specific about CAP being in a non combat, non law enforcement role.
RM 
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: RiverAux on October 29, 2011, 08:42:22 PM
If that was a problem CAP-USAF would have spoken up when this regulation was proposed.  And there is no indication at all in the regulation that it only applies to corporate activities.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 30, 2011, 12:02:34 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on October 29, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
Hmm, if a member is on an assigned Air Force Funded mission, would they be able to carry their firearm even if approved by the wing commander ???   It would seem to me that the approval is only for CAP activities and not AF activities.   The Air Force regulation is very specific about CAP being in a non combat, non law enforcement role.
RM
AF activities are CAP activities......and there is a federal law that allows CCW for any off duty policeman....even in states without CCW laws.
Being armed or not armed does not have anything to do with being in combat or not.....Chaplains and Doctors are non-combantants too.....and they carry weapons.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: wuzafuzz on October 30, 2011, 12:42:38 AM
This has been an entertaining thread so far.

When I was a cop there was no requirement to carry a weapon off duty.  Even if I was required to carry, I'd be a little worried about going on a flight and then winding up at an Air Force base.  (Yes that happens where I'm at.)  While the chances of it being noticed are slim, I suspect the base police could care less about my need, the CAP regulation, or my wing king's okey dokey.

Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: lordmonar on October 30, 2011, 12:59:49 AM
And not care all that much either way.

While it says no weapons on the sign.......if you a legitmate need and reason to being one on base....they got no problem.  (like a divert for fule or what ever.

There are ranges on Nellis that they used to let civilan NRA instructor use.....they would bring guns on base all the time.

Now...if you land on base and they see the weapon....they may ask you to check it at base ops while you were resting up gettind lunch....but it is not like they would throw you in the lock up....assuming you were polite and up front about it.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: wuzafuzz on October 30, 2011, 12:34:32 PM
^^ Ah OK.  Thanks for the scoop.  I was thinking back to my days as a gate guard at a Navy base, where cars were routinely searched based on the random criteria of the day.  Finding a gun would have been very bad mojo.  Then again, that was when President Reagan was routinely flying onto Pt Mugu for his trips to Santa Barbara.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Major Lord on October 30, 2011, 02:03:14 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on October 30, 2011, 12:34:32 PM
^^ Ah OK.  Thanks for the scoop.  I was thinking back to my days as a gate guard at a Navy base, where cars were routinely searched based on the random criteria of the day.  Finding a gun would have been very bad mojo.  Then again, that was when President Reagan was routinely flying onto Pt Mugu for his trips to Santa Barbara.

Right, like anyone could have seriously injured "The Gipper" with a mere firearm! Isn't there some way we can clone him?

Major Lord
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: SARDOC on October 30, 2011, 02:21:18 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on October 30, 2011, 12:34:32 PM
^^ Ah OK.  Thanks for the scoop.  I was thinking back to my days as a gate guard at a Navy base, where cars were routinely searched based on the random criteria of the day.  Finding a gun would have been very bad mojo.  Then again, that was when President Reagan was routinely flying onto Pt Mugu for his trips to Santa Barbara.

The Bases around my house are okay with you bringing a Firearm on the base if you display your Law Enforcement Officer Credentials and check in with either the Command Duty Officer or the Base Police Watch Commander...They like to know why you are carrying your Firearm on the base.    In my case...it was because I was a reservist coming in for drill and I was either coming directly from work or was headed straight back to work after completion of Drill...they just asked that I keep it secured in my Vehicle.  Now that I'm retired from Law Enforcement I very rarely ever even carry my firearm and I never carry for anything CAP related.
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: Short Field on November 01, 2011, 02:49:12 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on October 27, 2011, 12:41:37 AM
Ordinarily, an Officer accepts the word of a brother Officer, even in CAP.  If the word of a fellow Officer is insufficient, you have to ask if your honor and dignity are compromised by complying; if not, no harm.
Wow, pay roughly $71 for National Dues and pass a cursory background check to make sure you have no felony convictions and I have to trust your word because we are brother officers?  Sorry, that is just a bit too funny to pass up.   ;D
Title: Re: Armed CAP Members
Post by: whatevah on November 01, 2011, 09:29:08 AM
ok, this thread has really gone on 10 pages too many. Locked.