Poll
Question:
Should CAPR900-3 be changed to allow (more) CAP members to carry firearms while on CAP duty?
Option 1: No, the current regulation is fine as is
Option 2: Should allow for open carry by law enforcement officers
Option 3: Should allow any law enforcement officer to carry a concealed weapon even if not required by law
Option 4: Should allow for open carry for any CAP senior member with a concealed carry permit
Option 5: Should allow any senior member with proper licenses to carry a concealed weapon
Option 6: Should allow for open carry by any CAP senior member not legally prohibited from having a firearm
Back in 2007 we had a pretty spirited thread relating to ground team members carrying firearms for protection from bears and other unlikely dangers while on missions. The general consensus seemed to be that this wasn't necessary and wasn't a good idea.
Since then, there has been a growing movement of folks who feel the need to openly pack a pistol on their hip at all times and there has been continued loosening of various state laws regarding concealed carrying.
The issue of "force protection" for CAP members has come up here every now and again as well in that CAP meetings and events could potentially be a soft target for someone looking to strike at what they consider "the military". If that is a real concern, then perhaps we should revisit the restrictions on carrying firearms by CAP members found in CAPR 900-3:
Quote1. 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 excep-tions:
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.
c. Firearms may be used under strict supervision as authorized in CAPM 50-16.
Personally, I don't see this as a big threat and I don't see a need to change the regulations, but I thought given the trends in relation to firearms and the many new people that have joined CAPTalk since then, that the topic might be worth re-visiting.
You can pick up to 6 options in the poll, so if a couple of the ideas seem worth considering go ahead and select as many as you want.
Also, let me know if you want to add some options.
Considering most states don't allow for open carry by anyone except LEO, and even then only when badge is visible, I'm not sure CAP passing a reg saying they can would really be beneficial to anyone except for those living in those places.
Well, lets stipulate that any of these proposals would be subject to state and local regulation and might only be possible in certain states.
The question is would we want to make allowances for them where legal?
Hell, I always kept my 45 in my flight bag.. why not on my hip?
Only problem with GT is there are a number of people in the field with you. Hard to track whereabouts, you better know and hit your target lest someone gets hit downrange.
The day I honest-to-God feel I need a weapon to protect myself for SAR is the day I stop doing it.
The day I feel I need a spare tire is the day I stop driving.
Firearms are nothing more than another tool in the toolbox.
I've carried for nearly 30 years. Saved my hide 2x.
I trust very few people with guns. Of those who I do trust, most are not in CAP.
I was never an advocate for the carry of firearms, its just not the right image for us. I have, however, always felt a legitimate need for protective measures from the nasties of the wild [reference old thread of mine (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3322.msg63327#msg63327)].
I've never been in law enforcement but have had a concealed carry permit for over 20 years. I've always thought it odd that I lose my 2nd amendment rights the moment I put on my CAP uniform.
I'll add that being a hunter's safety instructor I know what level of knowledge Joe Shmoe has about firearms (little to none outside of Hollywood). We all see the brand new members that immediately feel they need to have all the coolest tactical vests, radios, big knives, etc who wander the Tools of the Trade board. Start letting members carry firearms and the first thing they're going to do is go down to the local gun store and get a Desert Eagle for their 24hr load while developing a bad case of pruritus digititis.
Quote from: phirons on April 19, 2010, 01:07:59 AM
I've never been in law enforcement but have had a concealed carry permit for over 20 years. I've always thought it odd that I lose my 2nd amendment rights the moment I put on my CAP uniform.
Um, you volunteered to obey the regs when you signed on the dotted line.....
I carry a gun for my job (Armored Car driver/messanger) with training and you are able to obtain the permit though the state that you live in i really dont see a problem with it IMO
Quote from: phirons on April 19, 2010, 01:07:59 AM
I've never been in law enforcement but have had a concealed carry permit for over 20 years. I've always thought it odd that I lose my 2nd amendment rights the moment I put on my CAP uniform.
You also would lose your 2nd Admendment rights if you were on a military base.
The ONLY people allowed to run around on base with a loaded weapon are ON DUTY Police.
Quote from: Marshalus on April 19, 2010, 12:25:44 AM
Considering most states don't allow for open carry by anyone except LEO, and even then only when badge is visible, I'm not sure CAP passing a reg saying they can would really be beneficial to anyone except for those living in those places.
Fact check. http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html
Okay....let me ge this straight.
We are considering arming CAP because we may be a soft target for some terrorist group?
River.....are you serious?
Our CAP activities don't make us any more or less likely than anyone else to have a need for a firearm. Initially I thought I'd prefer CAP be neutral on the issue, allowing people to comply with local laws and base policies. However open carry is a bad idea IMHO. That would attract all kinds of attention for the wrong reasons. It's not part of the CAP mission and would not be a productive contribution to our image.
I'm not anti-gun by any means; I've carried as a guard, as a cop, and as a CCW permit holder (even in Kalifornia!). However, many people react with pant-wetting, drooling, deer in the headlights staring horror at the thought of firearms. There is no reason to cause those same people to have a similar (unreasonable) perception of CAP members.
I think that having CAP carry weapons openly is an awful idea ( and may change our status according to the rules of land warfare) But for LEO's and Civilians with CCW permits, I don't see why not. My Sq meets on Travis AFB, so CCW or not, carrying the sidearm is a no-go.
I have a CCW for California, and a multistate (Utah and Florida) to cover pretty much all the other right to carry states, as well as an open-carry permit for California.
Arizona just passed a law that allows anyone to carry concealed. If they only had an Ocean.......
Major Lord
Weapons have no place in CAP on Ground Teams.
Weapons barely have a place in the Cadet Programs (as allowed by 52-16)
this cadet's prospective:
Whats the point, lets look at the three missions
Aerospace Education - No point in weapons here, just model rocketry
Cadet Programs- We gonna pop a cap in the cadets? (Kidding, but seriously I guess having cadets on a firing range is okay but nowhere else really.)
Emergency Services- we need guns to find people?
Wow...we went from debating the heck out of the First Amendment, and now on to the second. Maybe by Wednesday we can debate if CAP Officers can be placed in private homes, can we continue the practice of putting up Cadets for encampments. ;)
Just kidding...
I think the regulation is good as it is. A general prohibition save for special circumstance. I don't think it is a matter of restricting gun ownership, reather one of propriety. As a rule we should not be in situations where a weapon is necessary, however, as a matter of reality, there my be times then it is a necessity.
Remember, having a weapon means having the where-with-all to use it. This requires CAP specific training as to what is desired use and what constitutes the situation. Law Enforcement Officers have some training, but how would that apply to CAP and in the case of jurisdition?
Curious, what does the populace consider a situation that would warrant being armed? And what would the the "terms of engagement?" I can see a potential public relations nightmare if a CAP officer shot some person dead. I recall a case of some Border Patrol agents who got in significant trouble for shooting an potential suspect.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244193,00.html
What might this spell for CAP?
^From the mouths of cadets. . . :clap: Well said. Don't see how our missions require us to carry weapons. If you want to carry a guy, join the military, LE, or a shooting club. And there's that whole federal Posse Comitatus Act thing to contend with as well.
First, let me say that I do not think there is any need for open carry. Period.
However, I chose the option that LEO should be allowed to carry concealed. A couple of points.
First, in 2004, Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which provide that AD and retired certified law enforcement officers may carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the country irrespective of any local or state law to the contrary. (18 USC 926B, 926C) By CAP regulations, a police officer who can carry anywhere in the country cannot carry in CAP uniform.
Second, LEOs have a “duty to act.” Before I moved to Arkansas, I was a police officer in Missouri, which has a specific law that says that a LEO must act in their capacity if there is a threat to life – on or off-duty. Additionally, civil case law in several jurisdictions has held officers negligent if they fail to act while off duty to protect life.
Third, during my 18 years as a police officer, there have been many times that I have been recognized by people that I have arrested. Of those, twice I had a suspect try to take physical action against me (while I was off-duty in civilian clothes). I was also confronted as I was walking to the door of my apartment, while in CAP uniform after a meeting, by a narcotics suspect who knew me to be a police officer. I tried to de-escalate the situation, however the suspect continued to escalate it & I was forced into a position where I had to make an arrest, while in CAP uniform. I later found a .380 in his pocket. I caught some flak from my dept. for being unarmed. Our squadron is within my city, we do functions within my city. What’s to prevent this from happening again? I am aware of Posse Comitatus angle. However, when I acted, I was acting as a sworn police officer under the authority of state law, not as part of my CAP duties.
I can see where some would say that it would cause a conflict if something were to arise from the LEO performing CAP duties, but I am sure with the great legal minds would iron out the details. Also, remember that regs already allow for carry by those that are required by law. Who is to say that one of those that are already carrying in uniform won’t (or haven’t) had a similar situation?
I would not want to see anyone not an LEO carry – simple safety. LEOs are trained “from Day One” in the use of lethal force. They are keenly aware of the ramifications and legalities. Also, (key point) they are trained to de-escalate whenever possible. They are far less likely to resort to deadly force than someone that has only a conceal carry license (BTW – I am in favor of CCW laws).
Having a LEO carry a concealed weapon would have a negligible effect on CAP, while allowing the LEO to protect themselves or others.
Are you guys serious?
Arming CAP members would really ratchet up the insurance liability issues we already face due to miships and accidents. Besides, we're supposed to be doing non-combat missions. Although we are not in a combat theater of operations, that would certainly change the playing field with us.
I do, however, see no reason why CAP members can't TRAIN on firearms under the supervision of an authorized instructor...
I do not agree with anyone other than current/retired LEOs carrying, and I would want it to be concealed carry.
I would just note that CAPR 900-3 already provides that 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. So if you are legally required to carry, there is already a provision in the existing reg that would cover that situation. However, I am admittedly uncertain as to what is the usual basis for a LEO being required to carry off-duty (i.e. if it is statutory or departmental/agency policy). Perhaps some LEO's here can provide some insight on this point.
Quote from: Pumbaa on April 19, 2010, 12:43:33 AM
The day I feel I need a spare tire is the day I stop driving.
Firearms are nothing more than another tool in the toolbox.
I've carried for nearly 30 years. Saved my hide 2x.
Glib, but needing a spare tire and the feeling that you may have to shoot someone are two different things.
I always find it amusing that people who carry have had "x" times they've needed one, but people who don't (like me) have never experienced that "need."
Nothing wrong with CAP Training with weapons with some with supervision
But CAP volunteers ..C'mon armed CAP? What we got the training to make arrests and act like LEO's?
Like High Speed's mentions and the Federal Posse Commitatus Act. CAP now ready to circumvent that?
Next thing you know we'll have CAP SM and cadets attending SAREX's at the OK Corrall...
Hasn't there been a number of threads like this one and the CAP helicopters that keep re occurring quarterly, here?
In my neck of the woods there isn't a whole lot of wildlife that would concern me enough to bring a gun with me into the woods. I do feel different about some other parts of the country and will not hike out into them without a weapon. So, I would have no problem with a properly trained senior member GTL/GTM keeping a sidearm in his/her pack to protect against wild animals in accordance with the laws of their jurisdiction, and think CAP regulations should be flexible in that regard.
This has nothing to do with posse commitatus, so let's please keep the conversation on point.
Back in the late 70's, as a member of Alaska Wing, aircrew carried weapons as part of their survival gear – in compliance with both state law and a specific exemption to the CAPRs. I carried mine in a shoulder holster under my flight jacket / vest and so did everyone that I knew who was an aircrew member at the time. Remember that the survival gear is on your body and the camping gear is in the back of the aircraft.
CAP ground teams were not used in Alaska back then, so it was not an issue.
Since then, Alaska has changed the firearms requirement from being required under law to being a suggested part of the aircraft survival kit. When up in Alaska (or Wyoming, Idaho, Western Montana, etc) I still carry a large caliber firearm when flying outside of the populated areas, but not when doing CAP stuff.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on April 19, 2010, 10:55:16 AMI am aware of Posse Comitatus angle. However, when I acted, I was acting as a sworn police officer under the authority of state law, not as part of my CAP duties.
I'm in full agreement with that statement, under a certain condition. If a situation presents itself to you as an off-duty LEO where you have no choice but to act while in uniform, CAP should not hinder your ability to do so. However, comma, I would expect that those off-duty LEOs (usually new bucks) to not go out looking for stuff to get into... in other words, don't play cop until forced into it.
I'm wondering where there have been loosened gun restrictions over the last three years other than DC and Chicago (where they were banned, unconstitutionally). None of the states in a 9 state radius of where I lived up until three months ago have had any changes in the last decade or so.
Heck, my "home" state is open carry. Feel like walking down the downtown road with a 12 gauge slung over your shoulder? Go for it. No permits required for open carry and the state legislature specifically put language in the law on the permits for concealed carry. 14 days and you don't have a response from the police? You can file suit. Even the "reason" block on the application suggests that you just write "Self-defense."
I think that there has been a renewed interest in the carrying of firearms since about a year before the current President took office, but I can't say that I'd seen any news regarding states loosening changing their carrying laws to be more "friendly."
But, I don't think we need them as CAP members, despite some of the situations we could find ourselves in. One of my (previous squadron's) cadets noted to me that the last SAREX they went on, they stumbled upon a meth lab. Could have been bad, but wasn't (fortunately.)
A couple of things about the PCA:
The Posse Comitatus Act does not cover the Air Force, other then through the Air Forces' voluntary participation in it. CAP regularly participates in Law Enforcement under the direction of Police Agencies in CN missions, making us "Police Agents" while so engaged. There has not been a single prosecution of the Posse Comitatus Act in the United States. Congress can carve out any exception they want, and they have done so many times. Anyone who has seen Wyatt Earp" knows about one of Americas largest gangs, the "Cowboys" ( who flew their red gang colors) The Federal Govt. exempted the Army from the PCA to cut the wind out of their Jibs, which they did reasonably well.
Many States require ( all that I know of in fact) that any person summoned by a Judge or Law Enforcement to come to their aid when so directed ( The Common law of Posse Comitatus, codified as "black letter" Statutory Law in California and other States) CAPR 900-3 seems to suggest that we are immune to this law by virtue of being members of CAP, although their is no exemption for us in law, and there are criminal penalties for failing to do so. Its an inherently un-American provision.
The Act of Militia makes any White Males between 14 and 45 members of the irregular militia, and when summoned to the aid of regular authorities, have a legal obligation to do so. Many such civilian members of the Militia were used in this lawful capacity in such venues as the "New York Draft Riots", Modern America's largest civil insurrection.
Major Lord
The only time I could see this being justified is if the team were entering an area where it is likely the protection would be needed.
BUT, if such a situation were likely, it would seem to me that the leaders should take a serious look at risk assessment. If it's likely that a firearm would be needed, should we really be taking a team into that situation, especially a team with cadets in it.
We often get carried away when we start thinking of what we can do, but the truth is that there are situations where we really should not be going.
Quote from: Major Lord on April 19, 2010, 02:05:11 PM
A couple of things about the PCA:
The Posse Comitatus Act does not cover the Air Force, other then through the Air Forces' voluntary participation in it.
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 67 - MILITARY AND NAVY
Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses
any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or
otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
"Force protection"? Really?! ....Really?! ::)
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on April 19, 2010, 10:55:16 AM
First, let me say that I do not think there is any need for open carry. Period.
However, I chose the option that LEO should be allowed to carry concealed. A couple of points.
First, in 2004, Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which provide that AD and retired certified law enforcement officers may carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the country irrespective of any local or state law to the contrary. (18 USC 926B, 926C) By CAP regulations, a police officer who can carry anywhere in the country cannot carry in CAP uniform.
Second, LEOs have a "duty to act." Before I moved to Arkansas, I was a police officer in Missouri, which has a specific law that says that a LEO must act in their capacity if there is a threat to life – on or off-duty. Additionally, civil case law in several jurisdictions has held officers negligent if they fail to act while off duty to protect life.
Third, during my 18 years as a police officer, there have been many times that I have been recognized by people that I have arrested. Of those, twice I had a suspect try to take physical action against me (while I was off-duty in civilian clothes). I was also confronted as I was walking to the door of my apartment, while in CAP uniform after a meeting, by a narcotics suspect who knew me to be a police officer. I tried to de-escalate the situation, however the suspect continued to escalate it & I was forced into a position where I had to make an arrest, while in CAP uniform. I later found a .380 in his pocket. I caught some flak from my dept. for being unarmed. Our squadron is within my city, we do functions within my city. What's to prevent this from happening again? I am aware of Posse Comitatus angle. However, when I acted, I was acting as a sworn police officer under the authority of state law, not as part of my CAP duties.
I can see where some would say that it would cause a conflict if something were to arise from the LEO performing CAP duties, but I am sure with the great legal minds would iron out the details. Also, remember that regs already allow for carry by those that are required by law. Who is to say that one of those that are already carrying in uniform won't (or haven't) had a similar situation?
I would not want to see anyone not an LEO carry – simple safety. LEOs are trained "from Day One" in the use of lethal force. They are keenly aware of the ramifications and legalities. Also, (key point) they are trained to de-escalate whenever possible. They are far less likely to resort to deadly force than someone that has only a conceal carry license (BTW – I am in favor of CCW laws).
Having a LEO carry a concealed weapon would have a negligible effect on CAP, while allowing the LEO to protect themselves or others.
I agree with most of your points. I'm especially glad you pointed out the need to de-escalate when at all possible. Anytime you launch a round down range you risk a great deal going wrong.
On the other hand what about those in the military? I knew for years it was only a matter of time before we would be targeted in the U.S. Being from Arkansas I know you are aware of the two soldiers outside the recruiting office and everyone remembers FT Hood. I think a member of the military who is qualified on the weapon should be allowed to carry anywhere (preferably concealed) (with the exception of places like jails or other high security facilities) I personally carried locked and loaded in a number of sensitive areas overseas and did so without a problem yet I'm restricted in my own country.
There are certain realities about the world that some don't accept. Bad guys don't care about laws and rules.
As far as ground teams, as some have touched on,what happens when you accidently come across a pot grow and the grower when you're looking for something else? Those types take a dim view of being found.
Two things I do know......
Nothing spoils an assailant's aim like the ability to shoot back.
The first responder to any crime is the victim.
Quote from: A.Member on April 19, 2010, 02:26:05 PM
"Force protection"? Really?! ....Really?! ::)
Force Protection is a good idea. In the military it begins with the all military personnel taking a course, not everyone picking up a gun and carrying it each day. The course is even suggested for family members of military members.
https://atlevel1.dtic.mil/at/
Information to keep you from getting into situations that need a gun, is the first part of force protection.
Combat Air Patrol? ;-)
Clear, Aim, Phire!
Can anyone cite a single instance in CAP history (after WW2) in which there was a true need for CAP members carrying out their CAP functions to use firearms?
I've been around a LONG time , can't recall even hearing one as an 'urban legend'!
Quote from: Polecat on April 19, 2010, 02:48:02 AM
Quote from: Marshalus on April 19, 2010, 12:25:44 AM
Considering most states don't allow for open carry by anyone except LEO, and even then only when badge is visible, I'm not sure CAP passing a reg saying they can would really be beneficial to anyone except for those living in those places.
Fact check. http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html
Wow, I was not aware of that.
Still, I'm of the opinion that concealed carry is a much better idea than open carry.
1) We are not first responders, thus should rarely if ever find ourselves in a situation where it is "cowboy dangerous" for us to be providing assistance.
2) In almost all cases ORM would keep us out of the area until things got quiet.
3) If somehow #1 & 2 are ignored, we would have protection provided by local law enforcement or the military (this has happened in the past, notably during Katrina).
4) The most likely outcome of a member responding in kind with deadly force is more of our members injured or dead.
5) Real threats aside, I can't imagine the public relations nightmare it would cause were anyone in CAP to shoot someone who turned out to be holding a cel phone or toy (which happens all too often with professional LEO's).
We...
Don't...
Need...
Weapons.
I'm not an anti-gun zealot nor a pro-gun zealot. I am for common sense. I can't figure out any reason for a change in the present regulations that doesn't cause more trouble than its worth.
JMO.
I would be fine with a change to allow LEO to carry concealed while in uniform.
I would like to see an additional item added to this poll...
Should CAP Chaplains be allowed to carry guns???? >:D ;D
Quote from: Marshalus on April 19, 2010, 03:52:31 PM
I would be fine with a change to allow LEO to carry concealed while in uniform.
Just playing Devil's advocate here:
Why is the LEO's personal safety more important than mine?
Part of the problem is that "there are LEOs and then there are LEO's."
I have personally ordered SMs to remove themselves and/or their weapons from CAP activities. In one instance, the SM identified himself to me as a School District Peace Officer (employed by the district itself, not a city cop working in the school as an SRO, etc.), who looked me in the eye and swore that his agency had a mandatory off duty carry requirement.
Which, oddly enough, the chief of his little agency was unaware of when I called.
California has a whole range of peace officer / LEO gradations ranging from regular city police officers/ CHP/ etc. on down to cemetery guards working in the performance of their duties (who can exercise peace officer powers to arrest tombstone tippers).
And mandatory off-duty carry provisions are extremely rare in California. Nor do we have a mandatory "duty to act" provision in our laws.
The CAP bright-line provisions against weapons work because commanders and activity directors do not have to keep track of dozens of state law provisions, hundreds of LEA regulations, etc. to keep track of who can or can't carry.
Heck, I was a 22-year old police officer many decades ago, and I understand how a very few of them can spoil it for everyone else by pushing the boundaries.
Now can we move on to discussing important stuff - like which holster is most appropriate for use in service dress?
Force protection . . .
A posibility is working the SW border on ARCHER missions, etc. If we hack off the Zetas, then we'll need force protection. How would we do it? Park our aircraft on a military/NG base. If we need further protection for meetings? Ask the local LEOs for help.
Those are our force protectors. We're not qualified to do it. We don't have the resources, the training, the intelligence connections. We'll do the flying, they'll do the protecting.
Quote from: FW on April 19, 2010, 02:02:29 AM
Quote from: phirons on April 19, 2010, 01:07:59 AM
I've never been in law enforcement but have had a concealed carry permit for over 20 years. I've always thought it odd that I lose my 2nd amendment rights the moment I put on my CAP uniform.
Um, you volunteered to obey the regs when you signed on the dotted line.....
Yes I did. And the only time I have held a firearm while in CAP uniform was in accordance with 52-16.
We are discussing a proposed change to the regs. Could this be a giant can of worms? Absolutely.
Perhaps I was unclear -
No CAP member should be put in a position where a Use of Force is necessary. Force Protection is not necessary. Like Eclipse, and other have said, there should be no need (under 99.9999999999999999% of most circumstances) for CAPers to need any type of weapon.
Having said that, I brought up the point that CAP regulation (written almost 20 years prior to the federal law) prohibits LEOs from carrying a weapon. Like Ned, I know a few folks that it scares me they are carrying a weapon. However, the federal law took that into consideration and set very specific guidelines for who is qualified to carry under federal statue.
This discussion raises an interesting thought - Can CAP regulation superseed Federal Code? For example, the management of a local arena refused to let armed off-duty officers in its' doors for events because it had a "no concealed carry rule," which under state law, the property owner can do. The case was taken up by the Attorney General's Office who ruled that Federal Law superseeded the property owner's right to deny entrance to armed off-duty officers. So officers now carry into the arena.
Our National Vice-Commander is retired from the Arkansas Highway Police, under federal law, he can carry any where in the nation.
And to answer cap235629's question - because I am more likely to be hurt or killled because of my profession (see post about being recognized in public). But, for you Bill, when we are somewhere in civvies and something comes up, I won't protect you from the evildoers. >:D ;D That way you won't feel hypocritical. LOL
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on April 19, 2010, 05:46:20 PM
Perhaps I was unclear -
No CAP member should be put in a position where a Use of Force is necessary. Force Protection is not necessary.
Force Protection is necessary and is praticed by the Civil Air Patrol. Force Protection is protecting the Force (the people) and not just the the use of force (weapons). We do it without the fancy term. We use ID cards, lock doors, watch for suspicious people hanging around, we watch out for terrorists, we do AOPA airport watch, watch out for criminals, pratice safety, risk management, don't wear the uniform in certain places etc., which are all things done to protect the Force we call the Civil Air Patrol. The CAP Knowledgebase lists the course Q534 Emergency Response to Terrorism from the National Fire Academy. That is Force Protection. It is mostly about protecting, us the Force in our daily activities, by avoiding certain placing, things, activities and not about going after terrorist or doing dangerous activities. So, get the idea out of your head that Force Protection is just about being armed with guns and waiting for the terrorist, it is more about not being seen as vulerable, so they leave you alone. It is about being informed on how to stay safe, by being in safe places, doing safe activities.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on April 19, 2010, 05:46:20 PM
Perhaps I was unclear -
No CAP member should be put in a position where a Use of Force is necessary. Force Protection is not necessary. Like Eclipse, and other have said, there should be no need (under 99.9999999999999999% of most circumstances) for CAPers to need any type of weapon.
Having said that, I brought up the point that CAP regulation (written almost 20 years prior to the federal law) prohibits LEOs from carrying a weapon. Like Ned, I know a few folks that it scares me they are carrying a weapon. However, the federal law took that into consideration and set very specific guidelines for who is qualified to carry under federal statue.
This discussion raises an interesting thought - Can CAP regulation superseed Federal Code? For example, the management of a local arena refused to let armed off-duty officers in its' doors for events because it had a "no concealed carry rule," which under state law, the property owner can do. The case was taken up by the Attorney General's Office who ruled that Federal Law superseeded the property owner's right to deny entrance to armed off-duty officers. So officers now carry into the arena.
Our National Vice-Commander is retired from the Arkansas Highway Police, under federal law, he can carry any where in the nation.
And to answer cap235629's question - because I am more likely to be hurt or killled because of my profession (see post about being recognized in public). But, for you Bill, when we are somewhere in civvies and something comes up, I won't protect you from the evildoers. >:D ;D That way you won't feel hypocritical. LOL
Still it's against the law for felons to be in possesion of a firearm so you should have nothing to worry about. We all know felons (and other nefarious characters) follow the law. Whether they know you or not. >:D
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2010, 03:08:11 AM
We are considering arming CAP because we may be a soft target for some terrorist group?
River.....are you serious?
Did you read my comment? I'm not in favor of changing the regulation.
Quote from: cap235629 on April 19, 2010, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: Marshalus on April 19, 2010, 03:52:31 PM
I would be fine with a change to allow LEO to carry concealed while in uniform.
Just playing Devil's advocate here:
Why is the LEO's personal safety more important than mine?
Because their day job involves hunting down bad guys, and mine involves... well, not hunting down bad guys.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 19, 2010, 06:46:45 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2010, 03:08:11 AM
We are considering arming CAP because we may be a soft target for some terrorist group?
River.....are you serious?
Did you read my comment? I'm not in favor of changing the regulation.
Then why did you bring it up! Geeze! :o
Quote from: MichaelAGates on April 19, 2010, 06:14:58 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on April 19, 2010, 05:46:20 PM
Perhaps I was unclear -
No CAP member should be put in a position where a Use of Force is necessary. Force Protection is not necessary.
Force Protection is necessary and is praticed by the Civil Air Patrol. Force Protection is protecting the Force (the people) and not just the the use of force (weapons). We do it without the fancy term. We use ID cards, lock doors, watch for suspicious people hanging around, we watch out for terrorists, we do AOPA airport watch, watch out for criminals, pratice safety, risk management, don't wear the uniform in certain places etc., which are all things done to protect the Force we call the Civil Air Patrol. The CAP Knowledgebase lists the course Q534 Emergency Response to Terrorism from the National Fire Academy. That is Force Protection. It is mostly about protecting, us the Force in our daily activities, by avoiding certain placing, things, activities and not about going after terrorist or doing dangerous activities. So, get the idea out of your head that Force Protection is just about being armed with guns and waiting for the terrorist, it is more about not being seen as vulerable, so they leave you alone. It is about being informed on how to stay safe, by being in safe places, doing safe activities.
Well said.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2010, 07:17:50 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 19, 2010, 06:46:45 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2010, 03:08:11 AM
We are considering arming CAP because we may be a soft target for some terrorist group?
River.....are you serious?
Did you read my comment? I'm not in favor of changing the regulation.
Then why did you bring it up! Geeze! :o
Well, while my opinion is usually right and therefore discussion of anything I am in favor of is really unnecessary (since anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong), I thought there might be some other legitimate viewpoints on this topic. <<sarcasm>>
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 19, 2010, 01:03:19 PM
Quote from: Pumbaa on April 19, 2010, 12:43:33 AM
The day I feel I need a spare tire is the day I stop driving.
Firearms are nothing more than another tool in the toolbox.
I've carried for nearly 30 years. Saved my hide 2x.
Glib, but needing a spare tire and the feeling that you may have to shoot someone are two different things.
I always find it amusing that people who carry have had "x" times they've needed one, but people who don't (like me) have never experienced that "need."
I've stood over approximately 60 homicide victims. Apparently none of them experienced the "need" until their last day. Most of them did nothing to hasten their fate. They didn't go into places they should have avoided, there weren't doing anything wrong, etc. Incidentally, NONE of them were employed in law enforcement.
For most of us, our CAP membership makes little to no difference to the risks we face. However, there are still risks associated with every day life. Sincere or intentional ignorance of those risks don't make them any less real, and belittling others for recognizing that fact is unproductive.
Carrying a weapon
because of CAP membership? Nah. Carry openly? No.
Edited to fix a typo.
Guns? No!
Reflective Belts? YES!!!!
(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_02_2010/post-3043-1265315403.jpg)
Some want us to look like a flying club and now some want us to look like police. Open carry with a uniform would look totally foolish. I also think the Air Force would balk really big on the idea. We are the AF auxiliary with multiple missions, but SAR being the focus. We are not a police auxiliary. A gun to protect you from wildlife on a SAR? Been on many missions and never had the need. I have been camping with my kids and never had the need. I can see a small fire survival type firearm in a survival kit in an aircraft flying over wilderness areas, but not for members to wear on their hip. I am not anti-gun.......I own several including 5 handguns, but never walk around with one strapped on. If someone wants that then there are police auxiliary and police reserve programs to join.
Quote from: C-150 on April 19, 2010, 08:43:33 PM
Some want us to look like a flying club and now some want us to look like police. Open carry with a uniform would look totally foolish.
Not if was a big shiny revolver with pearl handles. Make it two, one on each hip. That would look good in uniform. ;)
http://www.americaremembers.com/products/GGSPJTRE/GGSPJTRE.asp
And I want bomb bay doors, bombs, Sidewinder missiles, and 50 caliber machine guns on our 172s and 182s. Never know when we might have to sink a rogue Nazi sub or participate in a dogfight while on a flooding photo mission. :D
No. Maybe it's because I'm a First Responder (and in EMT-B school), and therefore hate the idea of civilians (and most LEOs that I've met for that matter) carrying guns.
First: It is illegal for CAP to carry weapons under the Posse Comitatus Act while on AF Assigned Missions.
Second: Arming our GTs will ban cadets participating in Emergency Services, and we all know that cadets make up the backbone of CAP GSAR.
Third: We don't need them!
3a: Our regulations forbid our GSAR teams from participating in ANY operation involving criminal activity.
3b: And for the "Bambi might attack" arguement:
3bi: Bambi is more afraid of you, and will most likely avoid you.
3bii: The only time when Bambi even posed a slight risk, we just took a Sheriff's Deputy (I do like the Sheriff's Department) with us.
No guns for CAP, except where currently allowed. Goes for off-duty LEOs as well. Besides, SAR is your jurisdiction anyway, why don't you just wear your police uniform?
Creating exceptions will just open up a whole new can of worms, and 9001 more CAPTalk topics, and will lead to some idiot geardo cadet killing himself.
And I might get this off my chest, I am against CCW and Open-Carry.
First.
I am against the idea of Arming CAP. It's not part of the mission and there is no need to open carry.
However, why can't a member exercise his/her CCW just because they're in a CAP uniform?
Hell if you're responsibly carrying then no one should know anyways...
Again two very big distinctions, the Idea of arming CAP because of a perceived threat is much different than properly licensed members quietly exercising their rights.
Let's get to the IMPORTANT question: What uniform would you be allowed to wear if you could be strapped as a CAP member? Just those wearing AF-style uniforms? Are those in corporate uniforms trustworthy enough to be packin'? Or maybe we'd need a new Distinctive Gun Totin' Member BDU and or Dress Uniform to let our members and the public know that this is a CAP member who can spit lead. ;)
Quote from: tdepp on April 19, 2010, 10:03:52 PM
Let's get to the IMPORTANT question: What uniform would you be allowed to wear if you could be strapped as a CAP member? Just those wearing AF-style uniforms? Are those in corporate uniforms trustworthy enough to be packin'? Or maybe we'd need a new Distinctive Gun Totin' Member BDU and or Dress Uniform to let our members and the public know that this is a CAP member who can spit lead. ;)
??? somehow this joke is starting to get old...
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 19, 2010, 09:40:29 PM
First: It is illegal for CAP to carry weapons under the Posse Comitatus Act while on AF Assigned Missions.
Cite please. PC has no comment on an armed person in CAP, and 900-3 makes exceptions with no filter of mission type.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 19, 2010, 09:40:29 PM
Second: Arming our GTs will ban cadets participating in Emergency Services, and we all know that cadets make up the backbone of CAP GSAR.
900-3 already negates the first part, and I disagree with the second part.
Cadets may make up a large percentage of the members rated as GTM's, however for a variety of reasons they do not make up a large percentage of those who regularly respond to real missions, at least not in my parts. I generally consider them a secondary or ancillary support for the adult-rated teams who can actually self and supervise.
I agree we don't need weapons in CAP, but your argument above is flawed.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on April 19, 2010, 05:46:20 PM
And to answer cap235629's question - because I am more likely to be hurt or killled because of my profession (see post about being recognized in public). But, for you Bill, when we are somewhere in civvies and something comes up, I won't protect you from the evildoers. >:D ;D That way you won't feel hypocritical. LOL
Garrick I was playing devil's advocate but to be specific to YOUR point:
As you know I am a FORMER police officer. I have over 12 years of LE experience. I too have run in to people I have put in jail, once even running into a person that was just released from a 7 1/2 year stint at the Hotel Grady while at Wal-Mart with my daughter. Thankfully when he approached me he did not intend me harm. However as I was no longer a cop and was unarmed at the time, things could have gotten messy real quick. The reasons you are stating for the law enforcement carry law (which by the way is not recognized by many states, not that I agree) should by your definition of need also apply to me. It does not however as I chose to leave law enforcement as a career before "retirement".
That being said however, I will not let you touch any vehicle in which I am a passenger nor will I need you to protect me, I have a CHL and as the old cliche goes "better judged by 12......." ;) ;)
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2010, 10:15:29 PM
I generally consider them a secondary or ancillary support for the adult-rated teams who can actually self and supervise.
Slight threadjack, but why? are their sqtr's different than ours? It would be interesting to see what the differences are for "adult-rated" GTM badges and Cadet GTM badges..
Quote from: tsrup on April 19, 2010, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2010, 10:15:29 PM
I generally consider them a secondary or ancillary support for the adult-rated teams who can actually self and supervise.
Slight threadjack, but why? are their sqtr's different than ours? It would be interesting to see what the differences are for "adult-rated" GTM badges and Cadet GTM badges..
Simple logistics. Most of them can not get themselves to a base or deployment area. Getting them out of school is difficult to impossible depending on your states laws. They also can not speak for themselves as most are minors under parental care.
Bill, I was just poking fun at you. I know your position but since you were playing Devil's advocate, I was playing right back. No harm intended.
Add to that....some of our customers don't like the idea of minors working their missions.
It is back to the old Cadets on ES problem.
I however think it is a great idea to get as many as we can into what ever area we can.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2010, 10:36:45 PM
Add to that....some of our customers don't like the idea of minors working their missions.
It is back to the old Cadets on ES problem.
I however think it is a great idea to get as many as we can into what ever area we can.
Oh I agree. I love getting them out on my flight line. They are always eager and energetic and most importantly they treat the aircraft better than
some pilots I've observed.
Quotepearl handles
QuoteThey're ivory. Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl-handled pistol.
Gen Patton
We've got just too many empty-heads and gung-hos to be carrying deadly weapons. Its often been said that when we lose a privilege in CAP, its because one idiot ruined it for the rest of us. Firearms is a situation where someone would ruin it real quick with an accidental discharge into somebody's vitals. I still maintain my position on protection from nature's nasties, but that is limited to things like mace/pepper spray. Would I love to pack heat in the woods? You bet, in the form of a pepper ball gun (zero legality research done).
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on April 19, 2010, 10:45:50 PM
We've got just too many empty-heads and gung-hos to be carrying deadly weapons. Its often been said that when we lose a privilege in CAP, its because one idiot ruined it for the rest of us. Firearms is a situation where someone would ruin it real quick with an accidental discharge into somebody's vitals. I still maintain my position on protection from nature's nasties, but that is limited to things like mace/pepper spray. Would I love to pack heat in the woods? You bet, in the form of a pepper ball gun (zero legality research done).
Not all dangerous game in the woods has claws.
I am opposed to open carry in a CAP uniform but am of the opinion that CCW should be allowed for people that are already legally able to carry. It's a proven fact that some whack jobs out in the world just want to kill "soldiers." Guess what, we look like them. That makes us a target whether we do anything to increase the danger or not. If it were allowed I would support a measure that would 2b anyone that pulls a weapon out in anything but a life threatening situation ie: you play with your piece, you're done.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on April 19, 2010, 10:28:48 PM
Bill, I was just poking fun at you. I know your position but since you were playing Devil's advocate, I was playing right back. No harm intended.
I know, you still can't touch my vehicle.....
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 19, 2010, 09:40:29 PM
First: It is illegal for CAP to carry weapons under the Posse Comitatus Act while on AF Assigned Missions.
Okay, I'm going to have to call BS on that one. While I agree there are a lot of good and valid reasons for CAP not to carry weapons, Posse Comitatus is not one of them, and does not make carrying weapons illegal.
QuoteAnd for the "Bambi might attack" arguement: Bambi is more afraid of you, and will most likely avoid you. The only time when Bambi even posed a slight risk, we just took a Sheriff's Deputy (I do like the Sheriff's Department) with us.
It's easy for us midwesterners to be apathetic about the dangers that certain wildlife can pose to people operating in the woods, since there is so little here that is really dangerous. But trampling around certain inner coastal areas of the pacific northwest long enough and you may find yourself face to face with a not so "afraid of you" brown bear.
Now, if having a deputy with every ground team is already standard procedure, then that is that. But I'd like to know if it really is the case.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 19, 2010, 10:53:18 PM
I am opposed to open carry in a CAP uniform but am of the opinion that CCW should be allowed for people that are already legally able to carry. It's a proven fact that some whack jobs out in the world just want to kill "soldiers." Guess what, we look like them. That makes us a target whether we do anything to increase the danger or not. If it were allowed I would support a measure that would 2b anyone that pulls a weapon out in anything but a life threatening situation ie: you play with your piece, you're done.
I just don't want to deal with the liabity.
When you walk into my doors you belong to me. I have to balance the unknown dangers with the known dangers and make a judgement call. And it will be my buttocks on the line if some unstable senior member decides to go postal at the squadron meeting....or more likely some guy who should never have been given a driver's license let alone a CCP accidently shoots himself or one of my squadron members.
Don't get me wrong...got nothing against guns or CCPs.....I'm getting one too as soon as I get the cash....but during CAP time it goes into the glove box and remains there.
YMMV
I don't know if it's already been asked but have there been incidents where CAP Members have been fired on or otherwise threatened with deadly violence?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2010, 11:07:01 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 19, 2010, 10:53:18 PM
I am opposed to open carry in a CAP uniform but am of the opinion that CCW should be allowed for people that are already legally able to carry. It's a proven fact that some whack jobs out in the world just want to kill "soldiers." Guess what, we look like them. That makes us a target whether we do anything to increase the danger or not. If it were allowed I would support a measure that would 2b anyone that pulls a weapon out in anything but a life threatening situation ie: you play with your piece, you're done.
I just don't want to deal with the liabity.
When you walk into my doors you belong to me. I have to balance the unknown dangers with the known dangers and make a judgement call. And it will be my buttocks on the line if some unstable senior member decides to go postal at the squadron meeting....or more likely some guy who should never have been given a driver's license let alone a CCP accidently shoots himself or one of my squadron members.
Don't get me wrong...got nothing against guns or CCPs.....I'm getting one too as soon as I get the cash....but during CAP time it goes into the glove box and remains there.
YMMV
I doubt that if someone goes postal that he/she will care what National has to say on the issue of firearms...
What happens when the sane CCW carrier neutralizes the threat and saves a squadron of cadets despite the regs.. "2b or not 2b".
Quote from: billford1 on April 19, 2010, 11:09:03 PM
I don't know if it's already been asked but have there been incidents where CAP Members have been fired on or otherwise threatened with deadly violence?
NOTE: What follows is second hand information.
Our wing apparently used to be more actively involved in CN than we are now, and I guess the guys on motorcycles (a real issue around mid august for those not aware of the unique issues that South Dakota has with biker gangs) who kept getting busted for drugs started noticing what airplanes were always overhead. Simple asking around let them know where we all met, and threats started to be applied.
Apparently we decided to back off of that mission set as the liability to our membership was too high.
Course the above could be all bs that is a likely scenario that just never happened.
Quote from: tsrup on April 19, 2010, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2010, 10:15:29 PM
I generally consider them a secondary or ancillary support for the adult-rated teams who can actually self and supervise.
Slight threadjack, but why? are their sqtr's different than ours? It would be interesting to see what the differences are for "adult-rated" GTM badges and Cadet GTM badges..
Probably should have been just "adult".
I have high respect for our cadets, and don't really separate them in terms of abilities - the issues are practical and logistical.
Most school-age cadets don't have there means or resources to pick-up mid-week without warning and go somewhere for a week.
The inability to be autonomous is a factor, but not one which should preclude their participation.
In my AOR, cadets probably make up at least half the ground people, but are a small presence in real missions.
Quote from: tsrup on April 19, 2010, 11:13:49 PMI doubt that if someone goes postal that he/she will care what National has to say on the issue of firearms... What happens when the sane CCW carrier neutralizes the threat and saves a squadron of cadets despite the regs.. "2b or not 2b".
He can frame his SMV next to his termination.
The random chance someone might be able to "hero" their way out of an unlikely situation is not something you use as the basis for policy.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 19, 2010, 09:40:29 PM
No. Maybe it's because I'm a First Responder (and in EMT-B school), and therefore hate the idea of civilians (and most LEOs that I've met for that matter) carrying guns.
First: It is illegal for CAP to carry weapons under the Posse Comitatus Act while on AF Assigned Missions.
Second: Arming our GTs will ban cadets participating in Emergency Services, and we all know that cadets make up the backbone of CAP GSAR.
idiot geardo cadet killing himself.
And I might get this off my chest, I am against CCW and Open-Carry.
Maybe you should drop the EMT-B class and take some college classes on law, history, government and a few others. Just a suggestion.
1. Don't think we need guns on missions or otherwise even though down here we may run missions where running into a pot patch, meth lab, or even a still is a distinct possibilty in So. IL.
2. Own several firearms and would probably get a CCW if IL had them. Hopefully, this time around the Chicago politicians won't derail the CCW legislation. But still....see point 1^^^.
3. Think the photos of WWII era aircrews with pistols on their hips are reallly cool.
4. Do we have any LEOs who are CAP members but whose departments MANDATE off-duty carry?
Remember what I've said about NHQ, Incorporated in the past: NHQ, Inc's sole purpose is to protect no one but the organization, the corporate officers and employees from liability. NO ONE ELSE. The only reason we have a CCPT (albeit badly screwed up in relation to cadets over 18) is because people were suing CAP, Inc. over it.
Individuals protecting themselves on CAP missions or activities is a liability to NHQ, Inc., so the corporate line is to take the robbery/rape/kidnapping of cadets/murder and report it to a corporate officer for handling. They will determine if there was a robbery/rape/kidnapping of a cadet/murder committed and, once NHQ, Inc. is sufficiently insulated from liability, notify the authorities if NHQ, Incs lawyers believe it is prudent to do so.
Seriously: Someday we're going to hear about something bad happening at an activity, something that could have been stopped but wasn't. Someone's going to get hurt or worse. But it'll be okay that someone didn't have the tools to stop it because someone keeping a chair warm in Alabama said we were doing the right thing by letting it happen.
Here in southern Arizona the possibility of walking up on a group of smugglers is very real. I am pretty sure those guys don't care if it is cadets or not that just surprised them, and they are going to do what ever necessary to get away. I feel that I am responsible for the safety of any member of my team and under current regulations that is difficult. Here in Arizona it is legal for anyone over 21 to carry a handgun in plain view. You can get a CCW permit and carry concealed. Last Friday Gov. Brewer just signed into law that any one can carry concealed without a permit as long as they are 21. I am a retired LEO and I find it to be very fustating that on a mission we are not given the opportunity to protect ourselves or others.
Well Desert Dawg
Welcome to the land of CAP frustration
As Johnny Yuma pointed out...CAP Inc is looking out for....wait for it..........ITSELF
Doesn't matter what a professional LEO has to say... AZ is real
CAP....well its a volunteer organization that ought to stay volunteer unless the pay and LE advances seriously in the next few years
In other words, if you are in CAP and run into the problems you got in AZ...Better cover your own fanny...PAPA CAP isn't in the business of covering us...no matter the Kool Aid being served on the respect it has for its members....got to read in between the lines....
Better to be in paid position carrying or thinking of carrying a weapon. CAP?? It STILL a volunteer organization with arrest or LE powers
Maybe its safer that way!!!
Let me clarify a fat finger
CAP ...No arrest or LE powers...
Sorry for Internet / finger interface malfunction...
Quote from: tsrup on April 19, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2010, 11:07:01 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 19, 2010, 10:53:18 PM
I am opposed to open carry in a CAP uniform but am of the opinion that CCW should be allowed for people that are already legally able to carry. It's a proven fact that some whack jobs out in the world just want to kill "soldiers." Guess what, we look like them. That makes us a target whether we do anything to increase the danger or not. If it were allowed I would support a measure that would 2b anyone that pulls a weapon out in anything but a life threatening situation ie: you play with your piece, you're done.
I just don't want to deal with the liability.
When you walk into my doors you belong to me. I have to balance the unknown dangers with the known dangers and make a judgement call. And it will be my buttocks on the line if some unstable senior member decides to go postal at the squadron meeting....or more likely some guy who should never have been given a driver's license let alone a CCP accidentally shoots himself or one of my squadron members.
Don't get me wrong...got nothing against guns or CCPs.....I'm getting one too as soon as I get the cash....but during CAP time it goes into the glove box and remains there.
YMMV
I doubt that if someone goes postal that he/she will care what National has to say on the issue of firearms...
What happens when the sane CCW carrier neutralizes the threat and saves a squadron of cadets despite the regs.. "2b or not 2b".
Give him the bronze star of valor and then 2b him. ;D
Again I said...Do we accept the know danger of people carrying guns at CAP functions because of the unknown danger of some random bad guy killing everyone.
As I said....I just don't want to deal with the liability. Too many dip fecal matters out there who IMHO are not mature enough to carry a weapon. But if this reg goes in what power would a commander have to make sure those who "should not" be armed are not in fact armed?
Do you see my Point? It is not anti gun or that those who have them and carry them are nuts or a danger in and of themselves.....but we all know about those people who are just should not be armed due to lack of mature judgment.
Quote from: tsrup on April 19, 2010, 09:57:43 PMHell if you're responsibly carrying then no one should know anyways...
That pretty well says it all.............
Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 19, 2010, 03:34:25 PM
Can anyone cite a single instance in CAP history (after WW2) in which there was a true need for CAP members carrying out their CAP functions to use firearms?
I've been around a LONG time , can't recall even hearing one as an 'urban legend'!
Yes, actually. You need to read up on the histories of the CAP's World War II anti-sub bases. There were armed guards that stood sentry duty and manned guard shacks and gates.
The difference, though, was a declared war and a CAP base that had bombs and depth charges.
Years ago (in the 1980s) the wing commander at an AF Reserve Base in Ohio allowed the CAP squadron and group members assigned there to be trained by CATM personnel and then allowed to fire M-16s at the base range. Some of those cadets and senior members fired expert and were authorized to wear the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon....the highest ribbon they ever earned as CAP members. I was the base liaison at the time, so it's verified and for real.
However, that doesn't change my stand about arming us now. I can just see it now. Some guy shows up at a CAP meeting, armed to the nines, and making threats just because he didn't get a promotion or something.
Or what about the day that a weapon like that is mis-handled and someone gets a foot blown off....wouldn't want to write that safety report.
Absolutely amazing that I survived an career in the Air Force without having to carry a weapon while flying missions in the US or while on bases and between bases in the US. Overseas and in the war zones, different story.
Can anyone find ONE story about a CAP member being attacked, kidnapped, shot, etc, while on a CAP mission or at a CAP activity?
Wait a few, Short Field
There will be obscure story about someone who knew somebody from somebody who knew somebody that was in / near/ by a CAP activity
Quote from: Short Field on April 20, 2010, 03:58:34 AM
Can anyone find ONE story about a CAP member being attacked, kidnapped, shot, etc, while on a CAP mission or at a CAP activity?
How about this one (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4519.msg88043#msg88043) where a CAP cadet was shot and killed by a senior member with a .45.
Will that do?
Quote from: Desert Dawg on April 20, 2010, 02:22:57 AM
Here in southern Arizona the possibility of walking up on a group of smugglers is very real.
Does that happen a lot?
Has it ever happened?
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 20, 2010, 04:28:43 AM
Quote from: Desert Dawg on April 20, 2010, 02:22:57 AM
Here in southern Arizona the possibility of walking up on a group of smugglers is very real.
Does that happen a lot?
Has it ever happened?
This man was on his own property so this scenario is not far fetched at all:
Arizona Rancher found shot to death (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/29/illegal-immigrant-suspected-killing-arizona-rancher/)
QuoteA prominent southeast Arizona rancher likely was killed by an illegal immigrant, but there's no evidence to suggest there was any confrontation that led to the shooting, authorities said Monday. ,,,, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever said Krentz was out checking water line and fencing on the land Krentz's family has ranched since 1907. Krentz had weapons with him in his all-terrain vehicle but didn't use them ,,, while investigators don't have a motive yet, retaliation has been raised as a possibility. The day before the shooting, the victim's brother, Phil Krentz, reported drug smuggling activity on the ranch to the Border Patrol.
Carryng a gun didn't help him.
Hmmmm...
[smg id=157]
Quote from: Ned on April 20, 2010, 04:09:30 AM
Quote from: Short Field on April 20, 2010, 03:58:34 AM
Can anyone find ONE story about a CAP member being attacked, kidnapped, shot, etc, while on a CAP mission or at a CAP activity?
How about this one (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4519.msg88043#msg88043) where a CAP cadet was shot and killed by a senior member with a .45.
Will that do?
This WW II story is actualy
WHY we shouldn't be armed. Leave force protection to the professionals.
^^^
We can keep reminding CAPers about this, flyboy...
There's no stopping CAPers informing about how arming CAP won't hurt anything......whatever
If one is not doing this everyday (spell security, LE, military) CAP just ought to suck it up and ACCEPT that Civil AIR Patrol is merely a volunteer support function to aencies that request our services....LE functions and carrying weapons is not a primary driving mission.
CAPTalkers will argue this into the next millenium
Quote from: a2capt on April 20, 2010, 07:18:16 AM
Hmmmm...
[smg id=157]
You wonder why we call the pilots cowboys..........
Quote from: cap235629 on April 20, 2010, 05:10:35 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 20, 2010, 04:28:43 AM
Quote from: Desert Dawg on April 20, 2010, 02:22:57 AM
Here in southern Arizona the possibility of walking up on a group of smugglers is very real.
Does that happen a lot?
Has it ever happened?
This man was on his own property so this scenario is not far fetched at all:
Arizona Rancher found shot to death (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/29/illegal-immigrant-suspected-killing-arizona-rancher/)
Not what I asked. I didn't ask if
anyone had ever been shot by an illegal.
I want to know how often AZWG SAR teams encounter illegals and whether they'd ever been threatened by one with a firearm.
I can also see us getting really popular at local airports as our members carry weapons inside the security areas. [You know the airports, the ones that members were recently crying about having to get another ID/access badge to enter...]
Rotorhead, to my knowledge no one has been threatened by an illegal with a handgun. Your run of the mill undocumented alien isn't the problem. The problem is the drug runners who carry 50 lbs of marijuana on their back and are armed to the teeth. Have we had some close calls, you bet we have.
I am not saying that arming anyone in CAP is the answer, but I think some thought needs to be put into some sort of protection for our people.
Quote from: Desert Dawg on April 20, 2010, 04:39:19 PM
I am not saying that arming anyone in CAP is the answer, but I think some thought needs to be put into some sort of protection for our people.
911
If you are on a mission, you should be in contact with mission base so you can do 911 without cell phone coverage.
Waving a gun at drug smugglers will get you shot faster than just turning around and leaving. If you are not a threat, they are not going to beg trouble.
Quote from: Short Field on April 20, 2010, 05:37:14 PM
Quote from: Desert Dawg on April 20, 2010, 04:39:19 PM
I am not saying that arming anyone in CAP is the answer, but I think some thought needs to be put into some sort of protection for our people.
911
If you are on a mission, you should be in contact with mission base so you can do 911 without cell phone coverage.
Waving a gun at drug smugglers will get you shot faster than just turning around and leaving. If you are not a threat, they are not going to beg trouble.
911 is not protection. 911 just tells the police where to find the murder scene. You don't need to be a threat to get killed by these guys, you just have to be in the wrong place.
The only person responsible for my protection is me. Unfortunately NHQ has seen fit to castrate my ability to protect myself from bad dudes.
Why are people wanting an example of somebody dieing before they will think about a weapon? What about being proactive instead of reactive?
Quote from: davidsinn on April 20, 2010, 05:54:49 PM. Unfortunately NHQ has seen fit to castrate my ability to protect myself from bad dudes.
Gosh, we must really be out of the mainstream here.
Out of curiosity, would the Boy Scouts let you pack heat while hiking with the lads?
How about Campfire or the Royal Rangers? Maintenance workers for the Forest Service? Electric company line crews? Surveying crews? Commercial loggers? (The loggers on the Discovery Channel seem to survive without their .45s.) State University research biologists?
Sigh.
I'm sorry you got castrated and all, but CAP does have an aggressive ORM program designed to protect you from - among other things - "bad dudes." If it is too risky for you to go unarmed into the woods, then don't go.
No one will think the worse of you. There are lots of other organizations out there who only go into the woods heavily armed. The FBI hasn't arrested all of the militia folks yet, I'm sure there are still some operating.
Ned Lee
To play devils advocate for a second, the Boy Scouts don't have defined missions that put them in harms way.
^^^^^
Nor do they wear any sort of BDU's...
CAP could relegate the BDU to another uni POSSIBLY lowering the "military" or law enforcement looking presence
MAYBE the BDU gets bad dudes all spooled up forcing them to use weapons thinking the BDU wearin dudes are after them!!
Quote from: Marshalus on April 20, 2010, 06:50:47 PM
To play devils advocate for a second, the Boy Scouts don't have defined missions that put them in harms way.
What is CAP's defined mission that puts us in harms way? You might make a case for CD missions, but they are air missions and operate from established airports.
Quote from: heliodoc on April 20, 2010, 06:55:10 PM
MAYBE the BDU gets bad dudes all spooled up forcing them to use weapons thinking the BDU wearin dudes are after them!!
This seems to me to be the more likely scenario. For the most part, animals don't particularly want to mess with a large group of people tromping through the woods. The bad dudes, however, would be more likely to respond with deadly force.
BUT, we need to balance the likelihood of this threat against the also likely possibility of a CAP member making a mistake and hurting someone by accident. Little Johnny's parents aren't going to be very understanding when their boy is injured because someone "didn't know the safety was off."
Does the possibility exist that a ground team will stumble across some bad guys? Of course it does. But, what is the probablity of such an occurence?
Another thing people haven't mentioned either is the likelihood that the bad guys will easily get the drop on the ground team. Ground teams aren't supposed to be quiet; they want to be heard. If the bad guys want to confront the team, it will be surrounded and at gunpoint before anyone who might be carrying could react.
Maybe CAP could MOU USCBP to pronto a Predator B over the area for an OIF / OEF style meet -n- greet clearing operation errrrr meet -n- greet target acquisition so the real LE operators could make their "arrests." Arrests sanitized for relocation, if you know what I mean
Clearin the area for the Little Johnny's of CAP to do swell work in the search and locate world
But then again, isn't that the reason why the PAID SAR agencies require 18 yrs and older, for the insurance sakes?
Just sayin.....
Quote from: Short Field on April 20, 2010, 07:22:58 PM
Quote from: Marshalus on April 20, 2010, 06:50:47 PM
To play devils advocate for a second, the Boy Scouts don't have defined missions that put them in harms way.
What is CAP's defined mission that puts us in harms way? You might make a case for CD missions, but they are air missions and operate from established airports.
I think we've just gone though an entire thread of missions and events that have put CAP personnel in harms way.
That's the great thing about CONCEALED carry.. no one knows you are carrying...
I would be rather judged by 12 (or 2B'd) than carried by 6...
Quote from: Pumbaa on April 20, 2010, 07:41:07 PM
That's the great thing about CONCEALED carry.. no one knows you are carrying...
I would be rather judged by 12 (or 2B'd) than carried by 6...
God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal.
I have stumbled across meth equipment driving down the road. Coincidentally this was half a mile from a BSA campground and eight miles from my home. The bad guys are out there. I'd like to be able to defend myself and those around me.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 20, 2010, 08:17:04 PMI have stumbled across meth equipment driving down the road. Coincidentally this was half a mile from a BSA campground and eight miles from my home. The bad guys are out there. I'd like to be able to defend myself and those around me.
Okay...
Now let's come up with a viable program that manages this.
What are the requirments?
Who can authorise armament?
Any limitations on number of weapons/type of weapons/ammo?
Any training requirments?
And then we have to do a sanity check with our customers and USAF to see how they feel.
I'm sure there are some LE organisation who will be worried about armed volunteers out roaming the woods during a lost hiker search.
If we open this can of worms.....we are going to have to make sure we can get the lid back on if we need to.
Quote from: Stonewall on April 19, 2010, 11:56:08 PM
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 19, 2010, 09:40:29 PM
No. Maybe it's because I'm a First Responder (and in EMT-B school), and therefore hate the idea of civilians (and most LEOs that I've met for that matter) carrying guns.
First: It is illegal for CAP to carry weapons under the Posse Comitatus Act while on AF Assigned Missions.
Second: Arming our GTs will ban cadets participating in Emergency Services, and we all know that cadets make up the backbone of CAP GSAR.
idiot geardo cadet killing himself.
And I might get this off my chest, I am against CCW and Open-Carry.
Maybe you should drop the EMT-B class and take some college classes on law, history, government and a few others. Just a suggestion.
Allow me to rephrase:
I live in an urban area. We have lots of shootings here. I feel that the CCW laws proposed in my neck of the woods are too broad, and would put more guns in places that need less guns.
Also, in my neck of the woods, Fire/Rescue and EMS are in a constant battle with the local PDs (The Sheriff gets along fine, possibly because EMS is run by the county here?)
I checked with the person who told me about the Posse Comitatus clause, and he retold me that the current CAP policy is derived from that in order to prevent CAP being used as a police force, as we cannot do that under AF Assigned status.
And the restriction on cadets comes not from current CAP regulation, but outside lawyers who will sue. NHQ would have to adopt new policies to stop the lawyers.
In addition, I know of quite a few geardo cadets, who while very good at ES, I would never let within 100 meters of a loaded weapon. I would be forced to kick all cadets off my GT (In my neck of the woods, schools are very cooperative with CAP ES).
While I can understand why some would want this in other parts of the country, the urban areas would make this impossible.
And I still stand that if a LEO wants to carry their weapon while on a SAR mission, they can wear their police uniform. Keep it simple SARtypes.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 20, 2010, 09:52:42 PM
In addition, I know of quite a few geardo cadets, who while very good at ES, I would never let within 100 meters of a loaded weapon.
Heck, I would trust the cadets more than half the senior members we have. The wannabe factor would go out the roof. I can see the recruiting slogans now: Join CAP, wear BDUs, wear Officer Rank, get saluted, and carry as many guns as you can manage so you can put the bad guys in their place.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 20, 2010, 09:52:42 PM
if a LEO wants to carry their weapon while on a SAR mission, they can wear their police uniform. Keep it simple SARtypes.
+1
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2010, 08:25:44 PM
Okay...
Now let's come up with a viable program that manages this.
What are the requirments?
A state issued Concealed Carry Permit.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2010, 08:25:44 PM
Who can authorise armament?
Easy, the State's Attorney , the person who signs my CCW.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2010, 08:25:44 PM
Any limitations on number of weapons/type of weapons/ammo?
Not unless otherwise restricted by the state.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2010, 08:25:44 PM
Any training requirments?
Not any different than the requirements for the State's Attorney's office.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2010, 08:25:44 PM
And then we have to do a sanity check with our customers and USAF to see how they feel.
I'm sure there are some LE organisation who will be worried about armed volunteers out roaming the woods during a lost hiker search.
Not any more than regular armed civilians.
What I propose, and agree with, is not the outright arming of CAP members because we feel like there is a perceived threat of attack while we are out in the woods. If you are that worried about meth heads in the area of your search, your search plan should include a deputy. If your scenarios ever involve planning on running into an area where you would encounter criminal activity, then it is foolish to proceed without the cooperation of the sherif's office.
What I propose is allowing those who are licensed, wether it be LE or civilian, to cary concealed and quietly. This allows members to exercise rights they already have and prevents the "show of force" image that current regulations prohibit.
A member abuses his rights to cary and starts waiving his handgun around? Call up the sherif's office and I bet his/her CCW is revoked.
Again, I am not promoting any more rights or exceptions that Joe Shmo every day civilian does not already have.
As I have mentioned before: You shouldn't be able to tell if a responsible carrier is packing.
As for the safety of cadets from rampaging seniors having a mental breakdown, I'm sure every person who has ever murdered someone cared about what regulations prohibited them from carrying a gun.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 20, 2010, 09:52:42 PM
I checked with the person who told me about the Posse Comitatus clause, and he retold me that the current CAP policy is derived from that in order to prevent CAP being used as a police force, as we cannot do that under AF Assigned status.
And the restriction on cadets comes not from current CAP regulation, but outside lawyers who will sue. NHQ would have to adopt new policies to stop the lawyers.
He is wrong about PCA. Weapons have nothing to do with it. Just because you're carrying a weapon doesn't mean that you're going to be doing police work of some kind that would violate PCA.
And no one suggested allowing cadets to be armed, though I suppose that 18-20 demographic might fall under some of the poll options if a state issues a concealed carry permit to someone in that age group.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 20, 2010, 09:52:42 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on April 19, 2010, 11:56:08 PM
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on April 19, 2010, 09:40:29 PM
No. Maybe it's because I'm a First Responder (and in EMT-B school), and therefore hate the idea of civilians (and most LEOs that I've met for that matter) carrying guns.
First: It is illegal for CAP to carry weapons under the Posse Comitatus Act while on AF Assigned Missions.
Second: Arming our GTs will ban cadets participating in Emergency Services, and we all know that cadets make up the backbone of CAP GSAR.
idiot geardo cadet killing himself.
And I might get this off my chest, I am against CCW and Open-Carry.
Maybe you should drop the EMT-B class and take some college classes on law, history, government and a few others. Just a suggestion.
Allow me to rephrase:
I live in an urban area. We have lots of shootings here. I feel that the CCW laws proposed in my neck of the woods are too broad, and would put more guns in places that need less guns.
Also, in my neck of the woods, Fire/Rescue and EMS are in a constant battle with the local PDs (The Sheriff gets along fine, possibly because EMS is run by the county here?)
I checked with the person who told me about the Posse Comitatus clause, and he retold me that the current CAP policy is derived from that in order to prevent CAP being used as a police force, as we cannot do that under AF Assigned status.
And the restriction on cadets comes not from current CAP regulation, but outside lawyers who will sue. NHQ would have to adopt new policies to stop the lawyers.
In addition, I know of quite a few geardo cadets, who while very good at ES, I would never let within 100 meters of a loaded weapon. I would be forced to kick all cadets off my GT (In my neck of the woods, schools are very cooperative with CAP ES).
While I can understand why some would want this in other parts of the country, the urban areas would make this impossible.
And I still stand that if a LEO wants to carry their weapon while on a SAR mission, they can wear their police uniform. Keep it simple SARtypes.
I don't know where your "neck of the woods" is, but they would have to be far more irresponsible, orcriminally inclined, then rest of the U.S. That currently benefit from liberalized CCW laws ( Here is a good resource to get a picture of the trend: http://www.concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf )
Everywhere that has gone to "Shall Issue" Statutes have seen dramatic decreases in violent crime. Florida, the trend setter, saw their initial homicide rate fall by about half when civilians could legally carry again.
This is not an argument for arming CAP, just a reaction to your position that CCW's will make things worse.
Major Lord
Here is a link to a story citing statistics about violence and threats of violence against EMTs and firefighters, which is apparently surprisingly high. While I certainly don't think a similar survey of CAP members would find anything like those numbers, it does make you think a bit.
http://www.firefighternation.com/profiles/blogs/under-attack-the-fire-service
Quote from: Major Lord on April 20, 2010, 10:17:12 PMEverywhere that has gone to "Shall Issue" Statutes have seen dramatic decreases in violent crime. Florida, the trend setter, saw their initial homicide rate fall by about half when civilians could legally carry again.
I would like to see some numbers that showed when and where a CCW actually prevented a homicide. Without that, its just anecdotal.
Violent crime is down in general in most areas of the US.
Quote from: tsrup on April 20, 2010, 10:03:57 PMAs for the safety of cadets from rampaging seniors having a mental breakdown, I'm sure every person who has ever murdered someone cared about what regulations prohibited them from carrying a gun.
I'm more worried about SM Wannabe who can't resist the urge to show off in front of the cadets.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2010, 10:42:20 PM
Quote from: tsrup on April 20, 2010, 10:03:57 PMAs for the safety of cadets from rampaging seniors having a mental breakdown, I'm sure every person who has ever murdered someone cared about what regulations prohibited them from carrying a gun.
I'm more worried about SM Wannabe who can't resist the urge to show off in front of the cadets.
Yeah, plus 10 there...
Quote from: Eclipse on April 20, 2010, 10:36:40 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 20, 2010, 10:17:12 PMEverywhere that has gone to "Shall Issue" Statutes have seen dramatic decreases in violent crime. Florida, the trend setter, saw their initial homicide rate fall by about half when civilians could legally carry again.
I would like to see some numbers that showed when and where a CCW actually prevented a homicide. Without that, its just anecdotal.
Violent crime in is down in general in most areas of the US.
Anecdotal? The link between cigarettes smoking and lung cancer is anecdotal. The fact that we don't see the mechanism does not negate the clear correlation.
Yes, violent crime is down in general, falling in nearly straight line correlation with the 38 States that have legalized CCW. There are thousands of reports every year of citizens using firearms to successfully defend themselves against unlawful deadly force ( I can find the published data for you if you are interested) Many of these events actually did result in a homicide, with the bad guy being the one down and dead. Citizens are involved in far more justifiable shootings then Police across the Country. 38 States now have CCW shall-issue or no permit required statutes, whose authority covers the vast majority of the land mass of the continental United States. No one really knows how many bad guys may have chosen to demure from their evil ways when confronted by an armed citizen. Not all such events are reported.
On the other hand, crimes of all types are up or level and high in areas prohibiting or severely restricting firearms. Arizona has had a massive increase in crimes along the border, and has now legalized concealed carry for anyone who can legally posses a handgun. It should be a good experiment to validate the efficacy of CCW's in preventing crime. At the very least, there is very little recidivism among those felons who have suffered fatal gunshot wounds....
Again, I am certainly not arguing that CAP should be armed.
Major Lord
In 1995 the Justice Department estimated that there were 1.5 million Defensive Gun Uses annually.
Just a thought about CCWs. Using possession of a CCW as a criteria for allowing CAP members to be armed is no standard at all. The criteria for issuing a CCW varies so widely from state to state as to be meaningless. CA has very stringent criteria for issuing CCWs while AL will issue a CCW if you can fog a mirror for example.
I also find it ironic that some of the strongest proponents of being armed are the same people that want us to be more Air Force. When was the last time you saw military personnel in uniform engaged in official duties carrying a privately owned weapon? What about everytime you go on a base? They usually take a very dim view of private weapons on bases and it doesn't matter what you think your "rights" are. You better declare it and then store it in their armory while on base.
Don't fix something that isn't broken.
Quote from: PA Guy on April 21, 2010, 12:08:46 AM
When was the last time you saw military personnel in uniform engaged in official duties carrying a privately owned weapon? What about everytime you go on a base? They usually take a very dim view of private weapons on bases and it doesn't matter what you think your "rights" are. You better declare it and then store it in their armory while on base.
Don't fix something that isn't broken.
Ignoring the debate about our policies for a moment, the military's policy is most definitely broken. Just ask the personnel at Ft. Hood.
NOT ignoring our policies for a moment, why does CAP need to worry about force protection at all?
CAP members can choose the missions they want to attend and are not "forced" to the border.
We in the wildland fire business call that the "Properly refusing risk." method. A discussion ensues about proper method or no method at all and whether or not the individual(s) stay to play or go "back to camp."
Right now wildland firefighters are being subjected to the very thing you mentioned here......AND they are not armed while plinkin Pulaski axes, dragging hose, pump and roll tactics with engines.....etc etc etc
Why is CAP so special needing weapons and my compadres do not.......Oh wait a minute...THEY call LEO's from USFS, BLM, NPS, etc
CAP.........take a hint!!
Quote from: heliodoc on April 21, 2010, 01:10:51 AM
NOT ignoring our policies for a moment, why does CAP need to worry about force protection at all?
CAP members can choose the missions they want to attend and are not "forced" to the border.
We in the wildland fire business call that the "Properly refusing risk." method. A discussion ensues about proper method or no method at all and whether or not the individual(s) stay to play or go "back to camp."
Right now wildland firefighters are being subjected to the very thing you mentioned here......AND they are not armed while plinkin Pulaski axes, dragging hose, pump and roll tactics with engines.....etc etc etc
Why is CAP so special needing weapons and my compadres do not.......Oh wait a minute...THEY call LEO's from USFS, BLM, NPS, etc
CAP.........take a hint!!
So we're supposed to have a cop with us every time we go out for an FTX? Yeah that's going to go over real well.
Quote from: Major Lord on April 20, 2010, 11:08:55 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 20, 2010, 10:36:40 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 20, 2010, 10:17:12 PMEverywhere that has gone to "Shall Issue" Statutes have seen dramatic decreases in violent crime. Florida, the trend setter, saw their initial homicide rate fall by about half when civilians could legally carry again.
I would like to see some numbers that showed when and where a CCW actually prevented a homicide. Without that, its just anecdotal.
Violent crime in is down in general in most areas of the US.
Anecdotal? The link between cigarettes smoking and lung cancer is anecdotal. The fact that we don't see the mechanism does not negate the clear correlation.
Yes, violent crime is down in general, falling in nearly straight line correlation with the 38 States that have legalized CCW. There are thousands of reports every year of citizens using firearms to successfully defend themselves against unlawful deadly force ( I can find the published data for you if you are interested) Many of these events actually did result in a homicide, with the bad guy being the one down and dead. Citizens are involved in far more justifiable shootings then Police across the Country. 38 States now have CCW shall-issue or no permit required statutes, whose authority covers the vast majority of the land mass of the continental United States. No one really knows how many bad guys may have chosen to demure from their evil ways when confronted by an armed citizen. Not all such events are reported.
On the other hand, crimes of all types are up or level and high in areas prohibiting or severely restricting firearms. Arizona has had a massive increase in crimes along the border, and has now legalized concealed carry for anyone who can legally posses a handgun. It should be a good experiment to validate the efficacy of CCW's in preventing crime. At the very least, there is very little recidivism among those felons who have suffered fatal gunshot wounds....
Again, I am certainly not arguing that CAP should be armed.
Major Lord
Oh my lord!
Call me a skeptic. I'd like to see the studies that show the CCW have indeed reduced crime. I'm guessing it is more a matter of demographics or other factors than people packing. But I can be convinced.
And that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is merely anecdotal? Sounds like tobacco executives in the 1960s and 70s.
Quote from: PA Guy on April 21, 2010, 12:08:46 AM
Just a thought about CCWs. Using possession of a CCW as a criteria for allowing CAP members to be armed is no standard at all. The criteria for issuing a CCW varies so widely from state to state as to be meaningless. CA has very stringent criteria for issuing CCWs while AL will issue a CCW if you can fog a mirror for example.
The CCW
standards for a CCW permit holder in California are not that stringent. It's the willingness of sheriff's to issue CCW permits that makes them relatively rare. It often boils down to personal opinion on the part of the sheriff or police chief since CA is a "may issue" state.
Quote from: PA Guy on April 21, 2010, 12:08:46 AM
I also find it ironic that some of the strongest proponents of being armed are the same people that want us to be more Air Force.
Got any facts to back up that opinion? Most opinions I've seen here are suggesting CAP essentially stay out of it, either allowing mere compliance with state and local laws, or keeping things the way they are now. I don't recall anyone suggesting we create a force of heavily armed 12 year old cadets or turn CAP into aviating special forces.
A few things I have learned while reading this thread:
- Many of us don't trust our fellow CAP members. They simply cannot be trusted near firearms. Instead we let them pilot aircraft and work with cadets. :o
- People participating in CAP activities have a force field that protects them from bad people. It's magic! That's very fortunate since we insist on dressing like SWAT team members and orange shirts might deprive us of our manhood. (See thread on CAWG orange shirts.)
- Bad things always happen to SOMEONE ELSE TM and informed people interested in living are maniacal wannabe's and/or gun nuts.
For those who have not read the entire thread: I am NOT advocating that CAP members be armed because of CAP membership. Our role in CAP does not expose us in general, to any greater risk than your average hiker or person walking down the street. However, hikers and other average folks do sometimes wind up dead at the hands of others. Refusing to recognize that fact ensures you remain at the mercy of any predator you may encounter. The sad truth is many of those folks have no mercy.
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 01:18:13 AM
Call me a skeptic. I'd like to see the studies that show the CCW have indeed reduced crime.
Here's one:
http://www.kc3.com/pdf/lott.pdf
I'm sure there are others insisting the reverse is true. As with many things, buyer beware.
Mr Sinn
"Yeah that will go over real well." Offered what the real world does and you shoot it down.....AWWW I am walking away from the keyboard with a load of tears. I, I , I want to quit CAP now that my ideas was shot down....BS
Do not know your location or situation
BUT YOU DO have a choice of where to hold an FTX and it can be at some controlled locations
Take a hint from the operators who do this on a regular basis....MAY I STRONGLY suggest you visit your local SO / LE types and SEE if they would not mind doing a patrol around your FTX site
Some of my ideas aren't really that bad..as the professionals do it every day
CAP..........once again playing on a island all their own and not reaching to the community for some goodwill to LE just to see or request
Quote from: heliodoc on April 21, 2010, 01:25:38 AM
Mr Sinn
"Yeah that will go over real well." Offered what the real world does and you shoot it down.....AWWW I am walking away from the keyboard with a load of tears. I, I , I want to quit CAP now that my ideas was shot down....BS
Do not know your location or situation
BUT YOU DO have a choice of where to hold an FTX and it can be at some controlled locations
Take a hint from the operators who do this on a regular basis....MAY I STRONGLY suggest you visit your local SO / LE types and SEE if they would not mind doing a patrol around your FTX site
Some of my ideas aren't really that bad..as the professionals do it every day
CAP..........once again playing on a island all their own and not reaching to the community for some goodwill to LE just to see or request
Many cops are already busy with other things. Even if a 24 hour preview by cops is possible prior to a SAREX, good luck on getting that to work for a real search that takes you into unexpected places. By all means, try it if you want.
Merely a suggestion, folks, merely a suggestion
Sorry I can not all be up to CAP speed of trying to arm ourselves....Good luck with that!
Quote from: heliodoc on April 21, 2010, 01:25:38 AM
Mr Sinn
"Yeah that will go over real well." Offered what the real world does and you shoot it down.....AWWW I am walking away from the keyboard with a load of tears. I, I , I want to quit CAP now that my ideas was shot down....BS
Do not know your location or situation
BUT YOU DO have a choice of where to hold an FTX and it can be at some controlled locations
Take a hint from the operators who do this on a regular basis....MAY I STRONGLY suggest you visit your local SO / LE types and SEE if they would not mind doing a patrol around your FTX site
Some of my ideas aren't really that bad..as the professionals do it every day
CAP..........once again playing on a island all their own and not reaching to the community for some goodwill to LE just to see or request
My county has precisely one officer on duty over night. Average response time is upwards of 20 minutes. We have methheads running rampant. There is no guaranteed safe place. Even my own backyard is a potential danger area because of how far from the road we are and we have some woods surrounded by corn fields. Know what this is (http://images.irondealer.com/dealers/815/32/52636/machines/1404758-634025411016673252.jpg)? I have these parked in my yard during the spring. They are visible from a major hiway. I don't go farther than 50 feet from my house at night during March and April because methheads love to steal NH3 and I always make sure the 12 Ga. is loaded and accessible just in case. A couple of months ago we had a shootout at the other end of the county. It was like the 20s all over again because the cops where out gunned full auto vs pump shotguns.
Quote from: Short Field on April 20, 2010, 07:22:58 PM
Quote from: Marshalus on April 20, 2010, 06:50:47 PM
To play devils advocate for a second, the Boy Scouts don't have defined missions that put them in harms way.
What is CAP's defined mission that puts us in harms way? You might make a case for CD missions, but they are air missions and operate from established airports.
I can see a case for the ground search teams out in the bush...a gun can be used to shoot at things other than other people, and there's plenty of wilderness out there with fun things like cougars, bears, and the like.
Alright Mr Sinn
You win on that account......still CAP can request or FIND a new FTX location if threatened by bad guys......or stay home
CAP or personal choice..
I'm a little surprised that twice as many people are in favor of allowing any CAP member with a permit to carry a concealed weapon than those in favor of allowing law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe people were only voting once. I would think that there would be far more people willing to let LEOs carry than regular CAP members.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 21, 2010, 02:45:15 AM
I'm a little surprised that twice as many people are in favor of allowing any CAP member with a permit to carry a concealed weapon than those in favor of allowing law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe people were only voting once. I would think that there would be far more people willing to let LEOs carry than regular CAP members.
I think the poll only allows one vote per person.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 21, 2010, 02:45:15 AM
I'm a little surprised that twice as many people are in favor of allowing any CAP member with a permit to carry a concealed weapon than those in favor of allowing law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe people were only voting once. I would think that there would be far more people willing to let LEOs carry than regular CAP members.
It says "any senior member with proper licenses". That includes LEOs.
So think of it as inclusive, not exclusive.
The choice of "The regulation is fine as is" also includes the subset of LEO's who are obligated to carry a firearm by law or policy ( with the Wing-Kings approval) so there is not really a "no guns at all" choice in the question bank.
Major Lord
Quote from: Ned on April 20, 2010, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 20, 2010, 05:54:49 PM. Unfortunately NHQ has seen fit to castrate my ability to protect myself from bad dudes.
If it is too risky for you to go unarmed into the woods, then don't go.
Precisely.
Quote from: Major Lord on April 20, 2010, 11:08:55 PM
Anecdotal? The link between cigarettes smoking and lung cancer is anecdotal.
Anecdotal?
Quotea gun can be used to shoot at things other than other people, and there's plenty of wilderness out there with fun things like cougars, bears, and the like.
It takes an awfully big handgun (think 41 and 44 magnum and up) to
reliably bring down a bear. Even very experienced handgunners often need more then one shot. How many CAPers who are just foaming at the mouth to go packin' even have experience with that kind of handgun? Shot a bear with anything smaller and you probably just made him even madder. Pepper spray works less then 50% of the time on bears and really, really ticks them off.
And if you are really concerned about this kind of thing, bears are probably not your main animal to be concerned about. Wild hogs and pigs are getting to be something of an epidemic in parts of the country. They are small (relative to bears) and therefore harder to hit. They are also very territorial and aggressive. Add in mean, big tusks and a thick layer of fat and grizzle and you probably don't want to take them on with anything smaller then a rifle in a decent caliber - no 22 centerfires.
CAP member and guns without necessary training and annual refreshers..
IT's a CAP ORM nightmare waiting to happen...if you are buying the new CAP "safety program." A recent addition that should have been established in CAP while the miliary has been doing for years and CAP has tried to emulate 'til recently to CYA itself.
If CAP is worried about its training, SAREX's, and whatnot and wants a controlled environment....then contact the Guard on their training facilities when they are not in full (which I know is sometimes impossible) training mode. I am sure some accommodations can be made. I know the Guard has been pretty open minded with CAP in the Wing I am in...
AND if CAP is afraid of the big bad animals in the woods, DO NOT GO. This coming from a Forester who has spent numerous outings marking timber, fighting fire, etc in the natural resource field. I did not carry a weapon........ but there some times I thought of it.
To many CAPers do not spend enough time in the woods to feel very comfortable and I am sure there are plenty-o-meth labs out there, but they are not in EVERY square inch of training grounds.
If CAP wants to train with weapons nationwide....it's time for the illustrious leadership to start applying for grants to PAY for that training NATIONWIDE and FORMALIZE it....Otherwise its just ANOTHER CAP paper tiger that is roosting and weathering away, doing nothing useful for the PAYING membership!!
In general, CAP is still a VOLUNTEER organization. No one is forcing anyone near meth labs (they do happen) or going to the big bad woods.
CAPers....practice your ORM we have in the civilian world and military. We sometime go out to the big bad woods unarmed...
Its the chances one takes after the ORM is conducted. Oh what did we do before ORM?? Same. Went to the big bad woods unarmed most of the time
Yep, I know its a big bad world out there with meth labs and all.....CAP still has a choice go or don't go. Life is still full of chances that even CAP can not be ready for every little incident with a rifle or handgun
Quote from: davidsinn on April 21, 2010, 02:06:56 AM
Quote from: heliodoc on April 21, 2010, 01:25:38 AM
Mr Sinn
"Yeah that will go over real well." Offered what the real world does and you shoot it down.....AWWW I am walking away from the keyboard with a load of tears. I, I , I want to quit CAP now that my ideas was shot down....BS
Do not know your location or situation
BUT YOU DO have a choice of where to hold an FTX and it can be at some controlled locations
Take a hint from the operators who do this on a regular basis....MAY I STRONGLY suggest you visit your local SO / LE types and SEE if they would not mind doing a patrol around your FTX site
Some of my ideas aren't really that bad..as the professionals do it every day
CAP..........once again playing on a island all their own and not reaching to the community for some goodwill to LE just to see or request
My county has precisely one officer on duty over night. Average response time is upwards of 20 minutes. We have methheads running rampant. There is no guaranteed safe place. Even my own backyard is a potential danger area because of how far from the road we are and we have some woods surrounded by corn fields. Know what this is (http://images.irondealer.com/dealers/815/32/52636/machines/1404758-634025411016673252.jpg)? I have these parked in my yard during the spring. They are visible from a major hiway. I don't go farther than 50 feet from my house at night during March and April because methheads love to steal NH3 and I always make sure the 12 Ga. is loaded and accessible just in case. A couple of months ago we had a shootout at the other end of the county. It was like the 20s all over again because the cops where out gunned full auto vs pump shotguns.
Living in Sinn:
Sounds like you live on the set of "Deliverance." :) Rather than buying a gun or equipping your CAP squadron members with 9 mms, I'd move to a safer locale. Or get your sheriff off his arse and tell him to go after these dirtbags.
On a more serious note, here in SoDak, our local meth manufacturing has been nearly eliminated. Not by the diligent efforts of the DEA and local LEOs or the Dare Program, but because of cut-rate Mexican meth. The Mexicans are apparently the Wal-Mart of the meth trade and have driven the mom and pop meth makers out of business because of price point. They can make the stuff so much cheaper than the local methheads with their mega-labs. The stuff comes up from Mexico to Salt Lake, Denver and then on to SD. They'll then use locals to distribute.
I'm not saying there still aren't meth houses here in the Rushmore State. But they are now much less prevelant.
My source on this you ask? Our local DEA agents in Sioux Falls, who arrest folks I represent on federal court appointments from time to time.
Quote from: RRLE on April 21, 2010, 12:30:14 PM
Quotea gun can be used to shoot at things other than other people, and there's plenty of wilderness out there with fun things like cougars, bears, and the like.
It takes an awfully big handgun (think 41 and 44 magnum and up) to reliably bring down a bear. Even very experienced handgunners often need more then one shot. How many CAPers who are just foaming at the mouth to go packin' even have experience with that kind of handgun? Shot a bear with anything smaller and you probably just made him even madder. Pepper spray works less then 50% of the time on bears and really, really ticks them off.
And if you are really concerned about this kind of thing, bears are probably not your main animal to be concerned about. Wild hogs and pigs are getting to be something of an epidemic in parts of the country. They are small (relative to bears) and therefore harder to hit. They are also very territorial and aggressive. Add in mean, big tusks and a thick layer of fat and grizzle and you probably don't want to take them on with anything smaller then a rifle in a decent caliber - no 22 centerfires.
Wow. I've heard the stories about the wild boars in the South. They're also a huge environmental problem as well as a safety problem. But aren't they pretty good eatin'? ;)
We humans are not always the top of the food chain. Even here in SD in the Black Hills, we have mountain lions. Once in a very great while they'll attack a person. Actually, rattle snakes are a far bigger problem though.
Other parts of the country, as you note, have bears and these crazy wild boars. Still others have sharks off their coastal waters. Our friends in India contend with tigers; our buddies in Africa deal with lions, our colleagues in the Great White North deal with polar bears.
I have seen a few people in the Black Hills carry a sidearm. But they are far and few between.
My own guess is that armed CAP members would be more likely to shoot each other in a Barnie Fife moment or in an accident than any nasty critters or methheads intent on doing us harm. I don't dismiss that there are some areas of the country that may be dangerous because of illegal immigration, drug running, drug manufacturing, or even wild animals. But as another poster has aptly noted, applying ORM and some common sense, I think the current policy of no guns is best. But these considerations should go into the analysis of whether the mission happens and what prophylactic measures we need to take to minimize risk. I for one would not like to be eaten by a wild boar, unlikely as that is.
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 01:08:04 PM
Living in Sinn:
Sounds like you live on the set of "Deliverance." :) Rather than buying a gun or equipping your CAP squadron members with 9 mms, I'd move to a safer locale. Or get your sheriff off his arse and tell him to go after these dirtbags.
Actually deliverance isn't too far from the truth. During WW2 we had whole towns move up here from Kentucky to work in the ordnance plant. We also have scum moving out from Chicago. Our crime rate doubles in the summer with people from IL visiting all the lakes around here.
Moving is not an option. Increased police is not an option because we are the poorest county in the state. The local economy is much worse here than in most areas so that's not helping.
Indiana has a stand your ground law and CCW vs Illinois' "run away" or "retreat" law, lack of CCW and an outright handgun ban in Chicago . Guess who's crime rate is lower?
Mr Sinn
The story is more clear now....
Many rural communities are suffering the same as your community, your issue is not unique
A problem CAP will surely NOT solve by arming cadets and senior members without training
Once again, CAP will not solve this problem with idea CAP is "gonna" rescue a community who is lacking TRUE law enforcement capability.
I am sure many feel your pain, but arming CAP Barney Fife's are not even going to come close in community protection... NO WAY!
Quote from: heliodoc on April 21, 2010, 01:53:13 PM
Mr Sinn
The story is more clear now....
Many rural communities are suffering the same as your community, your issue is not unique
A problem CAP will surely NOT solve by arming cadets and senior members without training
Once again, CAP will not solve this problem with idea CAP is "gonna" rescue a community who is lacking TRUE law enforcement capability.
I am sure many feel your pain, but arming CAP Barney Fife's are not even going to come close in community protection... NO WAY!
Not one person here is suggesting CAP arming it's people. All we want is for the regs to allow us to exercise a legal right that we already have. No one is saying we should become LEOs. I don't think CAP can solve the problem around here. I just want the ability to use my right as a citizen to properly defend myself from threats when in uniform.
Quote from: Short Field on April 21, 2010, 05:50:17 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 20, 2010, 11:08:55 PM
Anecdotal? The link between cigarettes smoking and lung cancer is anecdotal.
Anecdotal?
Well, we are drifting pretty far from the thread, but there is no direct evidence showing cigarettes cause lung cancer. The
statistical evidence is of course overwhelming, and the chances of someone developing small cell lung cancer without being a smoker are astronomical. I am in no way arguing that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, but I am stating that the proof is solely anecdotal and statistical. This applies to the firearms discussion and how CCW laws correlate to a reduction in crime. Just because we don't fully understand the mechanism does not mean that the correlation is accidental. You would not argue that we should smoke because there is no medical direct evidence that it causes cancer would you? That would be silly. The corollary in discussion about firearms laws is that permitting CCW leads to a dramatic improvement in the reduction of crime rates.
Again, guns in the hands of the CAP general membership is an awful idea. I don't trust too many of them with a drivers' license, let alone a firearm. As it stands, we have a choice, exercise our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, or participate in CAP-Just not both simultaneously. In uniform and on-duty, we voluntarily waive a lot of options to exercise our rights and obligations ( No protesting in uniform, criminally refusing to join the posse comitatus, etc)
Major Lord
Mr Sinn
I am sure in the current CAP ORM / legal / CYA
CAPR900-3 is NOT going to change and probably not "gonna" fly for CAP members "carryin" while in uniform
Realists can almost bet on that unless somewhere in the deep fortress of Maxwell there are some changes being made we don't know about...
But again, CAP members 'carryin" while in uniform.....reaaaalllllly doubtful ....but g'ahead!!
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 01:08:04 PMMy source on this you ask? Our local DEA agents in Sioux Falls, who arrest folks I represent on federal court appointments from time to time.
Who were all undoubtedly innocent of the charges ;)
Quote from: Fubar on April 21, 2010, 02:09:04 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 01:08:04 PMMy source on this you ask? Our local DEA agents in Sioux Falls, who arrest folks I represent on federal court appointments from time to time.
Who were all undoubtedly innocent of the charges ;)
Now thats unfair! Remember, its 99% of all lawyers that give the other 1% a bad name!
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on April 21, 2010, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: Fubar on April 21, 2010, 02:09:04 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 01:08:04 PMMy source on this you ask? Our local DEA agents in Sioux Falls, who arrest folks I represent on federal court appointments from time to time.
Who were all undoubtedly innocent of the charges ;)
Now thats unfair! Remember, its 99% of all lawyers that give the other 1% a bad name!
Major Lord
Look, illegal immigration has its good parts. It has eliminated the meth trade in SD!
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 21, 2010, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 21, 2010, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: Fubar on April 21, 2010, 02:09:04 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 01:08:04 PMMy source on this you ask? Our local DEA agents in Sioux Falls, who arrest folks I represent on federal court appointments from time to time.
Who were all undoubtedly innocent of the charges ;)
Now thats unfair! Remember, its 99% of all lawyers that give the other 1% a bad name!
Major Lord
Look, illegal immigration has its good parts. It has eliminated the meth trade in SD!
He's not saying it has eliminated the trade. He's saying it has eliminated local production and South Dakota now imports foreign made meth.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 21, 2010, 01:18:45 AM
Quote from: PA Guy on April 21, 2010, 12:08:46 AM
Just a thought about CCWs. Using possession of a CCW as a criteria for allowing CAP members to be armed is no standard at all. The criteria for issuing a CCW varies so widely from state to state as to be meaningless. CA has very stringent criteria for issuing CCWs while AL will issue a CCW if you can fog a mirror for example.
The CCW standards for a CCW permit holder in California are not that stringent. It's the willingness of sheriff's to issue CCW permits that makes them relatively rare. It often boils down to personal opinion on the part of the sheriff or police chief since CA is a "may issue" state.
Quote from: PA Guy on April 21, 2010, 12:08:46 AM
I also find it ironic that some of the strongest proponents of being armed are the same people that want us to be more Air Force.
Got any facts to back up that opinion? Most opinions I've seen here are suggesting CAP essentially stay out of it, either allowing mere compliance with state and local laws, or keeping things the way they are now. I don't recall anyone suggesting we create a force of heavily armed 12 year old cadets or turn CAP into aviating special forces.
Yes, CA is a "may issue" state and depending on the jurisdiction not many CCWs are approved. However, CA requires a full criminal background check, fingerprints and demonstrated proficiency in handling/firing the weapon to be authorized. AL on the other hand does not require fingerprinting, does only a cursory NCIC check and does not require any demonstrated proficiency.
As for my opinion, well that is what it is, my opinion. Some of those who frequently advocate for making us more AF like don't want anything to do with AF regs./policy in regards to on duty personnel being armed with personal weapons while on the job. Not sure where the cadet thing came from.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 21, 2010, 01:45:11 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 01:08:04 PM
Living in Sinn:
Sounds like you live on the set of "Deliverance." :) Rather than buying a gun or equipping your CAP squadron members with 9 mms, I'd move to a safer locale. Or get your sheriff off his arse and tell him to go after these dirtbags.
Actually deliverance isn't too far from the truth. During WW2 we had whole towns move up here from Kentucky to work in the ordnance plant. We also have scum moving out from Chicago. Our crime rate doubles in the summer with people from IL visiting all the lakes around here.
Moving is not an option. Increased police is not an option because we are the poorest county in the state. The local economy is much worse here than in most areas so that's not helping.
Indiana has a stand your ground law and CCW vs Illinois' "run away" or "retreat" law, lack of CCW and an outright handgun ban in Chicago . Guess who's crime rate is lower?
Sinnful:
I'm sorry to hear about the crime in your area and that moving is not an option and law enforcement has no resources. You're in a tough spot. And if this is your home from way back, it's tough to leave. Meth is a scourge on our society.
You're absolutely right about the difference in self-defense laws from state to state. I think in Texas you can basically shoot anyone who looks crosswise at you. ;D I'm kidding, of course. Other states, like you note, are a retreat state. Throw in concealed carry law variations and I don't see how CAP could allow its members to be armed. Here in SD, where I have had a concealed carry permit (it has since expired), all I had to do was go to my sheriff's office with my state form and they ran the criminal background check on me. The sheriff signed the form, I paid my fee, and sent it to Pierre. Now, CC permit applications are a sealed record in SD, so you don't know who has applied for one.
Meanwhile, in Kansas, where I am also licensed to practice law, applicants have to take some sort of rather extensive pistol safety course and get tested on the range.
Sinn, I wish you didn't have to worry about the criminals around you. Fortunately, where I live in SE SD, most of us have no such concerns. When I lived in the 3d Ward in Houston, however, like you, I was surrounded by crime and was a victim of burglaries and attempted burglaries. It is a terrible feeling.
Im going with eliminated. Totally eliminated. 100%
Quote from: Fubar on April 21, 2010, 02:09:04 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 01:08:04 PMMy source on this you ask? Our local DEA agents in Sioux Falls, who arrest folks I represent on federal court appointments from time to time.
Who were all undoubtedly innocent of the charges ;)
Fubar:
Your comment is taken in the spirit it was intended. But guilty or innocent, everyone has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Everyone in the process--prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, police, etc.--has to do their job to the best of their ability to make sure justice is done.
Frankly, a lot of what I do is negotiate pleas. In the federal criminal system, the conviction rate is 95-97%. So when the feds bring a federal case against you, you're up against it. And most criminal cases never go to trial and are pled out. If it were otherwise, the criminal justice system would collapse from the sheer numbers.
Ive never arrested an innocent person! >:D
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 21, 2010, 04:04:30 PM
Ive never arrested an innocent person! >:D
And that's not his and he didn't know where it came from?
QuoteHe's saying it has eliminated local production and South Dakota now imports foreign made meth.
More manufacturing jobs lost to South of the Border. :o
Quote from: davidsinn on April 21, 2010, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 21, 2010, 04:04:30 PM
Ive never arrested an innocent person! >:D
And that's not his and he didn't know where it came from?
And he fell on it.
These are not my pants, I am just wearing them for a friend......I forget his name....
The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent. If we presumed innocence, no one would be arrested, we would all just shake hands and say, oops, sorry, I shot my wife by accident. My bad!
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on April 21, 2010, 04:59:14 PM
The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.
Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical. The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers. That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent.
Quote from: Short Field on April 21, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 21, 2010, 04:59:14 PM
The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.
Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical. The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers. That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent.
Pre-indictment I'm assuming? Yes we hold them but presumption of innocence still holds because if the person is not indicted within 48? hours they are released.
Quote from: Major Lord on April 21, 2010, 03:14:57 AM
The choice of "The regulation is fine as is" also includes the subset of LEO's who are obligated to carry a firearm by law or policy ( with the Wing-Kings approval) so there is not really a "no guns at all" choice in the question bank.
Major Lord
Wing king can't approve LEOs carrying weapons just because it is their Dept. policy. Can only approve if they are required to carry by law. Big difference.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 21, 2010, 07:58:37 PM
Quote from: Short Field on April 21, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 21, 2010, 04:59:14 PM
The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.
Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical. The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers. That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent.
Pre-indictment I'm assuming? Yes we hold them but presumption of innocence still holds because if the person is not indicted within 48? hours they are released.
And thank goodness for the Constitution and Bill of Rights that help insure everyone's rights, no matter who they are. It might be you accused some day and you're going to want the full monty of rights.
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 21, 2010, 07:58:37 PM
Quote from: Short Field on April 21, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 21, 2010, 04:59:14 PM
The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.
Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical. The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers. That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent.
Pre-indictment I'm assuming? Yes we hold them but presumption of innocence still holds because if the person is not indicted within 48? hours they are released.
And thank goodness for the Constitution and Bill of Rights that help insure everyone's rights, no matter who they are. It might be you accused some day and you're going to want the full monty of rights.
I like the theory: "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished," even though that's not quite true in practice.
Quote from: tdepp on April 21, 2010, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 21, 2010, 07:58:37 PM
Quote from: Short Field on April 21, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 21, 2010, 04:59:14 PM
The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.
Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical. The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers. That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent.
Pre-indictment I'm assuming? Yes we hold them but presumption of innocence still holds because if the person is not indicted within 48? hours they are released.
And thank goodness for the Constitution and Bill of Rights that help insure everyone's rights, no matter who they are. It might be you accused some day and you're going to want the full monty of rights.
Already been there. OIS reviews by the DA's office and 3 separate law suits all by jury. And it aint funny when they are asking for damages to be paid by the officer. Totalling about $20,000,000.00. Sorry Parolee......you should-na shot at me.
The Constitution does not have the words "presumption of innocence" in it. Its inferred from Amendments. There are many presumptions in law, including the doctrine "stare decisis et quieta non movere" which judges routinely ignore and create new law based on their "feelings" and political views. On the presumption of innocence in general:
"First, the presumption is not a true presumption at all. A "presumption" is typically a rebuttable or irrebuttable inference dependent upon evidence of an initial fact (e.g., presumption of non-negligent behavior if a person took reasonable care). Instead, "presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (in some criminal justice systems) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.[1] An objective observer in the position of the juror would reasonably conclude that the defendant probably committed the crime.[2] The observable facts clearly support such an inference - the defendant has been charged with a crime, is present in court and is represented by an attorney, and all the participants in a criminal trial are also present and ready to proceed"
I don't thank "goodness" for the Constitution and the protections it affords me, I thank the men who tore freedom from the grasp of tyrants, often at the cost of their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. (You know who you are)
Major Lord
Will someone just shoot this thread in the head? The horse is dead! I'm going to bed. Just end this tale of woe and dread.
LOL. Bed, now? Even in IL it's not bedtime.
No one was using a gun forcing you to click the thread .. ;-)
On a Sarex we had a local Sherrif Deputy visit our activity and observe a UDF scenario where there was an unattended vehicle and what was described as illegal drug activity. He told us that when LEOs encounter such things there's the matter of what to do. He noted that we should not have approached the vehicle. He asked why none of us hadn't observed from a distance with binoculars. When we go to remote areas on UDF or SAR we usually encounter private property. I'm inclined to call Law Enforcement for advice and/or assistance at such a time. We're told that in many wooded areas particularly near rivers there are places where illegal substances grow better. In such places we may encounter booby trap devices. The Deputy is likely to warn us of the hazard and there is a no go decision. Deputies have gone in with us on private property and we leave the hazard to them. If you encounter a dog or wild animal as a group the animal is more likely to avoid you. I lived in Washington State where some of the bears look like a car with furr. And then of course there are mountain lions. CAP patrols are usually going to have to seek them out. If CAP folks particularly Cadets are killed by drug bandits or terrorists my guess is that the state governor is going to bring out the posse in terms of maximum Law Enforcement maybe even the NG. I recommend hazard avoidance. If CAP Members who are LEO are present they should have access to the hardware they choose and why not it's what they do.
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 12:42:52 AM
On a Sarex we had a local Sherrif Deputy visit our activity and observe a UDF scenario where there was an unattended vehicle and what was described as illegal drug activity. He told us that when LEOs encounter such things there's the matter of what to do. He noted that we should not have approached the vehicle. He asked why none of us hadn't observed from a distance with binoculars. When we go to remote areas on UDF or SAR we usually encounter private property. I'm inclined to call Law Enforcement for advice and/or assistance at such a time. We're told that in many wooded areas particularly near rivers there are places where illegal substances grow better. In such places we may encounter booby trap devices. The Deputy is likely to warn us of the hazard and there is a no go decision. Deputies have gone in with us on private property and we leave the hazard to them. If you encounter a dog or wild animal as a group the animal is more likely to avoid you. I lived in Washington State where some of the bears look like a car with furr. And then of course there are mountain lions. CAP patrols are usually going to have to seek them out. If CAP folks particularly Cadets are killed by drug bandits or terrorists my guess is that the state governor is going to bring out the posse in terms of maximum Law Enforcement maybe even the NG. I recommend hazard avoidance. If CAP Members who are LEO are present they should have access to the hardware they choose and why not it's what they do.
Billfold:
I was with you until the last sentence. Everything your wrote spoke of ORM and prudence and good sense. Then you left me. ;) CAP is NOT a law enforcement agency, even if some of our members are in LE. For legal, public policy, and public relations reasons, we can't blur that line, IMHO.
Quote from: tdepp on April 23, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 12:42:52 AM
On a Sarex we had a local Sherrif Deputy visit our activity and observe a UDF scenario where there was an unattended vehicle and what was described as illegal drug activity. He told us that when LEOs encounter such things there's the matter of what to do. He noted that we should not have approached the vehicle. He asked why none of us hadn't observed from a distance with binoculars. When we go to remote areas on UDF or SAR we usually encounter private property. I'm inclined to call Law Enforcement for advice and/or assistance at such a time. We're told that in many wooded areas particularly near rivers there are places where illegal substances grow better. In such places we may encounter booby trap devices. The Deputy is likely to warn us of the hazard and there is a no go decision. Deputies have gone in with us on private property and we leave the hazard to them. If you encounter a dog or wild animal as a group the animal is more likely to avoid you. I lived in Washington State where some of the bears look like a car with furr. And then of course there are mountain lions. CAP patrols are usually going to have to seek them out. If CAP folks particularly Cadets are killed by drug bandits or terrorists my guess is that the state governor is going to bring out the posse in terms of maximum Law Enforcement maybe even the NG. I recommend hazard avoidance. If CAP Members who are LEO are present they should have access to the hardware they choose and why not it's what they do.
Billfold:
I was with you until the last sentence. Everything your wrote spoke of ORM and prudence and good sense. Then you left me. ;) CAP is NOT a law enforcement agency, even if some of our members are in LE. For legal, public policy, and public relations reasons, we can't blur that line, IMHO.
None of use are talking of turning us into LEOs. We just want to be able to protect ourselves.
Here is a good reason to exclude CAP members from carrying Flareguns as an alternative to actual firearms:
http://yachtpals.com/node/912
And its funny.
Major Lord
Okay...if were going to allow it.....how would we go about doing it?
I mean we don't just give the keys to a CAP van to just anyone....there is a process that we use and double check...to make sure you are a safe driver.....are just going to take the member's word for it that he can handle the weapon safely?
CCW permits in some states require training...but not all. Do we recognise reciprocity? Does a CCW from FL allow a CAP member to carry in ARWG...or must it be an AR CCW?
Who signs the CAP CCW card? Unit commander, wing, region?
^One difference. There's a Second Amendment Right to bear arms (or is it bare arms when you roll your BDU sleeves up :)) There's no Constitutional right to bear vans. And if a bear were in a CAP van, I'd be worried, though I do see bears riding motorcycles in the circus so some can apparently drive. ::)
On a more serious note, under an ORM analysis, why would we be sending people into areas that are known to be crawling with armed methheads or hungry mountain lions? And as a legal officer, if there is a shooting by a CAP, IMHO we are talking about a scheist sturm of litigation and potential liability (and bad press). I don't see the additional safety it may provide outweighing the risks to members, the public, and our public perception.
I do remember in the History area of CAPTalk that someone posted a CAP report of an accidental shooting between members when we did allow guns in certain situations. It is still embarrassing to read 60 years later.
I go back to our missions: disaster services, cadet training, aerospace education, and beotching about Vanguard and uniform regulations. How does packing heat enhance them?
We show up to a Wing Conference, dump pistols out on the table and ask no questions.
Looks like some of us have already taken matters into our own hands.
http://captalk.net/index.php?action=mgallery;sa=item;id=157
Quote from: tdepp on April 23, 2010, 08:14:30 PMI go back to our missions: disaster services, cadet training, aerospace education, and beotching about Vanguard and uniform regulations. How does packing heat enhance them?
It would look cool on the Ground Team uniform to be packing a Desert Eagle under your left arm. >:D
Oh man, I sure would hate to inconvenience CAP by having to shoot someone in defense of my life or those of my team members! Those poor lawyers would have to spend hours filling out forms!
Major Lord
Machetes are still okay though, right?
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 23, 2010, 08:14:30 PM
Looks like some of us have already taken matters into our own hands.
You can only hope she is doing that as a joke... And it is a "she" because no self respecting male member would be wearing hair that long in BDUs? Oops - my bad, when I blew it up, he is wearing ear protectors.
Quote from: Major Lord on April 23, 2010, 08:46:37 PM
Oh man, I sure would hate to inconvenience CAP by having to shoot someone in defense of my life or those of my team members!
Machetes are still okay though, right?
Score Card for CAP members carrying guns: Bad Guys - 0, Cadets - 1.
Quote from: Short Field on April 23, 2010, 08:56:15 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 23, 2010, 08:14:30 PM
Looks like some of us have already taken matters into our own hands.
You can only hope she is doing that as a joke... And it is a "she" because no self respecting male member would be wearing hair that long in BDUs?
What long hair do you see? I don't see any hair other than eyebrows and arm hair.
Knowing as I do the guy in the pic, I'm sure that it was totally posed.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 23, 2010, 07:36:22 PM
CCW permits in some states require training...but not all. Do we recognise reciprocity? Does a CCW from FL allow a CAP member to carry in ARWG...or must it be an AR CCW?
Arkansas and Florida are reciprocal states with regard to CCW. In fact there are 32 states with reciprocity agreements with Arkansas. They all have similar requirements, most importantly training and background checks. Vermont and Arizona do not require a license but Arizona issues a permit that will allow the holder to carry in states that have reciprocity.
So in essence, a minimum of 32 states of 50
REQUIRE training and background checks and 2 others, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, have more stringent requirements and do not recognize other states licenses so the other states do not recognize theirs. That is 68% of the country.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 23, 2010, 07:36:22 PM
Okay...if were going to allow it.....how would we go about doing it?
I mean we don't just give the keys to a CAP van to just anyone....there is a process that we use and double check...to make sure you are a safe driver.....are just going to take the member's word for it that he can handle the weapon safely?
CCW permits in some states require training...but not all. Do we recognise reciprocity? Does a CCW from FL allow a CAP member to carry in ARWG...or must it be an AR CCW?
Who signs the CAP CCW card? Unit commander, wing, region?
Simple. If you are legally able to carry in the location you are at, at the current time, then you are good to go.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 23, 2010, 10:41:45 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 23, 2010, 07:36:22 PM
Okay...if were going to allow it.....how would we go about doing it?
I mean we don't just give the keys to a CAP van to just anyone....there is a process that we use and double check...to make sure you are a safe driver.....are just going to take the member's word for it that he can handle the weapon safely?
CCW permits in some states require training...but not all. Do we recognise reciprocity? Does a CCW from FL allow a CAP member to carry in ARWG...or must it be an AR CCW?
Who signs the CAP CCW card? Unit commander, wing, region?
Simple. If you are legally able to carry in the location you are at, at the current time, then you are good to go.
Fail.
There are people in my squadron who I would not want to carry a water gun let alone a loaded firearm.
Squaron commander must approve. :D
Quote from: lordmonar on April 23, 2010, 10:46:31 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 23, 2010, 10:41:45 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 23, 2010, 07:36:22 PM
Okay...if were going to allow it.....how would we go about doing it?
I mean we don't just give the keys to a CAP van to just anyone....there is a process that we use and double check...to make sure you are a safe driver.....are just going to take the member's word for it that he can handle the weapon safely?
CCW permits in some states require training...but not all. Do we recognise reciprocity? Does a CCW from FL allow a CAP member to carry in ARWG...or must it be an AR CCW?
Who signs the CAP CCW card? Unit commander, wing, region?
Simple. If you are legally able to carry in the location you are at, at the current time, then you are good to go.
Fail.
There are people in my squadron who I would not want to carry a water gun let alone a loaded firearm.
Squaron commander must approve. :D
I would think that this was too arbitrary.....
Quote from: tdepp on April 23, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 12:42:52 AM
On a Sarex we had a local Sherrif Deputy visit our activity and observe a UDF scenario where there was an unattended vehicle and what was described as illegal drug activity. He told us that when LEOs encounter such things there's the matter of what to do. He noted that we should not have approached the vehicle. He asked why none of us hadn't observed from a distance with binoculars. When we go to remote areas on UDF or SAR we usually encounter private property. I'm inclined to call Law Enforcement for advice and/or assistance at such a time. We're told that in many wooded areas particularly near rivers there are places where illegal substances grow better. In such places we may encounter booby trap devices. The Deputy is likely to warn us of the hazard and there is a no go decision. Deputies have gone in with us on private property and we leave the hazard to them. If you encounter a dog or wild animal as a group the animal is more likely to avoid you. I lived in Washington State where some of the bears look like a car with furr. And then of course there are mountain lions. CAP patrols are usually going to have to seek them out. If CAP folks particularly Cadets are killed by drug bandits or terrorists my guess is that the state governor is going to bring out the posse in terms of maximum Law Enforcement maybe even the NG. I recommend hazard avoidance. If CAP Members who are LEO are present they should have access to the hardware they choose and why not it's what they do.
Billfold:
I was with you until the last sentence. Everything your wrote spoke of ORM and prudence and good sense. Then you left me. ;) CAP is NOT a law enforcement agency, even if some of our members are in LE. For legal, public policy, and public relations reasons, we can't blur that line, IMHO.
Sir I prefer CAP the way it's been but there are places as mentioned on this forum where there are hazards that are difficult to avoid. If you live where mission activity means a likely encounter with armed 2 legged animals you've got to consider practical considerations. I think it would be great if local Police or Sherriff Deputies came along as part of a CAP Mission but can we count on that? I know a number of LEOs in CAP who when on SAR or UDF can be counted on to be unarmed. They are the ones who perhaps should be allowed to carry what they do when off duty and concealed to help the CAP image. A Police radio would be great too. The LEO CAP member who's present will likely guide the team to safety. For the worst cases like down South CAP LAW should be amended to allow equipment that is adequate for the occasion. At such a time I would be less worried about policy and public image when we've tried to follow all the rules and be safe.
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
For the worst cases like down South CAP LAW should be amended to allow equipment that is adequate for the occasion. At such a time I would be less worried about policy and public image when we've tried to follow all the rules and be safe.
I can just see us issuing M4 Carbines and M9 pistols to all the senior members. Then we can have heated discussions on why are cadets not allowed to carry a M4 Carbine.
We asked for examples where CAP ground teams were injured or kidnapped or whatever and would have been saved if they had been carrying weapons. The only case we got was where a Senior Member shot and killed a cadet by accident.
Quote from: Short Field on April 23, 2010, 11:59:20 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
For the worst cases like down South CAP LAW should be amended to allow equipment that is adequate for the occasion. At such a time I would be less worried about policy and public image when we've tried to follow all the rules and be safe.
I can just see us issuing M4 Carbines and M9 pistols to all the senior members. Then we can have heated discussions on why are cadets not allowed to carry a M4 Carbine.
We asked for examples where CAP ground teams were injured or kidnapped or whatever and would have been saved if they had been carrying weapons. The only case we got was where a Senior Member shot and killed a cadet by accident.
Isn't the whole point of the safety program to be proactive not reactive? Will it take a dead cadet before some people recognize that the world is a dangerous place? You don't have to go out of your way to be in danger. What if you stop for gas after a meeting and somebody decides to rob the place? Just because of your uniform you just became a target. Because of a decision made a long time ago you do not have the ability to defend yourself while selflessly donating your time.
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 23, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 12:42:52 AM
If you live where mission activity means a likely encounter with armed 2 legged animals you've got to consider practical considerations.
Once again: How many CAP GT Missions have encountered these people?
Quote from: davidsinn on April 24, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: Short Field on April 23, 2010, 11:59:20 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
For the worst cases like down South CAP LAW should be amended to allow equipment that is adequate for the occasion. At such a time I would be less worried about policy and public image when we've tried to follow all the rules and be safe.
I can just see us issuing M4 Carbines and M9 pistols to all the senior members. Then we can have heated discussions on why are cadets not allowed to carry a M4 Carbine.
We asked for examples where CAP ground teams were injured or kidnapped or whatever and would have been saved if they had been carrying weapons. The only case we got was where a Senior Member shot and killed a cadet by accident.
Isn't the whole point of the safety program to be proactive not reactive? Will it take a dead cadet before some people recognize that the world is a dangerous place? You don't have to go out of your way to be in danger. What if you stop for gas after a meeting and somebody decides to rob the place? Just because of your uniform you just became a target. Because of a decision made a long time ago you do not have the ability to defend yourself while selflessly donating your time.
Man, I don't think I'd go out at all if I felt the need to carry a weapon while stopping for gas.
CAP has made the decision to prohibit medical professionals from providing medical care in other than the most dire of circumstances. CAP personnel providing routine care may stave off the progression of a fatal consequences, but CAP has determined that medical people are more likely to cost the Corporation more money by assuming sanctioned roles as medical providers. The policy weighs the liabilities of the deaths or injuries of CAP members and the public against the costs of deaths or injuries caused by, or contributed too, from CAP members acting under the auspices of CAP.
We know in advance that the policy will, and probably has, lead to the deaths of innocents. If you as a medical professional act outside the scope of CAP's rules of engagement, you know in advance( and it has been very clearly spelled out) that you do not have the backing of the organization, and that you are as disposable as a paper prophylactic.
Aside from the jurisdictional issues ( who can carry what, and where and how, etc) CAP has weighed the risks against the benefits of permitting members to be armed, and chosen to adopt the current policy to protect CAP, Inc. This is what they are supposed to do. Sure, it is foreseeable that CAP members may on occasion be converted to ursine scat absent tools to prevent it, or used to fertilize a pot field, but you have the option of participating...... or not.
Like the medical practitioner who may feel a duty to act, you may feel that your rights to bear arms cannot be overridden by CAP policy, but at least you know in advance, CAP, Inc, will not have your back.
Major Lord
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 01:25:24 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 24, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: Short Field on April 23, 2010, 11:59:20 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
For the worst cases like down South CAP LAW should be amended to allow equipment that is adequate for the occasion. At such a time I would be less worried about policy and public image when we've tried to follow all the rules and be safe.
I can just see us issuing M4 Carbines and M9 pistols to all the senior members. Then we can have heated discussions on why are cadets not allowed to carry a M4 Carbine.
We asked for examples where CAP ground teams were injured or kidnapped or whatever and would have been saved if they had been carrying weapons. The only case we got was where a Senior Member shot and killed a cadet by accident.
Isn't the whole point of the safety program to be proactive not reactive? Will it take a dead cadet before some people recognize that the world is a dangerous place? You don't have to go out of your way to be in danger. What if you stop for gas after a meeting and somebody decides to rob the place? Just because of your uniform you just became a target. Because of a decision made a long time ago you do not have the ability to defend yourself while selflessly donating your time.
Man, I don't think I'd go out at all if I felt the need to carry a weapon while stopping for gas.
Do you where a seat belt all the time when you drive or only when you expect to be in an accident? Exact same principle. Far better to have and not need then need and not have.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 24, 2010, 01:39:38 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 01:25:24 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 24, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: Short Field on April 23, 2010, 11:59:20 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
For the worst cases like down South CAP LAW should be amended to allow equipment that is adequate for the occasion. At such a time I would be less worried about policy and public image when we've tried to follow all the rules and be safe.
I can just see us issuing M4 Carbines and M9 pistols to all the senior members. Then we can have heated discussions on why are cadets not allowed to carry a M4 Carbine.
We asked for examples where CAP ground teams were injured or kidnapped or whatever and would have been saved if they had been carrying weapons. The only case we got was where a Senior Member shot and killed a cadet by accident.
Isn't the whole point of the safety program to be proactive not reactive? Will it take a dead cadet before some people recognize that the world is a dangerous place? You don't have to go out of your way to be in danger. What if you stop for gas after a meeting and somebody decides to rob the place? Just because of your uniform you just became a target. Because of a decision made a long time ago you do not have the ability to defend yourself while selflessly donating your time.
Man, I don't think I'd go out at all if I felt the need to carry a weapon while stopping for gas.
Do you where a seat belt all the time when you drive or only when you expect to be in an accident? Exact same principle. Far better to have and not need then need and not have.
Bad example.
I wear a seat belt because 40,000 Americans die every year in car wrecks.
So again: How many times have CAP GTs come upon armed drug smugglers or the like?
When the answer is zero or close to it, then carrying a weapon is unnecessary and adds more risk to the mission.
Quote from: cap235629 on April 23, 2010, 10:28:37 PM
2 others, Massachusetts and New Hampshire,
New Hampshire has very lenient gun laws. It is an open carry state and the concealed permit application is 3/4ths of a page long.
Denial of a Concealed Permit have these reasons:
(b) A license shall be denied if any of the following factors exist:
(1) The reasons for which an applicant was denied a prior permit;
(2) The applicant was convicted of a felony;
(3) The applicant is a drug abuser;
(4) The applicant had a prior mental health problem, as defined in RSA 135-C:2, X;
(5) The applicant was convicted of a misdemeanor involving theft, drugs, or violence; or
(6) Any other evidence that would indicate the applicant is not suitable for licensing.
That's it. It even makes it against the law for the issuing agency to take more than two weeks to process it.
New Hampshire has reciprocity with 22 other states, none of which actually boarder it.
Alabama, Michigan, Alaska, Missouri, Arizona (License holders must be 21 years of age or older.), Mississippi, Arkansas (Law Enforcement Officers only), North Carolina, Colorado, North Dakota, Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Tennessee, Indiana, Utah, Kentucky, Wyoming, Louisiana...
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 01:25:24 AM
Man, I don't think I'd go out at all if I felt the need to carry a weapon while stopping for gas.
Obviously you never stopped for gas at I-30 and E. Roosevelt in Little Rock at 2 in the morning!
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 24, 2010, 01:39:38 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 01:25:24 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 24, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: Short Field on April 23, 2010, 11:59:20 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
For the worst cases like down South CAP LAW should be amended to allow equipment that is adequate for the occasion. At such a time I would be less worried about policy and public image when we've tried to follow all the rules and be safe.
I can just see us issuing M4 Carbines and M9 pistols to all the senior members. Then we can have heated discussions on why are cadets not allowed to carry a M4 Carbine.
We asked for examples where CAP ground teams were injured or kidnapped or whatever and would have been saved if they had been carrying weapons. The only case we got was where a Senior Member shot and killed a cadet by accident.
Isn't the whole point of the safety program to be proactive not reactive? Will it take a dead cadet before some people recognize that the world is a dangerous place? You don't have to go out of your way to be in danger. What if you stop for gas after a meeting and somebody decides to rob the place? Just because of your uniform you just became a target. Because of a decision made a long time ago you do not have the ability to defend yourself while selflessly donating your time.
Man, I don't think I'd go out at all if I felt the need to carry a weapon while stopping for gas.
Do you where a seat belt all the time when you drive or only when you expect to be in an accident? Exact same principle. Far better to have and not need then need and not have.
Bad example.
I wear a seat belt because 40,000 Americans die every year in car wrecks.
So again: How many times have CAP GTs come upon armed drug smugglers or the like?
When the answer is zero or close to it, then carrying a weapon is unnecessary and adds more risk to the mission.
How does a concealed weapon add risk? By it's very definition you wouldn't know it was there until it was needed.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 24, 2010, 02:15:27 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 24, 2010, 01:39:38 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 01:25:24 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 24, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: Short Field on April 23, 2010, 11:59:20 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
For the worst cases like down South CAP LAW should be amended to allow equipment that is adequate for the occasion. At such a time I would be less worried about policy and public image when we've tried to follow all the rules and be safe.
I can just see us issuing M4 Carbines and M9 pistols to all the senior members. Then we can have heated discussions on why are cadets not allowed to carry a M4 Carbine.
We asked for examples where CAP ground teams were injured or kidnapped or whatever and would have been saved if they had been carrying weapons. The only case we got was where a Senior Member shot and killed a cadet by accident.
Isn't the whole point of the safety program to be proactive not reactive? Will it take a dead cadet before some people recognize that the world is a dangerous place? You don't have to go out of your way to be in danger. What if you stop for gas after a meeting and somebody decides to rob the place? Just because of your uniform you just became a target. Because of a decision made a long time ago you do not have the ability to defend yourself while selflessly donating your time.
Man, I don't think I'd go out at all if I felt the need to carry a weapon while stopping for gas.
Do you where a seat belt all the time when you drive or only when you expect to be in an accident? Exact same principle. Far better to have and not need then need and not have.
Bad example.
I wear a seat belt because 40,000 Americans die every year in car wrecks.
So again: How many times have CAP GTs come upon armed drug smugglers or the like?
When the answer is zero or close to it, then carrying a weapon is unnecessary and adds more risk to the mission.
How does a concealed weapon add risk? By it's very definition you wouldn't know it was there until it was needed.
Because they don't stay concealed.
And there will come a time that the person carrying it will feel the "need" to draw it. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to carry it, right?
There is no demonstrated need to carry a weapon on CAP GT missions. The fact that people want to carry them despite this fact is evidence enough that the above statements are accurate.
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 02:30:58 AM
Because they don't stay concealed.
And there will come a time that the person carrying it will feel the "need" to draw it. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to carry it, right?
They don't stay concealed?
Ever? How could you possibly "know" that? Or are you just sterotyping all of us with CCW permits?
Prejudice is so much easier than critical thinking. :(
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 24, 2010, 03:15:46 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 02:30:58 AM
Because they don't stay concealed.
And there will come a time that the person carrying it will feel the "need" to draw it. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to carry it, right?
They don't stay concealed? Ever? How could you possibly "know" that? Or are you just sterotyping all of us with CCW permits?
Prejudice is so much easier than critical thinking. :(
Yes, it is.
However, I'd call this "generalizing." Obviously, I can't know what's happened in every situation, ever.
What I do know is, plenty of people are shot by accident in this country. That can't happen without a weapon present. And since no one has shown an actual need for a firearm to be carried on CAP GTs, then there is no reason to take that risk.
Quote from: Major Lord on April 24, 2010, 01:38:14 AM
CAP has made the decision to prohibit medical professionals from providing medical care in other than the most dire of circumstances. CAP personnel providing routine care may stave off the progression of a fatal consequences, but CAP has determined that medical people are more likely to cost the Corporation more money by assuming sanctioned roles as medical providers. The policy weighs the liabilities of the deaths or injuries of CAP members and the public against the costs of deaths or injuries caused by, or contributed too, from CAP members acting under the auspices of CAP.
We know in advance that the policy will, and probably has, lead to the deaths of innocents. If you as a medical professional act outside the scope of CAP's rules of engagement, you know in advance( and it has been very clearly spelled out) that you do not have the backing of the organization, and that you are as disposable as a paper prophylactic.
Aside from the jurisdictional issues ( who can carry what, and where and how, etc) CAP has weighed the risks against the benefits of permitting members to be armed, and chosen to adopt the current policy to protect CAP, Inc. This is what they are supposed to do. Sure, it is foreseeable that CAP members may on occasion be converted to ursine scat absent tools to prevent it, or used to fertilize a pot field, but you have the option of participating...... or not.
Like the medical practitioner who may feel a duty to act, you may feel that your rights to bear arms cannot be overridden by CAP policy, but at least you know in advance, CAP, Inc, will not have your back.
Major Lord
Well it took 700 posts but we are back to my original argument.....I just don't think we can afford the liabilty.
The laws are too different to develope a coherant set of regulations.
Our insurance carrier (CAP INC) does not want to take the risk of a lawsuit.
Too many bozos out there in CAP Land that would just have to show it off and shot themselves.
And there is no real need for it.
As Major Lord said....if you feel naked without your weapons...carry it conceald...don't let me or anyone else know you've got it. Hopefully you will never need to use it.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not anti gun. I own guns myself and I am getting my CCW once I trade in my S&W for something smaller (have not decided yet). But CAP is no place for guns.
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 24, 2010, 01:23:06 AM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 11:48:52 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 23, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: billford1 on April 23, 2010, 12:42:52 AM
If you live where mission activity means a likely encounter with armed 2 legged animals you've got to consider practical considerations.
Once again: How many CAP GT Missions have encountered these people?
CaptOrr:
You're ruining a perfecting good debate by requesting actual evidence of an actual problem. :) We MIGHT encounter bad buys or hungry bears while in the woods. So we SHOULD be packin'. The Earth MIGHT be destroyed by a rouge asteroid or meteor so I think NASA SHOULD spend billions and billions of dollars on an orbiting death ray to stop it because it MIGHT happen, though it's highly unlikely to happen.
So, ORM goes out the window when we're talking guns in CAP?
We really had better hope that there aren't any weirdo nutjobs out there who hate the government and like reading government forums looking for weaknesses. We just spent 11 pages telling anyone out there that we are completely defenseless in reality and in fact are mostly opposed to defending ourselves. We don't even have a theoretical deterrent, NONE of us have firearms and they know it. We also put it out there that we do not routinely and in some cases are absolutely incapably of bringing armed help with us.
All we can do is observe and report. A meth lab will not see an unarmed ground team as not being a threat. They know that we will report the location and people with guns will eventually show up. The meth guys will kill our ground team to prevent the report from going out. Eliminate the witnesses and the evidence.
By the way, the difference between a boy scout troop out hiking and a CAP search team is that the scouts stick to the trails, the search team searches everywhere. Meth labs are hidden from the trails so the scouts are much less likely to bump in to one than we are.
Quote from: nesagsar on April 24, 2010, 07:45:27 AMThe meth guys will kill our ground team to prevent the report from going out. Eliminate the witnesses and the evidence.
Geez, you live in a rough Wing.
How often do your ground teams get killed by the "meth guys"?
Not that Google is the be all and end all of research sources, I have not yet found a reported instance of Methhead on CAP Member violence. I did find this story (http://www.squadron601.us/blog/?p=156) from one of the PAWG squadrons about a presentation from LE saying that we should be careful about poking around near meth makers out in the woods.
The article is full of good advice but doesn't indicate any actual incidents with CAP members and the tweakers.
Not that it couldn't happen or hasn't happened but it would be nice to see if this has happened in the past. So far, the record if void of any such evidence.
I would be willing to bet the meth guys arent searching CAPTalk. And if they were, they now know we arent looking for them. Sounds like a fun Wing though. I may go there TDY just to get a piece of that action!
The meth heads want to say hidden so they are going to kill a minimum of four people who are in radio contact with other people? That is sure to keep them off the cops radar.
How many cases in the US are there of drug dealers/producers killing a minimum of four people who are NOT involved in the drug business already and who just happened to stumble across the druggies?
^The most likely victims are going to be others involved in the drug trade. That's what I've seen and heard from my federal criminal defendants in drug cases.
In urban areas, definitely, with gang related violence (and many gangs are involved in the drug trade), truly innocent people who live in a drug infested neighborhood are probably far more likely to be victims of a shooting than one of our ground teams wondering around the Missouri Ozarks and running into Methhead Billy Bob and his posse of armed tweakers.
So, still waiting for documentary evidence that any CAP GT has been threatened with violence while on a SAR in the sticks.
I've been in the best military units that ever walked the face of the earth. These were not immune to "ADs" (accidental discharges). I saw a guy with two Distinguished Service Crosses put a bullet in the ceiling, and another guy put a .20 gauge round within about 3" of my right foot. We carried every day and fired about 5000 rounds a month at the range. But still this sort of thing happens.
If you think that I'm going to go anywhere with armed CAP members, you can count me out. The time between allowing this in a regulation and when a death occurs from an AD will be measured on a stop watch. Non-professionals and firearms don't mix. We have too many people, because of flaccid training standards, who can't find their wallets with both hands and a flashlight.
I love the head in the sand approach.
Because of drug gangs and the shootings, and the related violence; in our squadron, when we put a ground team out on a beacon search, the local sheriff is contacted just before we enter their respective county. We request a uniformed deputy to be assigned to travel with each team. The deputy serves not just as a secure presence, the deputy usually knows the area, its dangers, the residents, the obtainer of permission to enter private property, and local guide to good eats. Usually, when we enter counties which have drug issues, not only will a deputy show up to assist, the sheriff himself will show up along with the county judge. In a little bit, the district Sgt for the state police will usually show up with equipment to assist us particularly at nite.
The presence of LEOs doesn't guarantee safety, but it does provide us with a presence that allows us to focus on our mission. We are within striking distance of the Mexico border. I have buddies with CBP who regularly beg us to not go out on ground or on the airport properties without bringing them or one of the local LEOs because of the drug issues.
Right now I'm part of a group escorting church people across the border on medical issues and church business. And no, I'm not a member of the church. I just feel that a friend needs someone along to watch their back. In Mexico, you cannot believe the presence of police and military.
Since the 121.5 freq is not monitored, I've been informed that the beacons are being used as a part of smuggling by even the locals. Fed LEOs who I interact with have expressed to me their concerns to me about our being out looking for beacons without an escort.
Now ask yourself who will provide the force protection for your team. Also, start thinking in terms of protection of you and your family. Keep in mind that CAP and the USAF is not looking out for your individual protection, only for their own corporate legal liability exposure in litigation. You are responsible for you......and your team.......and your family.
Quote from: Gunner C on April 24, 2010, 06:50:49 PM
I've been in the best military units that ever walked the face of the earth. These were not immune to "ADs" (accidental discharges). I saw a guy with two Distinguished Service Crosses put a bullet in the ceiling, and another guy put a .20 gauge round within about 3" of my right foot. We carried every day and fired about 5000 rounds a month at the range. But still this sort of thing happens.
If you think that I'm going to go anywhere with armed CAP members, you can count me out. The time between allowing this in a regulation and when a death occurs from an AD will be measured on a stop watch. Non-professionals and firearms don't mix. We have too many people, because of flaccid training standards, who can't find their wallets with both hands and a flashlight.
I agree with you where it applies to the average CAP SM. In my posts so far I've advocated allowing LEOs to be armed as an option. I would definitely not want to carry a weapon myself despite the weapons training I've had in the past. Being safe with a firearm around people is something that LEOs are conditioned for along with risk avoidance. As for me I only want a firearm if I'm at a gun range where there are safety rules followed.
Quote from: Cherokeepilot on April 24, 2010, 07:20:20 PM
Because of drug gangs and the shootings, and the related violence; in our squadron, when we put a ground team out on a beacon search, the local sheriff is contacted just before we enter their respective county. We request a uniformed deputy to be assigned to travel with each team.
Then the GT members don't need weapons at all.
Good idea.
Each GTL should do a threat analysis. If there's a serious threat, don't go. Period. Let the sheriff's dept do it.
Quote from: Cherokeepilot on April 24, 2010, 07:20:20 PM
I love the head in the sand approach.
This is not a head in the sand approach. I just don't see the need. The threat of a possible attacker against a ground team or some terrorist agains a soft CAP target is less then the thread of an accidential discharge IMHO.
It is as simple as that.
Now where you live things may be different and maybe I would rethink things or make different arrangements.
Bottom line....I am not comfortable with the idea of allowing just anyone to CCW or Open Carry in CAP.
QuoteWe really had better hope that there aren't any weirdo nutjobs out there who hate the government and like reading government forums looking for weaknesses. We just spent 11 pages telling anyone out there that we are completely defenseless in reality and in fact are mostly opposed to defending ourselves. We don't even have a theoretical deterrent, NONE of us have firearms and they know it.
I know some of you hate the analogy but the USCG Auxiliary has been having the same arguement on very public forums ever since 9/11. And for the units in South Florida, they are more likely to come into contact with the bad guys then CAP is. That is because they patrol the ocean and ICW routes used by the bad guys coming in from the Bahamas and Cuba. And how many Auxies have been shot at, killed or injuried by the drug and human smugglers since 9/11?
NONE.
Quote from: Cherokeepilot on April 24, 2010, 07:20:20 PM
Usually, when we enter counties which have drug issues, not only will a deputy show up to assist, the sheriff himself will show up along with the county judge.
I guess that is so they can get the warrant on the spot?
Quote from: Cherokeepilot on April 24, 2010, 07:20:20 PM
Now ask yourself who will provide the force protection for your team. Also, start thinking in terms of protection of you and your family. Keep in mind that CAP and the USAF is not looking out for your individual protection, only for their own corporate legal liability exposure in litigation. You are responsible for you......and your team.......and your family.
You seriously need to think about moving to someplace safer - like east LA.
If the ORM has the risk too high to go, then DON'T GO. Sounds like the area you live in needs Bradley Fighting Vehicles instead of vans. If the bad guys are that bad, a couple of pistols on a ground team are not going to do much good.
+1
Anyone know how to break contact? Maybe 5 or 6 of us. If not, weapons of any sort won't do you a bit of good.
Quote from: Gunner C on April 25, 2010, 12:55:00 AM
+1
Anyone know how to break contact? Maybe 5 or 6 of us. If not, weapons of any sort won't do you a bit of good.
Open up with the 60 while the most foward units pull back. Once they have cover they open up with their 16's until the 60 crew is able to pull back.
If you got any Smoke, Arty, or Air support all the better.
I think it has been too long for a lot of us to remember, which way do we run ??? to the sound of the guns or away? ;D
Quote from: Gunner C on April 24, 2010, 09:19:58 PM
Each GTL should do a threat analysis. If there's a serious threat, don't go. Period. Let the sheriff's dept do it.
I agree whole heartily........ let the LEO's handle the heavy stuff that's how er do it in EMS, if the scene ain't safe don't go in
I was assaulted just yesterday on a ground team mission.
It was a dog...he just wanted to say hi to anyone on his dirt road. ;D
If he had been armed we could have been in deep since we were 30 miles from population!
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/dog.JPG
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 25, 2010, 03:23:12 PM
I was assaulted just yesterday on a ground team mission.
It was a dog...he just wanted to say hi to anyone on his dirt road. ;D
If he had been armed we could have been in deep since we were 30 miles from population!
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/dog.JPG
Just carry a can of Wasp spray. It will take down a Pit Bull at 30 feet if you can hit him in the mouth with the stream. And since he has his mouth open while he's barking at you that shouldn't be much of a problem.
Of course after you take out "Spike" you'll have to deal with the owner. ::)
Quote from: tarheel gumby on April 25, 2010, 03:47:13 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on April 24, 2010, 09:19:58 PM
Each GTL should do a threat analysis. If there's a serious threat, don't go. Period. Let the sheriff's dept do it.
I agree whole heartily........ let the LEO's handle the heavy stuff that's how er do it in EMS, if the scene ain't safe don't go in
New York State law prohibits firearms on ambulances. Technically, even if a cop is driving a bus for the police ambulance bureau, he's/she's suppose to turn over his weapon to another officer or otherwise secure it for the ride (doesn't happen, but its still the law.)
So, are some of you guys saying that a CAP Ground Team is in more danger then an EMS crew on the average? I'm willing to beat I'm exposed to more danger, and I feel no need for a weapon.
what they tell us on the border: "Evade and escape" :o ;D >:(
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2010, 01:48:25 AM
Open up with the 60 while the most foward units pull back. Once they have cover they open up with their 16's until the 60 crew is able to pull back.
Chuck a few M15 WP grenades in the direction of the bad guys while you're at at it, tends to distract them a bit.
By allowing personally owned weapons anywhere near a CAP mission, the liability will be excruciating. We have too many knuckleheads in the mix as it is. Letting them have guns is just plain stupid.
"New York State law prohibits firearms on ambulances. Technically, even if a cop is driving a bus for the police ambulance bureau, he's/she's suppose to turn over his weapon to another officer or otherwise secure it for the ride (doesn't happen, but its still the law.)"
If you transport a Prisoner you don't have armed corrections officers on board? Pulling prisoners out of San Quentin, we would always have an armed correctional officer and a chase car literally riding shotgun.....even if the prisoner was "mostly" dead, and chained to the gurney. I have to admit that the idea of gunfire in the rig seemed a little scary, what with the big cylinders of O2 and other medics!
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on April 28, 2010, 07:40:30 PM
"New York State law prohibits firearms on ambulances. Technically, even if a cop is driving a bus for the police ambulance bureau, he's/she's suppose to turn over his weapon to another officer or otherwise secure it for the ride (doesn't happen, but its still the law.)"
If you transport a Prisoner you don't have armed corrections officers on board? Pulling prisoners out of San Quentin, we would always have an armed correctional officer and a chase car literally riding shotgun.....even if the prisoner was "mostly" dead, and chained to the gurney. I have to admit that the idea of gunfire in the rig seemed a little scary, what with the big cylinders of O2 and other medics!
Major Lord
In the county next to mine, where I work for a private services, prisoners are sent out on a police ambulance (in Nassau county, the NCPD Emergency Ambulance Bureau handles in the lion share of the EMS) with a police Ambulance Medical Technican with a PO driving and the POs partner riding shotgun behind. Like I said, their weapon is suppose to be secured. Suppose to be.
Besides, if someone goes nuts in the back of the rig, a gun isn't gonna help. A large flashlight, asp, or size twelve boot will do just fine, as will a size H O2 canister.
Quote from: desertengineer1 on April 28, 2010, 07:30:30 PM
By allowing personally owned weapons anywhere near a CAP mission, the liability will be excruciating. We have too many knuckleheads in the mix as it is. Letting them have guns is just plain stupid.
:clap:
Quote from: desertengineer1 on April 28, 2010, 07:30:30 PM
By allowing personally owned weapons anywhere near a CAP mission, the liability will be excruciating. We have too many knuckleheads in the mix as it is. Letting them have guns is just plain stupid.
So while I carry not in uniform I'm less of a knucklehead than if I was to be in uniform? ???
Again my question posed is not so much of trying to become a deputy CAP vigilante/sheriff, but to exercise the same rights I do while not in uniform. Quietly and Responsibly as in accordance with my state's law.
Quote from: PHall on April 25, 2010, 04:44:28 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 25, 2010, 03:23:12 PM
I was assaulted just yesterday on a ground team mission.
It was a dog...he just wanted to say hi to anyone on his dirt road. ;D
If he had been armed we could have been in deep since we were 30 miles from population!
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/dog.JPG
Just carry a can of Wasp spray. It will take down a Pit Bull at 30 feet if you can hit him in the mouth with the stream. And since he has his mouth open while he's barking at you that shouldn't be much of a problem.
Of course after you take out "Spike" you'll have to deal with the owner. ::)
Check the laws on carrying WASP spray. If you have it on you just for protection and use it say good bye to your house and everything else you own because you will be sued
Quote from: Gung Ho on April 29, 2010, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: PHall on April 25, 2010, 04:44:28 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 25, 2010, 03:23:12 PM
I was assaulted just yesterday on a ground team mission.
It was a dog...he just wanted to say hi to anyone on his dirt road. ;D
If he had been armed we could have been in deep since we were 30 miles from population!
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/dog.JPG
Just carry a can of Wasp spray. It will take down a Pit Bull at 30 feet if you can hit him in the mouth with the stream. And since he has his mouth open while he's barking at you that shouldn't be much of a problem.
Of course after you take out "Spike" you'll have to deal with the owner. ::)
Check the laws on carrying WASP spray. If you have it on you just for protection and use it say good bye to your house and everything else you own because you will be sued
That would be true, however if you limited wasp spray to your home(same with a firearm) and someone enters your home and becomes a threat to you the I would use it however I don't know about being sued though but you can just get sued for driving down the road these days.
There are potential legal issues with using wasp spray as a protective device. The letter says "wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote." Wasp spray is a poison design to KILL WASP. The active ingredient in most insect sprays including wasp sprays is synthetic pyrethroid, allethin. (US Patent 4234567) Pyrethrins are used in many varieties of insecticide, fogging products and in some pet products. Pyrethrins are neurotoxins that attack the nervous systems of all insects. Care should be taken when using this substance around humans and animals. Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself. Overdose and toxicity can result in a variety of symptoms, especially in pets, including drooling, lethargy, muscle tremors, vomiting, seizures and death. Toxicity symptoms in humans include asthmatic breathing, sneezing, nasal stuffiness, headache, nausea, in coordination, tremors, convulsions, facial flushing and swelling, and burning, itching sensation, or worse.
Given that the United States is the most litigious society there is, you could find yourself sued if you purposely used Wasp Spray and it did harm. Stranger things have happened. Many of the sprays actually give a warning that its violation of Federal law to use the product other than for what is was intended for. Again In some US jurisdiction it is actually illegal to use any form of self-defense sprays other than pepper spray. (again check the laws in your jurisdiction).
For example look at the Michigan Penal Code, it says the only defense spray that is legal is a type of tear gas known as CS, so pepper spray itself is illegal. Canisters of CS may not contain anything above 35 grams of the spray, and they are not allowed to be made up of more than 2% of the active ingredient Oleoresin Capsicum (OC). This law is in place to ensure that people do not take advantage of their self defense weapon and use it for any other purpose than their own protection.
However, if it's a matter of you or them, use what you have to use. Self preservation takes precedence.
However, if you planned to use it and the attacker died, it could be seen as premeditated murder. Again stranger things have happened.
Quote from: Pumbaa on April 29, 2010, 07:18:08 PM
There are potential legal issues with using wasp spray as a protective device. The letter says "wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote." Wasp spray is a poison design to KILL WASP. The active ingredient in most insect sprays including wasp sprays is synthetic pyrethroid, allethin. (US Patent 4234567) Pyrethrins are used in many varieties of insecticide, fogging products and in some pet products. Pyrethrins are neurotoxins that attack the nervous systems of all insects. Care should be taken when using this substance around humans and animals. Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself. Overdose and toxicity can result in a variety of symptoms, especially in pets, including drooling, lethargy, muscle tremors, vomiting, seizures and death. Toxicity symptoms in humans include asthmatic breathing, sneezing, nasal stuffiness, headache, nausea, in coordination, tremors, convulsions, facial flushing and swelling, and burning, itching sensation, or worse.
Given that the United States is the most litigious society there is, you could find yourself sued if you purposely used Wasp Spray and it did harm. Stranger things have happened. Many of the sprays actually give a warning that its violation of Federal law to use the product other than for what is was intended for. Again In some US jurisdiction it is actually illegal to use any form of self-defense sprays other than pepper spray. (again check the laws in your jurisdiction).
For example look at the Michigan Penal Code, it says the only defense spray that is legal is a type of tear gas known as CS, so pepper spray itself is illegal. Canisters of CS may not contain anything above 35 grams of the spray, and they are not allowed to be made up of more than 2% of the active ingredient Oleoresin Capsicum (OC). This law is in place to ensure that people do not take advantage of their self defense weapon and use it for any other purpose than their own protection. However, if it a matter of you or them, use what you have to use. Self preservation takes precedence. However, if you planned to use it and the attacker died, it could be see as premeditated murder. Again stranger things have happened.
Most insecticides are products of research in chemical weapons, primarily nerve gas.
Here's what I think. I agree that if we have to consider carrying a firearm for protection in a certain area, than we should probably take a step back and reconsider entering that area at all. However, any member with the proper legal permissions should be given the right to judge for themselves whether to carry a CONCEALED firearm for purpose of protection only, based on the situation and given the consent of their team leader. However, the current regs state that we as a volunteer organization can only provide PASSIVE assistance to LE officials, i.e. traffic control, site surveillance, etc.
One last thing to remember though: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
^ 5 months to think of a response is quick!!! >:D >:D >:D
^ Why thank you, kind sir. :D Waddya think of my closing comment?
I don't know, this could be a very interesting subject were the regs flipped. If we were able to carry firearms with proper licenses and the situation came up to use that pistol or face death or serious injury of one of your cadets, how would most Senior Members in CAP act? Would they be able to pull the trigger? Or would the pistol stay in it's holster?
If SMs were able to carry though, a large deterrent would be seeing the pistol in open sight, such as on your pistol belt. I would have to say my thought is IF we were able to carry with proper licensing, it would need to be carried in the open, just for the simple fact that, ok this person isn't trying to hide it, I'll ask for their license. Where as, is that bulge on his back a pistol? I wonder if he has his license or if he is just trying to get away with it? I wonder how many who saw the bulge would really ask.
State laws on concealed vs. open carry vary quite a bit. If, a very large if, this change was made you would have to allow for state law which could conflict with the rules about crash site protection.
You also have posse comitatus involved here IMHO. Not necessarily in function, but in appearance. If a member of the public were to see someone wearing a "military" uniform (even if RM doesn't wear them anymore, most of the general population doesn't realize that) and openly carrying a firearm it could convey some enforcement function contrary to PCA.
^ hahahhahahhahaha
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Anytime PC is brought up in a thread here, it usually ends in bitter heated debate and a quick lock.
People kept bringing up PC so much (in the past) that we lost "USAF AUX" from everything. Thanks!!
Quote from: Patterson on September 30, 2010, 06:06:53 PM
^ hahahhahahhahaha
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Anytime PC is brought up in a thread here, it usually ends in bitter heated debate and a quick lock.
People kept bringing up PC so much (in the past) that we lost "USAF AUX" from everything. Thanks!!
Obviously, that was not my intention. You can't ignore it though.
To heck with PC. That's easy compared to the intricacies of trying to come up with the proper open-carry holsters to go with each uniform.
Let's see . . . we're gonna need holsters to go with service dress, BDUs, and flight suits (all colors) to start. But that should be relatively easy since the AF probably already has some authorized models for us to work with.
The corporate equivalents will be trickier, I suspect. Given the approaching phase out of the TPU, we will still need functional and professional-appearing holsters for the blazer, aviator shirt combinations, and the BBDU/BFU.
And it is not just the holsters, of course, but the duty belts to go with them.
And since people tend to post passionately about both guns and uniforms this has all the making of the Perfect Storm of Uniform Threads!
Standing by . . . .
Why even have this thread. The National Board is not going to change the Regulation about CAP members being armed. To much of a possible Corporate liability.
Is this Necro-thread day?
Let me try to sneak some common sense in here.
PCA is not an issue. Any person can defend themselves and defend underage cadets in their care. That is not a law enforcement function. PCA does not prohibit someone from looking in such a manner as to allow a clueless person to conclude they are police.
Some states allow open carry of weapons. Some don't. Some states allow licensed concealed carry, some don't. A couple of states allow unlicensed carry, and one REQUIRES weapons to be carried in certain areas.
Some states follow the English Common Law standard and require the attacked person to retreat as far as possible before resorting to self-defense. Two states at least (FL and TX) allow attack victims to defend themselves without retreat.
My point is that I'm a pretty smart guy, and I could not write a CAP-wide regulation that would permit carrying weapons and meet the standards of all states laws, including writing rules of engagement. The best I can come up with is:
"CAP membership conveys no special authority to carry or use firearms. Members should be aware of laws in their state, and scrupulously comply with them. Illegal carrying or use of firearms while in uniform or acting as a member of CAP will be grounds for disciplinary action including termination of membership."
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 01, 2010, 01:22:51 PM
Two states at least (FL and TX) allow attack victims to defend themselves without retreat.
Since I've already spoken my piece in this thread I won't rehash it but I will impart a little knowledge: In Indiana we have a stand your ground and a castle law. I do not have to retreat from danger before using deadly force anywhere and I can legally end any intruder in my home after giving just one warning. We have life time CC permits and if you have a CCP, open carry is allowed just not encouraged because the sight of a firearm tends to turn some people into little whiney girls.
Hear hear Sinn.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 01, 2010, 01:22:51 PM
Let me try to sneak some common sense in here.
...
My point is that I'm a pretty smart guy, and I could not write a CAP-wide regulation that would permit carrying weapons and meet the standards of all states laws, including writing rules of engagement. The best I can come up with is:
"CAP membership conveys no special authority to carry or use firearms. Members should be aware of laws in their state, and scrupulously comply with them. Illegal carrying or use of firearms while in uniform or acting as a member of CAP will be grounds for disciplinary action including termination of membership."
While I'll not take a position on the overall concept of the thread, I will comment that sometimes it's just not appropriate to have a CAP-wide regulation for something. in this case, particularly with the variance in laws among the states, CAP has a ready answer: Wings.
If it were considered appropriate for CAP to permit concealed or open carry, then I would suggest a national regulation permitting same, along with a requirement for a Wing supplement ensuring that things were done within local laws. I would even word the national regulation that the present prohibition would be in effect in any wing without such a supplement.
Not everything has to be done the same across the entire country. "Force protection" has a completely different meaning in Detroit than it does in Alaska. That's part of the reason why organizations, including CAP, tend to have regional and state-based organizational structures. Having such a regional structure, and at the same time demanding that every regulation be consistent nationally, defeats that purpose entirely.
"Force Protection" is a non-issue for CAP members. If we need it, it is provided by LEA's or the military, not fellow members.
The only reason there is any loophole regarding the carry of firearms is for LEO's who are members and are required by local law to
carry while off duty.
As with most things like this, common sense and maturity always wins, and those who possess at least one are a non-issue. I regularly work with a number of LEO's who carry off duty and the only reason I am aware of it is that I may have glanced it while getting dressed or it is mentioned in passing for a legit reason.
Otherwise, they don't make a big deal about it, which is how it should be, and how it would not be if we whole-scale allowed the carry of a firearm in uniform. Think some gung-ho GT's are bad?
Same with some pilots.
Ok...I held off as long as I could and figured I should put my two-cents in.
My opinion is that there is no reason for anyone to carry a firearm in CAP. We are not Law Enforcement and even though we do have our 2nd Amendment Rights (I own three weapons myself and have a Law Enforcement background) we still have those "gun-totin' cowboys" who have never been properly trained in the use of one.
If a situation requires you to use a weapon of any kind, get out of the situation fast and notify the authorities. A few things to remember here:
1: You must be willing to KILL your intended target when you use your weapon (and don't give me that "shoot 'em in the leg" stuff...even if you aim for the leg (which is bad anyways) you might still hit him/her in the chest!)
2: Most bad guys DO SHOOT BACK!!
3: If one person in your group has a pistol shooting at the target, you set yourself up for having the rest of your unarmed team shot back at as well.
Here's a tip: If you're in a situation where your life is at stake, get out of that situation. Don't stick around long enough to fire a shot. It'll just slow you down. Besides...How often does CAP need to use a firearm?
Generally speaking, if someone is willing to shoot someone wearing a military style uniform, turning and running won't deter them from shooting at you. Your best bet is to deter them yourself.
Except that RealMilitaryTM aren't allowed to carry loaded weapons in CONUS unless:
a) They're a cop (MP, SF, etc...)
b) It's live-fire training time
c) It's an actual war
If RM doesn't feel the need to carry weapons, neither do us CIVILIANS.
Besides, name one time in which CAP members were fired upon. WWII doesn't count.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on October 02, 2010, 05:29:08 AM
Generally speaking, if someone is willing to shoot someone wearing a military style uniform, turning and running won't deter them from shooting at you. Your best bet is to deter them yourself.
It may not deter them from shooting at you but a moving target is harder to hit as well. If someone has you in their sights, the last thing you want to do is help them with their aim by stopping.
If RM is on crowd control they can be armed, if they are on the new martial law status controlling an area inside the USA, they can be armed, if on alert on base or off base they can be armed.
On your comment about shooting for the leg, Isn't that illegal in all states anyways? I'm pretty sure it is here in Indiana. If you shoot you mush shoot to kill, shooting to mame is categorized as cruel.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on October 02, 2010, 05:40:42 AM
On your comment about shooting for the leg, Isn't that illegal in all states anyways? I'm pretty sure it is here in Indiana. If you shoot you mush shoot to kill, shooting to mame is categorized as cruel.
I believe you are right about Indiana but not for certain. But like I said, it's bad. But it's also a fact that there are some out there that believe this is the right thing to do to keep from killing someone, legal or otherwise (poorly trained individuals especially!).
One more reason to back up what I said before. Personnel should only be allowed to carry a firearm with proper training such as self defense, proficiency (should be updated every six months), proper state licensing, and probably a few good NRA courses. Only then should it be at the discretion of the Squadron commander to SUGGEST to wing level that the member to be allowed to carry a firearm (pistol) on ES missions only. No matter what they don't need to be at the regular meetings.
Regardless, CAP is never on alert for an armed action, nor are we called upon to suppress insurrections/riots.
The Regs are clear: if there is a situation in which violence can occur, we need to be not there. Period.
Besides, I'm (only once) with the lawyers here. Guns open up nasty cans of worms, which will get CAP in plenty of trouble.
Besides, there are plenty of senior members and parents of cadets who don't like handguns, and the idea of non-trained personnel using handguns. Like myself.
No guns for CAP. Ever.
Even the most highly trained individual wouldn't put himself in front of a bullet if they didn't have to. In CAP, they don't have to. On top of that they would also have to defend the rest of ther unarmed team as well.
If the bad guy has, let's say, an automatic AR-15 with a 30-round magazine with an extra 30 on his side (maybe more). You have a pistol that holds 15 rounds and maybe another magazine. Do you think you would win in a firefight? If the bad guys are there, odds are they don't care how legal it is to be carrying such equipment.
I stand by the way I voted: Concealed carry by LEO and those with a CCW license. MOst state CCW laws already prohibit carrying on a military base, so that's taken care of. Do I ever foresee needing a firearm on a CAP mission or meeting? No. On my way to and from a meeting or mission? Ya never know. Lots of armed robberies have happened at gas stations and even in people's own driveways, and carjackings ocassionally happen. If I'm on my way home from a mission at 2 am I don't like being restricted from concealed carry just because I'm in uniform.
Why? Why the need to carry a gun at all times?
If you're in the field, well, you aren't going into the field if you're going to need a gun.
Driving? Accelerators work too when trying to stop carjackings.
Convenience Store / Gas station? Attendants are trained and expected to comply with demands of robbers. They can be fired and sued for displaying force.
Besides, that's just it. If you're in uniform, you shouldn't be carrying a gun (unless, of course the gun is part of that uniform). Period.
That's kind of what the whole uniform thing is about. You give up some personal freedom to better serve the whole.
Besides, even if CAP were to go willy nilly and change the regs, that doesn't stop the Air Force from saying "NO." And if the AF is smart (which they are), they'll say NO.
Too many legal problems with an armed CAP... Not enough benefit...
Besides, in addition to state laws regarding military bases (which don't matter anyway, because military installations are Federal Property), there is also the issue of airports (no guns there unless you're LEO in uniform and on duty), schools (same rule as airports), private property (Nobody carries guns on my land unless I give them written permission to do so. Cops are an exception).
In fact, unless I'm mistaken, you can't bring weapons on private property without consent of the land owner. What if the ELT is going off on private land? Now you can't go into the field, because you're armed, and CAP can't trump landowner rights, because we have the legal authority of average Joe Schmo.
Unless the law says you have to pack heat (i.e. AK), don't pack heat...
To answer the question has CAP ever been fired on, the answer is yes. During the a950's and 60s when most SAR missions used member owened aircraft, there were several instances of aircraft being fired on. The shooters appear to have been moonshiners in the southeast U.S. I believe there were two instances in Florida, and one in Alabama that I was aware of. Appeared that those on the ground didn't like small aircraft flying over their stills or activities at a low altitude. There were never any reported injuries from the shootings, however minor damage was done to aircraft
Quote...you can't bring weapons on private property without consent of the land owner.
Usually its more along the lines of you cant carry a firearm onto/into private property if its posted "no firearms"...
mk
You also cannot carry in federal buidlings. That includes the parking lots and includes US Post Offices.
QuoteOn your comment about shooting for the leg, Isn't that illegal in all states anyways? I'm pretty sure it is here in Indiana. If you shoot you mush shoot to kill, shooting to mame is categorized as cruel.
You do not shoot to kill or to maim. You shoot to stop the attack and incapacitate the attacker. Sometimes the attacker dies.
Florida Statutes Chapter 790 is the Weapons and Firearms chapter.
790.01 Bans anyone, excluding police officers and a few others, from carrying concealed unless they have a permit issued according to 790.06
790..053 Bns the open carry of firearms, LEOs excepted.
790.06 Lists the criteria for a concealed carry permit.
790.25.5 Allows an unlicensed person to have a firearm in a locked container in their car.
790.251 Prohitits private employers from banning employees storing their guns in the employee's car in the employer's parking lot. The guns must be in a locked container to fall under this provision.
776.013.1 Is Florida's Castle Doctrine. Note that it discusses "using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another". Florida does not insist on 'shoot to kill'. And the statute does not prohibit maiming shots.
776.013.3. Is Florida's relatively new Stand Your Ground Statute.
QuoteA person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Again note the staute allows for but does not require that deadly force be used.
But CAP on the ground has never been fired upon, correct?
Also, you may have Castle Doctrine as law in some states, but in some states there is still a Duty to Retreat.
Also, not all states have CCW as legal. IL and WI being the big ones. Open Carry is still a bit of an issue in WI.
And "no weapons" is to be assumed on private land unless the owner has consented otherwise.
Also, nobody has mentioned what happens when an adult, who is legally the same as everybody else, is walking around with other people's children, while carrying loaded weapons.
What happens if the parents of those children do not like guns? Bye bye Cadet Snuffy.
CCW= CONCEALED. I carry a pistol everywhere I go and unless I want you to know, you never will. (I call it my shoot him in the nose so you can get to the car and get the big gun, gun) That being said, driving home from ANY CAP activity is not PART of the CAP activity or we would be covered under the appropriate insurance.
I live in the land of Meth Labs and Crops of Mary Jane. Having the ability to defend myself during a tactical withdrawal has it's merits in my eyes.
Please remember, as I said previously, at one time CAP was ISSUED firearms.
Quote from: cap235629 on October 02, 2010, 04:56:30 PM
CCW= CONCEALED. I carry a pistol everywhere I go and unless I want you to know, you never will. That being said, driving home from ANY CAP activity is not PART of the CAP activity or we would be covered under the appropriate insurance.
I live in the land of Meth Labs and Crops of Mary Jane. Having the ability to defend myself during a tactical withdrawal has it's merits in my eyes.
Please remember, as I said previously, at one time CAP was ISSUED firearms.
I don't think you should be carry a weapon (concealed or not) while in a CAP uniform period :(. If you want to do this than change in civilian clothes while in transit. You definitely should not have that weapon on you at a CAP activity. CAP activities should not be conducted in in any area where we need firearms to protect the members. I think it's pretty clear CAP wise that if you suspect there's going to be a problem you need to get law enforcement support OR even avoid the area.
CAP policy wise is NOT going to allow members to carry firearms, no matter what. Insurance/legal liability wise it would be a mine field, and even the AF isn't going to allow this especially on AF funded missions. All AF members do not carry weapons, even in war zones.
HOWEVER, personally, I wouldn't have any issue with a CAP member who is in valid paid law enforcement job during the day carrying a concealed weapons at any CAP activity. Anytime we have any activity off the base, I do believe in maintaining strong security/force protecton situational awareness, due to the potential for unstable individuals possibly targeting CAP (not because we are CAP, BUT because of the uniforms alone)
My issue is with other CAP senior members carrying weapons (who are not trained law enforcement officers). The organization overall attracts a fair amount of wanna bees, "ES rambos", bling collectors etc. that can present a hazard to other CAP members, and I fear that these folks; who are accidents waiting to happend, IF armed would result in a serious accident.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 link=topic=10328.msg209605#msg209605CAP activities should not be conducted in in any area where we need firearms to protect the members. I think it's pretty clear CAP wise that if you suspect there's going to be a problem you need to get law enforcement support OR even avoid the area.
Your wing does not face the same challenges as mine does. I know this because I was once a member of Massachusetts Wing. Here in Arkansas, wilderness takes up more space than incorporated areas. If we avoided the "area" where there might be a chance of encountering Meth Labs and Marijuana Farms, we would never leave the house. As a former LEO I can tell you that the majority of the growing operations/labs are found by people wandering through the woods. When a Ground Team is active, we are doing exactly that. Your experiences do not cover the entire scope of CAP activity. Though you are entitled to your opinion, so am I and I disagree with you vehemently.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on October 02, 2010, 05:33:17 AM
Except that RealMilitaryTM aren't allowed to carry loaded weapons in CONUS unless:
a) They're a cop (MP, SF, etc...)
b) It's live-fire training time
c) It's an actual war
If RM doesn't feel the need to carry weapons, neither do us CIVILIANS.
Besides, name one time in which CAP members were fired upon. WWII doesn't count.
Back in the 60's it was not unusual for one or two officers on GT's to be armed in FL and other states. I know of a few situations where venomous snakes met untimely deaths at the hands of CAP officers. I don't kn ow of any situation where dangerous predator Homo Sapiens were shot, though, just reptiles and maybe a wild hog or two.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 02, 2010, 08:49:16 PM
Back in the 60's it was not unusual for one or two officers on GT's to be armed in FL and other states. I know of a few situations where venomous snakes met untimely deaths at the hands of CAP officers. I don't kn ow of any situation where dangerous predator Homo Sapiens were shot, though, just reptiles and maybe a wild hog or two.
FL? Hell, I saw it as a cadet in the 1980s in a Northern Tier state.
(Of course, I thought it was a bunch of hooey on a 2 week long SAR school course on an island until the night the bears invaded the camp's garbage pit about 100m from cantonment area. Had I not seen that black bear rooting around in the garbage with my own eyes, I might say that having weapons around was not needed. Then I was glad to see 2-3 folks with Garands keeping an eye on things...)Completely different time, though...
Quote from: NIN on October 02, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 02, 2010, 08:49:16 PM
Back in the 60's it was not unusual for one or two officers on GT's to be armed in FL and other states. I know of a few situations where venomous snakes met untimely deaths at the hands of CAP officers. I don't kn ow of any situation where dangerous predator Homo Sapiens were shot, though, just reptiles and maybe a wild hog or two.
FL? Hell, I saw it as a cadet in the 1980s in a Northern Tier state.
(Of course, I thought it was a bunch of hooey on a 2 week long SAR school course on an island until the night the bears invaded the camp's garbage pit about 100m from cantonment area. Had I not seen that black bear rooting around in the garbage with my own eyes, I might say that having weapons around was not needed. Then I was glad to see 2-3 folks with Garands keeping an eye on things...)
Completely different time, though...
There were bears on Drummond?
Quote from: NIN on October 02, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 02, 2010, 08:49:16 PM
Back in the 60's it was not unusual for one or two officers on GT's to be armed in FL and other states. I know of a few situations where venomous snakes met untimely deaths at the hands of CAP officers. I don't kn ow of any situation where dangerous predator Homo Sapiens were shot, though, just reptiles and maybe a wild hog or two.
FL? Hell, I saw it as a cadet in the 1980s in a Northern Tier state.
(Of course, I thought it was a bunch of hooey on a 2 week long SAR school course on an island until the night the bears invaded the camp's garbage pit about 100m from cantonment area. Had I not seen that black bear rooting around in the garbage with my own eyes, I might say that having weapons around was not needed. Then I was glad to see 2-3 folks with Garands keeping an eye on things...)
Completely different time, though...
Different time, indeed. Bears have changed a lot since the 80's.
Quote from: cap235629 on October 02, 2010, 08:46:18 PM
Your wing does not face the same challenges as mine does. I know this because I was once a member of Massachusetts Wing. Here in Arkansas, wilderness takes up more space than incorporated areas. If we avoided the "area" where there might be a chance of encountering Meth Labs and Marijuana Farms, we would never leave the house. As a former LEO I can tell you that the majority of the growing operations/labs are found by people wandering through the woods. When a Ground Team is active, we are doing exactly that. Your experiences do not cover the entire scope of CAP activity. Though you are entitled to your opinion, so am I and I disagree with you vehemently.
Perhaps this is something your wing needs to address with National because of the problems in your state. Again my guess is National's decision will be that law enforcement will need to go into any woodlands with you, IF there's a chance there might be a problem OR the risk is just too high CAP doesn't go at all. I just don't see a national policy of allowing CAP member's at any CAP activity (including going to and from in a CAP uniform) to carry firearms regardless of their "authorizations" from others.
I personally have no agenda on this, BUT it could really get out of control in CAP. I've heard rumors about a few CAP members in my wing that carry firearms in the trunk of their cars where ever they go.
I'm not sure what affect this would have on them (and CAP) if they were subjected to a random vehicle search at one of the military bases we are allowed to enter as CAP members. The base I'm familiar with currently doesn't ask anyone if they have any firearms in their vehicles. I'll have to check if there's any other prohibition signs (other than warning to wear your seat belt) the next time I'm on the base.
RM
There is a regulation, no matter how we all feel about it. Until it gets changed there is no reason to be arguing about it.
Please lock this thread it is only leading to arguments.
Wouldn't all of this go back to the congressional order of "non-combatant"? It may imply military but could it involve civilian contact as well? Just asking because it might go higher than CAP can go to authorize firearms.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 02, 2010, 09:02:06 PM
Different time, indeed. Bears have changed a lot since the 80's.
No, John, I was more referring to the leadership nowadays getting their undies in a twist over cadets even
thinking about weapons, let alone handling them, versus back in those days when cadets actually handled weapons for an operational (although, admittedly, probably completely outside the regulations) reason.
Me thinks the bears are more or less the same today as they were in 1982.
However, to combine a topic: Imagine the safety shop's response to a cadet getting mauled by a bear on an activity. "This incident could have been prevented by selecting a less bear-friendly bivouac and training area, and by employing decoy cadets to scare the bear away from operational training."
:P
Quote from: HGjunkie on October 02, 2010, 08:58:00 PM
There were bears on Drummond?
Ding! Yep. I saw at least two in the garbage dump, and the morning of one of our foot march bivouacs, we got woken up at zero-dark-thirty and told to get our team fires going as there were bears in the AO. Talk about huddling around your fire with your teammates wondering who's gonna get eaten first... Never saw a bear during that episode, but at least one person was carrying a Remington 870, and another, a deputy sheriff, was carrying his duty piece. We were also warned that there were bocats or something like that in the area, and we believed it.
I went thru the remainder of that course thinking I was gonna get eaten on every latrine trip...
Firefighters and paramedics and other rescue workers are put into dangerous situations at times as well (eg, being called out to a gangland shooting, or domestic disturbance, going into a not so nice neighborhood on a call etc etc), if there is danger, the firefighters and paramedics don't pull out guns, they wait and call for LEO backup to cover them, they aren't armed even if they are CCWed for liability reasons.
I really don't see a major need to have armed CAP members (yes we can come up with different scenarios up the ying yang from druggies shooting at CAP planes to being able to defend against UFOs), if CAP members are being put into a situation where they need a gun, then well someone aint following ORM. If there is a time when I feel that I need a gun as a CAP member, is the time I start looking for a new volunteer job.
Quote from: NIN on October 03, 2010, 12:19:04 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 02, 2010, 09:02:06 PM
Different time, indeed. Bears have changed a lot since the 80's.
No, John, I was more referring to the leadership nowadays getting their undies in a twist over cadets even thinking about weapons, let alone handling them, versus back in those days when cadets actually handled weapons for an operational (although, admittedly, probably completely outside the regulations) reason.
Me thinks the bears are more or less the same today as they were in 1982.
However, to combine a topic: Imagine the safety shop's response to a cadet getting mauled by a bear on an activity. "This incident could have been prevented by selecting a less bear-friendly bivouac and training area, and by employing decoy cadets to scare the bear away from operational training."
:P
I was kidding, of course. But I like your idea of "Decoy cadets." It seems a good way to lose the slugs and unpopular members of your squadron.
Quote from: spacecommand on October 03, 2010, 12:52:54 AM
Firefighters and paramedics and other rescue workers are put into dangerous situations at times as well (eg, being called out to a gangland shooting, or domestic disturbance, going into a not so nice neighborhood on a call etc etc), if there is danger, the firefighters and paramedics don't pull out guns, they wait and call for LEO backup to cover them, they aren't armed even if they are CCWed for liability reasons.
I really don't see a major need to have armed CAP members (yes we can come up with different scenarios up the ying yang from druggies shooting at CAP planes to being able to defend against UFOs), if CAP members are being put into a situation where they need a gun, then well someone aint following ORM. If there is a time when I feel that I need a gun as a CAP member, is the time I start looking for a new volunteer job.
You are right, in most situations as a GTL or as an IC, I can call for Law Enfocement support and get it. But not in ev ery case will that happen. You can be 5 miles from a major international airport here in FL and encounter the largest venomous snake in North America, the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake. There are wild hogs, alligators of various sizes (6-feet and under usually will run from a human. Over 6 feet, you are a protein source), and Coral Snakes for which there is no antivenin. In some situations the choice is to look the other way about sidearms or get out of the ground team business altogether.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 02, 2010, 09:02:06 PM
Quote from: NIN on October 02, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 02, 2010, 08:49:16 PM
Back in the 60's it was not unusual for one or two officers on GT's to be armed in FL and other states. I know of a few situations where venomous snakes met untimely deaths at the hands of CAP officers. I don't kn ow of any situation where dangerous predator Homo Sapiens were shot, though, just reptiles and maybe a wild hog or two.
FL? Hell, I saw it as a cadet in the 1980s in a Northern Tier state.
(Of course, I thought it was a bunch of hooey on a 2 week long SAR school course on an island until the night the bears invaded the camp's garbage pit about 100m from cantonment area. Had I not seen that black bear rooting around in the garbage with my own eyes, I might say that having weapons around was not needed. Then I was glad to see 2-3 folks with Garands keeping an eye on things...)
Completely different time, though...
Different time, indeed. Bears have changed a lot since the 80's.
Yeah, new union.
Quote from: Grumpy on October 04, 2010, 03:40:18 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 02, 2010, 09:02:06 PM
Quote from: NIN on October 02, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 02, 2010, 08:49:16 PM
Back in the 60's it was not unusual for one or two officers on GT's to be armed in FL and other states. I know of a few situations where venomous snakes met untimely deaths at the hands of CAP officers. I don't kn ow of any situation where dangerous predator Homo Sapiens were shot, though, just reptiles and maybe a wild hog or two.
FL? Hell, I saw it as a cadet in the 1980s in a Northern Tier state.
(Of course, I thought it was a bunch of hooey on a 2 week long SAR school course on an island until the night the bears invaded the camp's garbage pit about 100m from cantonment area. Had I not seen that black bear rooting around in the garbage with my own eyes, I might say that having weapons around was not needed. Then I was glad to see 2-3 folks with Garands keeping an eye on things...)
Completely different time, though...
Different time, indeed. Bears have changed a lot since the 80's.
Yeah, new union.
And they can't win a Superbowl for anything ;D
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 03, 2010, 01:56:14 PMIn some situations the choice is to look the other way about sidearms or get out of the ground team business altogether.
Looking the other way in regards to a firearm is never an option. Period.
Period.
If you are really encountering that many threats, CAP does not belong in the area. The ORM on that is off the charts and
the fact that someone on the team might be concealing a firearm to minimize the threat(s) makes the real numbers even worse.
Besides, even if the Regulation were changed, it still wouldn't matter, because the Law trumps CAP regulation 100% of the time.
In some states, open carry is illegal, while concealed carry is legal with permit. In some states, the opposite is true.
And I know pretty darn well that if the regulation were changed, you can bet my dues money for the next 10 years that Big Brother Blue will decide that fuchsia rank slides will be needed for distinctiveness.
Unless it is written down in the law books that you are required to carry a weapon on you, you will not be carrying a weapon on you while on a CAP activity, or while in a CAP uniform, or when around CAP cadets except as allowed under 52 series regulations.
Seriously, if you're that worried about bad guys when on a mission then:
a) Drag an armed Sheriff's Deputy with your team.
b) Don't go out on the mission.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on October 04, 2010, 07:37:55 PMUnless it is written down in the law books that you are required to carry a weapon on you, you will not be carrying a weapon on you while on a CAP activity, or while in a CAP uniform, or when around CAP cadets except as allowed under 52 series regulations.
The inverse is also true - your allowance, or even requirement, to carry a weapon does not give you carte blanche to participate as a CAP member. Granting that we don't exactly have 15 people to choose from in most cases, I, as a commander, may choose to disallow your participation at a given activity specifically
because you're required to carry a firearm (assuming you can't leave it at home).
900-3
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.
As a cop, there are VERY few LE agencies, if any, that require its employees to be armed 24/7. I dont know of any. Some highly encourage, like mine, but Ive never seen one that REQUIRES off duty carry 24/7. So it would be interesting for a cop/CAP member to claim that clause. If there are any, Id be curious to know what agencies they are out of curiosity.
On a side note.....
a. CAP assistance to law enforcement agencies which may lead to criminal prosecution is restricted to patrol, surveillance, and reporting only. Requests for such assistance, unless of an emergency nature, must be approved in advance by the Wing and Region Com-manders and coordinated with National Head-quarters/DO. All CAP flights will be in accordance with CAPR 60-1.
This is an extremely broad line. Patrol and Surveillance and reporting. Guess what I do all day in my day job? So short of landing and handling calls and putting hands on bad guys, CAP can pretty much do, by definition, what every other LE aircraft does on a daily basis. Surveillance and reporting. Im waiting to fly a CAP plane on a CD mission with a cop in the front seat and call a vehicle pursuit!
Quote from: Eclipse on October 04, 2010, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 03, 2010, 01:56:14 PMIn some situations the choice is to look the other way about sidearms or get out of the ground team business altogether.
Looking the other way in regards to a firearm is never an option. Period.
Period.
If you are really encountering that many threats, CAP does not belong in the area. The ORM on that is off the charts and
the fact that someone on the team might be concealing a firearm to minimize the threat(s) makes the real numbers even worse.
Then we need to get out of the ground team business altogether. I would support that. If we need to have a Law Enf. officer with us, then why can't LE do the search?
No one should be suggesting that we need to stop performing ground search operations. CAP helps too many people to stop.
It might be of interest to know what the USCG policy is for USCG Auxiliarists and weapons handling.
From the Auxiliary Manual (AuxMan - a USCG publication)
AuxMan 2.B.19. Support Missions for the Coast Guard
QuoteAuxiliarists shall not be vested with any titles or duties which imply or entail law enforcement responsibilities nor shall they carry, handle, repair, or fire weapons of any sort while assigned to Coast Guard operational missions or Coast Guard Auxiliary activities. This includes civilian or government employed law enforcement personnel while acting as an Auxiliarist. A waiver to this policy may be obtained for the purpose of utilizing qualified Auxiliarists as range coaches. Waiver requests shall not be submitted by individual Auxiliarists, but rather the operational commander who determines a bonafide need.
The above has been interpreted to not include Auxie handling of weapons for the purpose of cleaning (but not repairing) them. Auxies are often used as gun cleaners at USCG stations.
AuxMan 5.Q. Weapons Introduction
QuoteIntroduction Weapons, except those worn by certified law enforcement officers in accordance with Federal, State and local laws and regulations and required by their agency policy, may not be worn, carried, or held by any Auxiliarist or guest of the Auxiliary while attending an approved Auxiliary function, including regularly scheduled division, flotilla, or detachment meetings. This prohibition extends to those who have concealed weapons permits and those who may otherwise be authorized, but not required to wear weapons when not performing law enforcement duties (i.e., offduty law enforcement officers). This prohibition extends to periods immediately preceding and following Auxiliary functions (i.e., during the fellowship periods). Weapons are excluded at all times from Government facilities, buildings, property, and military installations. Certified law enforcement officers who are required by their agency policy to carry a weapon shall be subject to the policy of the facility they are entering and may be required to check the weapon or be denied entry.
The Auxiliary Operations Policy Manual (OpsPolMan) was published some years after the AuxMan above. It also has a weapons/firemarms clause.
OpsPolMan 4.E.1.b. Prohibited Support
QuoteAuxiliarists are prohibited from conducting the following activities:
• Actual boarding of a boat for law enforcement purposes other than for language interpretation.
• The carrying of firearms (by hand or holster) or any related law enforcement equipment (e.g., handcuffs, pepper spray, etc.) on their person.
• Investigating complaints of negligent operations or serving of subpoenas.
• Covert operations.
There is a boxed note in the section immediately following the weapons paragraph. The note follows 4.E.2. Detection and Monitoring of Unusual Events/Scenarios. The boxed note states:
QuoteCoast Guard Auxiliarists are prohibited from conducting covert surveillance.
So it would appear that with the possible exception of surveillance, both CAP and the Aux has similar rules regarding weapons.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2010, 09:14:41 PM
Then we need to get out of the ground team business altogether. I would support that. If we need to have a Law Enf. officer with us, then why can't LE do the search?
Again, why the "Take my ball and go home attitude?"
We don't belong in areas of high risk, period. Whether that is people or alligators, if a firearm is needed for protection, ORM says we don't play. That doesn't mean we can't still provide support in areas where people aren't normally food.
FD do SAR without weapons - they bring LEO's. So can we. If that is not enough, we stay in the rear and help there.
Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"? I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people). Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance.
I would be curious to see the responses for a thread titled "Stop Complaining About the Regs They Are What They Are."
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2010, 09:37:34 PM
Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"? I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people). Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance.
I believe it depends on the agency - anytime we are working for an LEA it is recon.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 04, 2010, 09:31:31 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2010, 09:14:41 PM
Then we need to get out of the ground team business altogether. I would support that. If we need to have a Law Enf. officer with us, then why can't LE do the search?
Again, why the "Take my ball and go home attitude?"
We don't belong in areas of high risk, period. Whether that is people or alligators, if a firearm is needed for protection, ORM says we don't play. That doesn't mean we can't still provide support in areas where people aren't normally food.
FD do SAR without weapons - they bring LEO's. So can we. If that is not enough, we stay in the rear and help there.
IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement? If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.
So, you say CAP should stay in the rear... but that is PRECISELY what I am suggesting.
We can still provide UDF for the accidental trips of ELT's and EPIRB's, but for real SAR in remote areas, we should not be in those areas unless we can protect our own people. Why tie up a cop protecting us, when we can just have the cops run the ground SAR?
I agree - but a particular search being in pig-infested waters or a bad neighborhood doesn't negate our being a force multiplier
in the rest of the world - i.e. we don't get out of the Ground SAR business - we just don't go in the field that day or until Cartman clears
our the boars.
The same was true for Katrina - we only went into areas considered "safe".
Considered safe by whom?
On a SAR mission, with a real downed airplane, how long do we delay our response while we decide of a ground search is safe enough? Nothing requires us to have ground teams. We are the Civil AIR Patrol. We can fly, spot possible wreckage, and report the location to the appropriate LE agency. Mission accomplished. RTB and fill out your 108. We do NOT need to waste time training GT's and we do NOT have to waste resources buying packs and stuff.
When was the last save by a CAP ground team, anyway?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2010, 10:20:43 PM
IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement? If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.
1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2010, 10:53:02 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2010, 10:20:43 PM
IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement? If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.
1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....
Very much agreed. And if someone is missing with the chance of being alive, I'd say you could get your LEO, your GT, and your cake to eat too.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2010, 10:51:47 PM
When was the last save by a CAP ground team, anyway?
Mid-August is the last one we've publisized, but given our weak PA program I wouldn't be surprised if there was another since then.
http://www.capvolunteernow.com/news.cfm/pa_ground_team_finds_missing_man_in_state_park?show=news&newsID=8564
And CAP GTs participated in another search that found a man alive just a few days ago in California.
Or look at the cover of the Volunteer a few issues ago...
Does it need to be said, or repeated, that we are discussing situations where the area is so dangerous as to justify breaking regs to bring firearms?
Quote from: Eclipse on October 04, 2010, 11:10:19 PM
Does it need to be said, or repeated, that we are discussing situations where the area is so dangerous as to justify breaking regs to bring firearms?
Actually, we're not. This thread cover all CAP activities, not just GTs.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2010, 09:37:34 PM
Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"? I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people). Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance.
a. CAP assistance to law enforcement agencies which may lead to criminal prosecution is restricted to patrol, surveillance, and reporting only. Requests for such assistance, unless of an emergency nature, must be approved in advance by the Wing and Region Com-manders and coordinated with National Head-quarters/DO. All CAP flights will be in accordance with CAPR 60-1.This is out of the 900-3. The word Recon is nowhere to be found.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 05, 2010, 12:11:12 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2010, 09:37:34 PM
Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"? I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people). Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance.
a. CAP assistance to law enforcement agencies which may lead to criminal prosecution is restricted to patrol, surveillance, and reporting only. Requests for such assistance, unless of an emergency nature, must be approved in advance by the Wing and Region Com-manders and coordinated with National Head-quarters/DO. All CAP flights will be in accordance with CAPR 60-1.
This is out of the 900-3. The word Recon is nowhere to be found.
"Recon" comes from AF JAG briefings. Recon, to them, means general observation, while surveillance is the focus on a specific target or individual. The words are from their PCA briefings, not from our regs.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2010, 10:53:02 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2010, 10:20:43 PM
IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement? If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.
1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....
Why not just 2 LEO's? What do the 7 CAP GT members bring to the party? Were not an emergency medical organization, and any skills in searching are also posessed by the LEO's. What is the point of the CAP GT being there? The LEO's also are in direct comm with fire and rescue and can get an emergency helicopter asset way faster than we can. The CAP GT asset is superfluous.
Remember, we are talking a CAP plane identifying a possible crash location and dispatching them to a specific point. We are not going to employ LEO's under the same conditions that we deploy CAP teams. That is also why most LE agencies will not assign an LEO escort officer to a CAP GT to tromp around the swamp all day.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 05, 2010, 12:11:12 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2010, 09:37:34 PM
Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"? I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people). Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance.
a. CAP assistance to law enforcement agencies which may lead to criminal prosecution is restricted to patrol, surveillance, and reporting only. Requests for such assistance, unless of an emergency nature, must be approved in advance by the Wing and Region Com-manders and coordinated with National Head-quarters/DO. All CAP flights will be in accordance with CAPR 60-1.
This is out of the 900-3. The word Recon is nowhere to be found.
I know. Thats why I asked if a change had been made.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2010, 01:17:50 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2010, 10:53:02 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2010, 10:20:43 PM
IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement? If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.
1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....
Why not just 2 LEO's? What do the 7 CAP GT members bring to the party? Were not an emergency medical organization, and any skills in searching are also posessed by the LEO's. What is the point of the CAP GT being there? The LEO's also are in direct comm with fire and rescue and can get an emergency helicopter asset way faster than we can. The CAP GT asset is superfluous.
Remember, we are talking a CAP plane identifying a possible crash location and dispatching them to a specific point. We are not going to employ LEO's under the same conditions that we deploy CAP teams. That is also why most LE agencies will not assign an LEO escort officer to a CAP GT to tromp around the swamp all day.
Well, we could just do away with CAP ES all together. We could have LEOs do flying too. Our State Patrol already uses a Cessna for speed enforcement. They even have FLIR (which our aircraft does not) so they could extend their search all day and night.
In my LEO time, we got exactly 0-training on any type of GT stuff, nor would most of my co-workers likely been interested in taking any type of training. If we had to do a search, we would probably go into the woods about as far as we could see our overhead lights. However, if a ground team wanted to go search and wanted an LEO to go with them, that would not have been much of an issue at all.
Our specialty was dealing with crime and criminals, CAP GT's specialty is SAR. No reason the two cannot work together. If there was a plane down (at least in this area) there are likely to be a few cops attached to the command center anyway, so it's not like you're really killing the taxpayers to say "hey, can you tag along with us?"
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2010, 10:57:34 PM
And CAP GTs participated in another search that found a man alive just a few days ago in California.
Or look at the cover of the Volunteer a few issues ago...
If you're talking about the Joshua Tree mission for the missing hiker, I was told we flew a repeater only, no ground teams. However earlier in the year a CAP/NPS Ground team found a missing airplane with 2 saves.
Mark
Quote from: Lawson on October 05, 2010, 02:45:53 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2010, 01:17:50 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2010, 10:53:02 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2010, 10:20:43 PM
IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement? If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.
1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....
Why not just 2 LEO's? What do the 7 CAP GT members bring to the party? Were not an emergency medical organization, and any skills in searching are also posessed by the LEO's. What is the point of the CAP GT being there? The LEO's also are in direct comm with fire and rescue and can get an emergency helicopter asset way faster than we can. The CAP GT asset is superfluous.
Remember, we are talking a CAP plane identifying a possible crash location and dispatching them to a specific point. We are not going to employ LEO's under the same conditions that we deploy CAP teams. That is also why most LE agencies will not assign an LEO escort officer to a CAP GT to tromp around the swamp all day.
Well, we could just do away with CAP ES all together. We could have LEOs do flying too. Our State Patrol already uses a Cessna for speed enforcement. They even have FLIR (which our aircraft does not) so they could extend their search all day and night.
In my LEO time, we got exactly 0-training on any type of GT stuff, nor would most of my co-workers likely been interested in taking any type of training. If we had to do a search, we would probably go into the woods about as far as we could see our overhead lights. However, if a ground team wanted to go search and wanted an LEO to go with them, that would not have been much of an issue at all.
Our specialty was dealing with crime and criminals, CAP GT's specialty is SAR. No reason the two cannot work together. If there was a plane down (at least in this area) there are likely to be a few cops attached to the command center anyway, so it's not like you're really killing the taxpayers to say "hey, can you tag along with us?"
IF we cherry pick what missions we take based on safety perceptions, then yes, CAP will NOT be the go-to guys for ES. Some on this channel have suggested that "If the area is dangerous, don't take the mission." If the AF and community agencies cannot depend on us, then they will find another asset. On the other hand, if CAP takes an enlightened attitude toward members who are trained and authorized to carry weapons, members will be at no greater risk than they are in their non-CAP lives. The sheep-like attitude that "If we are not armed, then the bad men won't feel a need to shoot us," is a dangerous fantasy.
Regular firefighters, volunteer firefighters, paramedics, red cross volunteers, the salvation army, the boy scouts aren't armed either.
Many communities and agencies depend on those organizations as well.
We already pick missions based on ORM. Again, I don't know what needs to be repeated, if we have CAP members going into situations where a gun would be needed (running into gangbangers, backwoods moonshiners, or running into the Jersey Devil), ORM is off the charts and post investigations up the ying yang.
I think some folks have posted it here, but let me put it more succinctly: If you think you need a gun to do a CAP activity, either you are contemplating the wrong activity, our have the wrong frame of mind.
Flame away..........
Quote from: spacecommand on October 05, 2010, 12:23:24 PM
Regular firefighters, volunteer firefighters, paramedics, red cross volunteers, the salvation army, the boy scouts aren't armed either.
But the boy scouts don't do SAR (at least i've never done it). We do community work. Now, I
have done disaster relief with the scouts after a tornado hit a high school when I lived in Alabama, but that's a whole different can of beans.
Quote from: HGjunkie on October 05, 2010, 07:29:22 PM
Now, I have done disaster relief with the scouts after a tornado hit a high school when I lived in Alabama, but that's a whole different can of beans.
Enterprise? That's the only major incident I can think of in recent years...
Quote from: DakRadz on October 07, 2010, 12:33:33 AM
Enterprise? That's the only major incident I can think of in recent years...
Nailed it. The tornado killed 8 high school students. I went to a few of the memorial services, it was pretty hard on everyone.
I remember that.. It was scary even though we didn't get that much of the storm (comparitively)- my town was smack between Dothan and Columbus, GA.
Everyone was upset about the students- that really hit home; shows that small towns make up a small state...
As far as guns . . . CAP members have talked about carring a side arm or concealed (Senior members only and with strict guide lines) in my area. We have come across dozens of Illegal Ailens while in the feild. The last thing we need is a "Coyote" or a drug runner to open fire on us (there is a fire fight with these people and Border Patrol Agents weekly- throughout the state-). The area we have been in is relatively safe and the Border Patrol (most of them) know who we are and what we are doing. We haven't had any problems yet, but that day could come. And when it does that side arm will be nice to have, not so we can pretend to be border agents, but to protect ourselves.
Follow ORM, ask for law enforcement assistance.
The Border Patrol is usually a good 10 -15 minuets away. The Border Patrol is the closest LE in the area. Even if we called the sheriff, he would just call the Border Patrol because he can't do any thing with Illegal Ailens. In a stand off, 10 - 15 minuets is a longtime to wait for help.
Ask at least one of them to actually go on the search with you. At worst, they get to exercise their authority and protect volunteers.
"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."
ORM is fine and should be applied to every mission. That's a no-brainer. It's obvious CAP shouldn't go places where you reasonably expect potential for dangerous folks to do you harm. However, believing ORM will always insulate you from rude surprises is fantasy.
Until the day the police can arrive faster than I can help myself, the arguments about calling the police for help in every situation fall flat on their face. I've stood over the bodies of many homicide victims for whom a 2 minute police response time did NOTHING. You are on your own for a lot longer if you aren't in the middle of a good sized town.
Having said all that, I agreed to follow CAP's rules when I joined and every time I renewed. Until our rules change (if ever), I keep my promise to follow the rules.
Quote from: spacecommand on October 05, 2010, 12:23:24 PMAgain, I don't know what needs to be repeated, if we have CAP members going into situations where a gun would be needed (running into gangbangers, backwoods moonshiners, or running into the Jersey Devil), ORM is off the charts and post investigations up the ying yang.
I don't think anybody is advocating arming CAP so that we can enter known dangerous situations. I'm certainly not. But let me ask everyone a question: How many of you carry a firearm when simply hiking through the woods? Because I usually do. And not because I'm planning to go into "situations where a gun would be needed". If I were doing that, I would bring a long gun, or more likely just not go at all. The reason I carry is because of the unknown. The potential for a dangerous situation to occur exists everywhere, and you simply do not know what you will come across out there. And it costs so little in terms of extra weight to have it and not need it, that the cost of not having it and needing it (however low the probability of that is) outweighs it.
That said, CAP's situation is different. We don't just represent ourselves when we're on CAP business. And because of that, CAP has restricted us from certain (what I will call) safety measures that we might take on our own. It's not an enormous imposition, although I can see how some take offense to it (I do not). I would like to see the rules loosened somewhat, but that is just me. Until it is, there will be areas of the United States I refuse to hike through without a someone in the group carrying a firearm. Lucky for me all are well outside my wing.
Near Ambush Right, Assault Through.... >:D
Quote from: N Harmon on October 07, 2010, 01:45:24 PMHow many of you carry a firearm when simply hiking through the woods? Because I usually do. And not because I'm planning to go into "situations where a gun would be needed". If I were doing that, I would bring a long gun, or more likely just not go at all. The reason I carry is because of the unknown. The potential for a dangerous situation to occur exists everywhere, and you simply do not know what you will come across out there. And it costs so little in terms of extra weight to have it and not need it, that the cost of not having it and needing it (however low the probability of that is) outweighs it.
Not me.
Makes it kind of hard to get out of bed if you are worried about danger lurking around every corner.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 02:09:54 PM
Makes it kind of hard to get out of bed if you are worried about danger lurking around every corner.
Those are the facts of life. There's danger everywhere you turn. For example, on the roads here, my mom has had a lot of close (very close) calls with people who can't drive. An then there are the people who get agitated and will try to harm you for say, taking a parking space before they got to it. My mom actually did a so called "show of force"; I.E she showed the guy she had a gun when he got peeved that she got to the parking space before he did. There are crazy people everywhere, whether at then local mall or out in the woods. I personally live with what I call "protective paranoia", meaning that I am always on the watch for someone who is trying to hurt, maim, or kill me. Ever read Catch-22? I'm a watered down version of Yossarian.
Quoteshe showed the guy she had a gun when he got peeved that she got to the parking space before he did.
Under Florida law, that would have gotten her arrested for brandishing and the probable loss of her carry permit if she had one. In most states you cannot display a firearm as a threat. In most states, you had better be under physcal assault or a real threat of assault before you even think of displaying a firearm.
Quote from: RRLE on October 07, 2010, 02:41:19 PM
Quoteshe showed the guy she had a gun when he got peeved that she got to the parking space before he did.
Under Florida law, that would have gotten her arrested for brandishing and the probable loss of her carry permit if she had one. In most states you cannot display a firearm as a threat. In most states, you had better be under physcal assault or a real threat of assault before you even think of displaying a firearm.
I think probable physical harm to a disabled woman would constitute that.
OK, Time to visit Plan B:
CAP could create a specialty track in "Security and Force Protection," with qualifications of:
1. Active or retired Law Enforcement Officer, who is qualified to carry a weapon nationwide under HB-218.
2. Otherwise qualified to participate in GT operations.
3. Completes any CAP-unique training imposed on the skill track.
These officers would be assigned to protect CAP members at the direction of the IC, and could also develop security plans for CAP facilities, coordinate with local police agencies, and assist local agencies in non-sworn duties in disasters (traffic direction, assistance to motorists in evacuations, etc.) Open carry or concealed carry would have to be consistent with state law.
Like I said before we can sit around all day long coming up with different scenarios of every possible bad thing that can ever happen, yes I anticipate responses "police are slow" etc . Of course the police cannot be everywhere every second. Again, paramedics/emts , firefighters and other rescue organizations (non law enforcement) aren't armed either, many of these organizations do not allow their members, even if they are concealed carry or otherwise not to carry while performing their official duties.
Again if you deem a situation to be soo dangerous to assign a security & force protection CAP officer, why not just ask for law enforcement to tag a with you? This is a different situation then calling in for "back up" when a situation pops up. Most law enforcement organizations I know won't say "NO" if asked for an officer to tag along during a search.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 07, 2010, 03:31:56 PMThese officers would be assigned to protect CAP members at the direction of the IC, and could also develop security plans for CAP facilities, coordinate with local police agencies, and assist local agencies in non-sworn duties in disasters (traffic direction, assistance to motorists in evacuations, etc.) Open carry or concealed carry would have to be consistent with state law.
So somehow our regs that disallow law enforcement activities would allow for the creation of an internal special police force? One with only the power to get one's self in trouble but no powers of arrest, etc?
If 911 is not enough, we stay home or in the rear, period.
Let's say you and a group of cadets are out in a farm field shooting your model rockets. Nice weather, everyone has been trained properly, should be a pretty safe activity? Low ORM right?
Now a guy walks up and you being a safety and CPT minded person nonchalantly place yourself between him and the cadets and strike up a conversation.
He pulls out a .357.
What do you do?
Under CAP regs, you get shot. Under my state's laws and outside of CAP he gets shot because I would have a personal protective device on me.
Think that's far fetched? Think again. This is a current event just, substitute a farmer for a group of cadets. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06/indiana.illinois.manhunt/index.html?hpt=T2)
You don't have to go looking for danger.
Sometimes it will find you. I'm driving through Lowell later today on my way to Terre Haute so it's kind of on my mind.
Everyone should carry a firearm because a cop is too big to fit in your pocket.
There are three kinds of people. Most people are "Sheep." They cannot tolerate the thought of danger, and their only response is denial. There are "Wolves" who prey upon the sheep unmercifully. Then there are the "Sheep Dogs." The sheep dogs look like wolves, have big teeth, but will not harm the sheep. Instead, they face the wolves. When the wolves strike the sheep, all the sheep can do is bleat helplessly. When the wolves face the sheepdog, the wolves are forced to flee, or die.
I admit it. I'm an unrepentant sheepdog. I have spent my life protecting myself and others against violent persons. It is a hard habit to break. If I was unable to protect those who depend upon me for protection because I had no weapon when I faced a violent attack, I do not that I could live with myself.
Be a sheep if you want. Fall on you knees before a violent predator and beg him to be merciful. That is your choice.
If you are legally able to carry a weapon, and you leave your home without it, take a nice deep breath and say...
"Baaaaaaaa!"
OK, guys...your NRA is showing...
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 04:56:21 PM
OK, guys...your NRA is showing...
You say that like its a bad thing.
I guess the next step is start equipping CAP aircraft with sidewinder missiles for defensive purposes, especially with all the recent UFO activities in Asia and 2012 just round the corner... Helmets should also be made mandatory for all persons in CAP vehicles (to include vans and airplanes) for all passengers, to prevent head trauma in case of an accident.
In CAPs 68 years of existence, how many CAP members have been killed when they have ran unto the Jersey Devil or a methlab out in the open woods?
In the last 68 years how many firefighters/paramedics have been killed going into dangerous situations (too many)? Yet they still remain unarmed. Those agencies typically have set policies when there is a dangerous situation, call the police. I don't see why CAP has to be different from those agencies.
Of course:
"the police take too long" "they can't be everywhere" "a madman might show up" scenarios can go on and on.
People are right you don't have to look for danger, sometimes danger can just show right up, however does that justify the creation of an internal police force of armed CAP members for the purposes of CAP activities and what CAP does? In my opinion, no it doesn't.
The world aint perfect, you can't take a loaded gun (or any gun for that matter) on an airplane but there's a remote possibility out there that some terrorist would want to hijack it, should passengers be able to carry guns on with them to defend themselves. (again one of the many scenarios we can spend all day coming up with)
Quote from: spacecommand on October 07, 2010, 07:10:21 PM
I guess the next step is start equipping CAP aircraft with sidewinder missiles for defensive purposes,
I think those would be considered offensive - flares and chaff would be defensive.
That would be sooooo sweet. I want to be a Weapons Officer on a 172!
In EMS-land, we are unarmed, and we FREQUENTLY go into places that you NRA-CCW nuts would soil your pantaloons over.
And you know what the rule is? We don't go into areas where shooting is happening, until the Police have radioed "Area clear."
Do you know how I keep myself alive when I go into crime-infested areas? I keep cool, remain polite, and do my job.
Medical organization or not, both CAP ES and EMS have the same goal: to save lives. Handguns, anyway you look at them were originally created with one purpose in mind: to take life. The very opposite of what we are supposed to be doing.
And let's look at the deranged maniac argument, shall we? Every time a deranged maniac appears, it gets spammed by the news. I don't hear much about deranged maniacs on the news. Therefore, there aren't that many deranged maniacs around.
If you feel the need to walk around with a gun at all times, CAP isn't the organization for you.
Before we continue, yes, I am a bleeding heart liberal. And proud. And these NRA-parrot types are just the type of wannabee who have no place in CAP. They pose a threat to the organization, and the Lawyers are right in restricting the use of firearms by CAP members.
Quoteprobable physical harm to a disabled woman would constitute that.
In Florida "probable" isn't good enough, it has to be a real and immediate threat. And the reasonable man/woman test applies. A guy who is only 'peeved' is not an immeidate threat. Pistol packin' granny is in a heap of hot water if there were any witnesses at all.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 04:56:21 PM
OK, guys...your NRA is showing...
Problem?
Krapenhoeffer, you sound like a pro-gun control advocate.
Quote from: RRLE on October 07, 2010, 07:35:36 PM
Quoteprobable physical harm to a disabled woman would constitute that.
In Florida "probable" isn't good enough, it has to be a real and immediate threat. And the reasonable man/woman test applies. A guy who is only 'peeved' is not an immeidate threat. Pistol packin' granny is in a heap of hot water if there were any witnesses at all.
PM sent.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on October 07, 2010, 07:34:28 PMIn EMS-land, we are unarmed, and we FREQUENTLY go into places that you NRA-CCW nuts would soil your pantaloons over.
Oh, Please. You just said in the next sentence that you wait until the police have radioed "area clear". An urban environment secured by armed police officers is not the same thing as a wooded area where help is literally hours away.
Oh, and the "NRA-CCW nuts" name-calling? Is that an example of keeping cool, and remaining polite? Sorry, but that was uncalled for. A very good friend of mine is a contractor for a handful of cable companies, disconnecting cable television in neighborhoods where the cable company has encountered problems before. Now, you want to talk about calm and polite? I've never known a person to be as good at talking his way out of a fight as this guy. Yet he still carries that .357 in his tool belt because even he knows talking only gets you so far.
By the way, I know more than a few CAP members who have DF's ELTs to these same neighborhoods. So, don't take this as my trying to justify armed DF teams.
QuoteBefore we continue, yes, I am a bleeding heart liberal. And proud. And these NRA-parrot types are just the type of wannabee who have no place in CAP. They pose a threat to the organization, and the Lawyers are right in restricting the use of firearms by CAP members.
Again with the name calling. So now because some of us are advocates for the 2nd amendment outside CAP, we have no place in CAP? The on top of that we're a THREAT to CAP? You have quite a bit of nerve throwing accusations like that around.
Amen Harmon.
Quote from: N Harmon on October 07, 2010, 08:52:52 PMI've never known a person to be as good at talking his way out of a fight as this guy. Yet he still carries that .357 in his tool belt because even he knows talking only gets you so far
Gambling is probably a TOS violation (as would turning this discussion political), however I would bet you $10 that if his company ever found out he'd be fired on the spot.
Any cable guy that I got wind of with a gun would be explaining it to a police officer as he watched a different tech go into my house.
Ridiculous.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: N Harmon on October 07, 2010, 08:52:52 PMI've never known a person to be as good at talking his way out of a fight as this guy. Yet he still carries that .357 in his tool belt because even he knows talking only gets you so far
Gambling is probably a TOS violation (as would turning this discussion political), however I would bet you $10 that if his company ever found out he'd be fired on the spot.
Any cable guy that I got wind of with a gun would be explaining it to a police officer as he watched a different tech go into my house.
Ridiculous.
if he has a CCW permit he has broken no laws in most jurisdictions. Why would you call the police?
"NRA-CCW nuts": Interesting term. Personally, I think the NRA is a little too liberal for me, focusing less on Constitutional principals and too much on sporting uses. Nonetheless, the NRA is the largest lobbying organization in America because more Americans joined it than any other group. Having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United Sates of America, I don't see anything wrong with an organization that exists solely to defend Constitutionally enumerated rights. Would you refer to the NAACP as those "black rights, anti-slavery nuts?" Fortunately, bigotry born of ignorance is often curable.
Not everyone,as John K. has indirectly pointed out, is morally, mentally, emotionally and temperamentally suited to carrying a weapon. Give a weapon to a sheep and he won't be turned to a sheepdog, he will just be a better armed sheep. I defend the right of those of you who choose to go about defended by others or to die passively in protest.
I don't disparage those in the EMS business that cannot go armed, but to suggest that you go places that armed Americans ("NRA-CCW nuts" ) fear to tread is just laughable. If you go into a situation that is inherently dangerous in EMS without establishing personal protective measures and procedures, you may not be professional enough to survive the EMS business. Consider becoming a wedding planner or some field where your attitude won't get you and your partner killed.
That having been said, CAP is an organization that has little to do with guns, and is in fact, frightened by them. If the mission can't be carried out without a firearm, we are the worst possible people to task! You have a few choices; Live with the regulations as written, try to change them,( I would rate that about as high as the survival of an ice cube in hades) Or ignore the regulations and hope you never have to shoot anyone while on CAP's time (Because then you would be in real trouble!) Better to bleed-out hanging on the barbed wire fence of some dopers pot field , or let some drug crazed liberal kill a couple of your cadets while you try and talk them down, then violate a CAP rule. The CAPR is just way too sacred to violate.
Major Lord
Quote from: cap235629 on October 07, 2010, 10:51:14 PM
if he has a CCW permit he has broken no laws in most jurisdictions. Why would you call the police?
Not in my state, for starters.
Just because he is standing in a jurisdiction with CCW doesn't mean he has a CCW, nor does it give him the right to bring a firearm
in my home, and I guarantee his company doesn't allow it.
The PD can verify he is legal to carry it, and then he can explain to his superiors why he is carrying a firearm. Assuming they are OK with that, more power to him, just not in my house.
The only way anyone will ever know I am carrying a gun is to become an immediate threat to my life, or the life of some innocent person. He will learn I am armed when the bullet penetrates his chest. Until then, I keep my weapons completely concealed from view. I do not threaten, display, brag about, or mention my firearm under normal conditions.
^ Which makes you a common sense, commendable gun owner, however you are also in the minority, and would be especially if CAP ever allowed any sort of carry. Rare is the civilian with a CCW that doesn't want everyone to know.
With that said, assuming it was an option, I don't want you on my team if you have a weapon, legal or not.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 11:12:25 PM
^ Which makes you a common sense, commendable gun owner, however you are also in the minority, and would be especially if CAP ever allowed any sort of carry. Rare is the civilian with a CCW that doesn't want everyone to know.
With that said, assuming it was an option, I don't want you on my team if you have a weapon, legal or not.
Actually the folks who brag about having a CCW are a very small minority. I would be willing to bet it is like 1 in 20 or more. So for every one you know there at least 20 others that you will never know about.
Well, again in my state it is a non-issue. If you are carrying you are either law enforcement (or some derivative), or breaking the law.
Which State are you in? Wisconsin or Illinois?
Major Lord
IL
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Shallissue2011.gif)
Quote from: N Harmon on October 07, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Oh, Please. You just said in the next sentence that you wait until the police have radioed "area clear". An urban environment secured by armed police officers is not the same thing as a wooded area where help is literally hours away.
There is a big difference between an area where shooting is currently going on, and an area where my gut instincts tell me that quite a few people are packing heat, which where I live, is illegal.
And I say nuts, because the situations being thrown around are "what-ifs"
What-if questions have no place here. Nor do they have a place anywhere.
The regulations are just fine and dandy the way they are. And besides, if CAP were to change the regulation, you can be sure that suddenly, all AFAMs would go bye bye.
If you're worried about needing a gun on an ES mission, the Sheriff's department would be more than happy to send a deputy out with your team.
(Most Sheriffs Depts. and Police Depts. don't know the first thing about SAR, at least in my neck of the woods)
I have not argued against a persons Constitutional right to own a weapon; the Supreme Court has upheld this time and time again, but what you have to realize is that when you signed the Form 12, you agreed to go by CAP regulation. And the regulation is clear, and it isn't going to be changed anytime soon.
OK, so here's a question. Let's say I'm the person in charge of a UDF team that is tracking a beacon into a known drug area where people running around in BDUs are not generally welcome. Do I:
a - Be as positive as I can that it is in this "unsafe area" and call IC to advise we terminate the sortie.
b - Be as positive as I can that it is in this "unsafe area" and call IC to ask him to request LEO assistance. What if the local PD or Sheriff's Department doesn't have anyone to spare?
c - Continue as normal.
Of course, in reality all of this would depend on the situation and team makeup (I would probably think two or three times before I took 14 year old C/Snuffy into this situation, LEO escort or not), but just for discussion's sake.
It's my understanding that, CAP members (21 and older) in Alaska are mandated by the state to carry fire arms while on a SAR or ES mission. I'm now curious how that works, when it seems people are spitting out regs that would make this (fire arms in Alaska) imposable.
The regulations clearly state that if required by state law, CAP members are authorized to carry firearms. Then and only then.
@Spaceman3750: B. You shouldn't have trouble getting help from the Sheriff or local PD, and if necessary, you can get AFRCC to ask for help.
However, if there is no way to get Law Enforcement on the scene, you need to resort to either:
option a
or
option Polo shirt :P
^^^^^
That I understand.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: N Harmon on October 07, 2010, 08:52:52 PMI've never known a person to be as good at talking his way out of a fight as this guy. Yet he still carries that .357 in his tool belt because even he knows talking only gets you so far
Gambling is probably a TOS violation (as would turning this discussion political), however I would bet you $10 that if his company ever found out he'd be fired on the spot.
Any cable guy that I got wind of with a gun would be explaining it to a police officer as he watched a different tech go into my house.
Ridiculous.
1. He is a contractor, not an employee. Thus, he is only subject to the conditions of the contracting arrangement, which does not prohibit him from carrying.
2. He doesn't go into anyone's home. His job is only to disconnect people who have not paid their bill. The cable companies themselves are more than happy to do the installs.
I don't believe that people who advocate gun rights are "nuts" any more than people who don't carry are "sheep", but...
...this isn't the "wild west", either, and the sad fact is that guns in the home are more likely to injure or kill the owner or a family member as to be used to defend against an invader.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2010, 01:46:37 PM
I don't believe that people who advocate gun rights are "nuts" any more than people who don't carry are "sheep", but...
...this isn't the "wild west", either, and the sad fact is that guns in the home are more likely to injure or kill the owner or a family member as to be used to defend against an invader.
? Really.... can u cite that for me? or is this just chicago anti gun babble?
Quote from: N Harmon on October 08, 2010, 01:39:23 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: N Harmon on October 07, 2010, 08:52:52 PMI've never known a person to be as good at talking his way out of a fight as this guy. Yet he still carries that .357 in his tool belt because even he knows talking only gets you so far
Gambling is probably a TOS violation (as would turning this discussion political), however I would bet you $10 that if his company ever found out he'd be fired on the spot.
Any cable guy that I got wind of with a gun would be explaining it to a police officer as he watched a different tech go into my house.
Ridiculous.
1. He is a contractor, not an employee. Thus, he is only subject to the conditions of the contracting arrangement, which does not prohibit him from carrying.
I doubt that, seriously. There may be no overt prohibition, but I guarantee when the company finds out they are history.
Anyone with a lick of common sense is not doing business with any cable company that allows its "contractors" to carry weapons.
My property, my rules. Tell it to the PD.
Quote from: NCRblues on October 08, 2010, 01:48:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2010, 01:46:37 PM
I don't believe that people who advocate gun rights are "nuts" any more than people who don't carry are "sheep", but...
...this isn't the "wild west", either, and the sad fact is that guns in the home are more likely to injure or kill the owner or a family member as to be used to defend against an invader.
? Really.... can u cite that for me? or is this just chicago anti gun babble?
Google is your friend.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2010, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: N Harmon on October 08, 2010, 01:39:23 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: N Harmon on October 07, 2010, 08:52:52 PMI've never known a person to be as good at talking his way out of a fight as this guy. Yet he still carries that .357 in his tool belt because even he knows talking only gets you so far
Gambling is probably a TOS violation (as would turning this discussion political), however I would bet you $10 that if his company ever found out he'd be fired on the spot.
Any cable guy that I got wind of with a gun would be explaining it to a police officer as he watched a different tech go into my house.
Ridiculous.
1. He is a contractor, not an employee. Thus, he is only subject to the conditions of the contracting arrangement, which does not prohibit him from carrying.
My property, my rules. Tell it to the PD.
And the PD will tell you they are sorry, but easements and public utility right-of-ways trump your rules.
Quote from: N Harmon on October 08, 2010, 01:55:43 PM
And the PD will tell you they are sorry, but easements and public utility right-of-ways trump your rules.
To what level of ridiculous do you intend to take this conversation?
Here's one for you:
"Homeowner with a CCW meets Cable Guy with CCW." The "misunderstanding" results in two funerals.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2010, 01:46:37 PM
...the sad fact is that guns in the home are more likely to injure or kill the owner or a family member as to be used to defend against an invader.
This is only accurate when the folks with guns are fools or are already criminals, which certainly isn't the case for most gun owners.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on October 08, 2010, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2010, 01:46:37 PM
...the sad fact is that guns in the home are more likely to injure or kill the owner or a family member as to be used to defend against an invader.
This is only accurate when the folks with guns are fools or are already criminals, which certainly isn't the case for most gun owners.
Sorry - the same could be said for cars.
Most gun owners buy a gun and think they can hold it sideways because it looks cooler that way. Very few ever take any formal
training.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 08, 2010, 02:01:41 AM
OK, so here's a question. Let's say I'm the person in charge of a UDF team that is tracking a beacon into a known drug area where people running around in BDUs are not generally welcome. Do I:
a - Be as positive as I can that it is in this "unsafe area" and call IC to advise we terminate the sortie.
b - Be as positive as I can that it is in this "unsafe area" and call IC to ask him to request LEO assistance. What if the local PD or Sheriff's Department doesn't have anyone to spare?
c - Continue as normal.
Of course, in reality all of this would depend on the situation and team makeup (I would probably think two or three times before I took 14 year old C/Snuffy into this situation, LEO escort or not), but just for discussion's sake.
I deal with this quite regularly on some of my GT missions. It's solved quite easily, when I come into a town to do some df work, I call the local Sheriff/PD office and request an escort. This does three things, first it gives me some safety in case I'm working in an area known to have drug traffickers. Second, it makes it quicker and easier should I need to enter private property to shut down a beacon, which I would call them for anyway. Third, it keeps everyone on good relations by involving them early.
And no, the local sheriff's deputies, at least around these parts, are not too busy. We usually get two or three cars escorting us because they don't have much else to do.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on October 08, 2010, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2010, 01:46:37 PM
...the sad fact is that guns in the home are more likely to injure or kill the owner or a family member as to be used to defend against an invader.
This is only accurate when the folks with guns are fools or are already criminals, which certainly isn't the case for most gun owners.
I sent my prior post before considering relevance to the thread topic, which isn't firearms in the home. Apologies for my participation in severe thread drift.
Hopefully we'll get back to intelligent debate on the topic as it applies to CAP. Any fresh ideas out there? Or...are we reduced to repeating the same points ad nauseum?
Busy or not, a good way to meet locals with CCW is to be roaming around in camouflage with something that looks like a rifle (folded L-Per at night) without LEA support.
More than once I've been on a mission where local PD showed up and commented that they had been getting calls about the above.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on October 08, 2010, 01:30:46 AM
Quote from: N Harmon on October 07, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Oh, Please. You just said in the next sentence that you wait until the police have radioed "area clear". An urban environment secured by armed police officers is not the same thing as a wooded area where help is literally hours away.
There is a big difference between an area where shooting is currently going on, and an area where my gut instincts tell me that quite a few people are packing heat, which where I live, is illegal.
And I say nuts, because the situations being thrown around are "what-ifs"
What-if questions have no place here. Nor do they have a place anywhere.
The regulations are just fine and dandy the way they are. And besides, if CAP were to change the regulation, you can be sure that suddenly, all AFAMs would go bye bye.
If you're worried about needing a gun on an ES mission, the Sheriff's department would be more than happy to send a deputy out with your team.
(Most Sheriffs Depts. and Police Depts. don't know the first thing about SAR, at least in my neck of the woods)
I have not argued against a persons Constitutional right to own a weapon; the Supreme Court has upheld this time and time again, but what you have to realize is that when you signed the Form 12, you agreed to go by CAP regulation. And the regulation is clear, and it isn't going to be changed anytime soon.
What if's have no place anywhere?
What do you think ORM is?
You don't fly much, do you? A pilot is always thinking of "What if..."
I know the regulation. I know the risks. I will make the decisions accordingly. I know the regulation is unlikely to be changed in the near future.
If you cannot debate an issue without becoming emotional and resorting to personal attacks, then you probably should avoid discussion boards.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
Busy or not, a good way to meet locals with CCW is to be roaming around in camouflage with something that looks like a rifle (folded L-Per at night) without LEA support.
More than once I've been on a mission where local PD showed up and commented that they had been getting calls about the above.
I will keep that in mind next time I'm responsible for a team.
By Krapenhoeffer
If you feel the need to walk around with a gun at all times, CAP isn't the organization for you.
Oh great, now what am I supposed to do with all my free time?
I think Glenn Beck had people like Eclipse in mind when he wrote "Arguing with Idiots"
Come on guys. There is no need for personal attacks here. We simply have a couple of fine CAP members who happen to live in states where private citizens are not allowed to carry firearms. As a result, they have a skewed understanding of what it is to live in an place where a lot of ordinary people are packing. That does not make them idiots, just misinformed. And as gun owners, our responsibility is to set them right according to facts, not ridicule them.
Some comments are really uncalled for. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and should not be ridiculed.
Honestly, I've learned something valuable from both sides by reading this thread.
Let's at least try to be CIVIL or we can ask a moderator to lock the thread before this discussion degrades into something useless.