Force protection and armed CAP members

[Major Lord]

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

[davidsinn]

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.

[Rotorhead]

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.

[jimmydeanno]

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...

[cap235629]

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!

[davidsinn]

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.

[Rotorhead]

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.

[wuzafuzz]

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.   

[Rotorhead]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[tdepp]

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? 

[nesagsar]

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.

[Rotorhead]

The 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"?

[tdepp]

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.

[Flying Pig]

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!

[Short Field]

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? 

[tdepp]

^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.

[Gunner C]

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.

[Cherokeepilot]

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.

[billford1]

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.