Armed CAP Members

NCRblues · October 25, 2011, 04:51:32 PM

well, this went down the "troll" lane very quickly

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

Hardshell Clam · October 25, 2011, 04:54:20 PM

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The govt and military are specifically authorized to make regulations for their employees and they need not be published in the federal register, only "approved and published" to have the effect, as they apply only to the conduct of their employees.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

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

You are right, but what type of corporation?

Hardshell Clam · October 25, 2011, 05:05:36 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 04:51:32 PM
well, this went down the "troll" lane very quickly

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

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

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

NCRblues · October 25, 2011, 05:18:30 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 05:05:36 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 04:51:32 PM
well, this went down the "troll" lane very quickly

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardshell Clam · October 25, 2011, 05:42:25 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 05:18:30 PM
Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 05:05:36 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 25, 2011, 04:51:32 PM
well, this went down the "troll" lane very quickly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully agree with number 3!

tonyairplane · October 25, 2011, 07:24:43 PM

Wow, blue lights were bad enough......

Flying Pig · October 25, 2011, 07:43:17 PM

I have been reading through the posts, and found several occasions where people ask, "Are there any CAP members who are authorized to carry firearms". Although it hasnt happened, the question seems to be setting up for someone to respond, "Oh yeah...Capt Jones from Sq 123 does." If there is a CAP member, that for some reason is required by law or has a CAP exemption to carry a firearm, its probably not the worlds business who it is.

I actually know of no agency that is mandated by law to carry 24/7 nor have I ever heard of one, local, State or Fed. None of the Fed agencies I work with are. DEA, USSS, HSI, FBI, USMS nor are any of the military agencies, CID, NCIS, OSI.
I dont even know of any agencies whos internal policies require 24/7 carry. When your off, your off. If anyone knows of an agency who is required by law to carry all the time, even when off duty, I would like to know what agency that is because Im very curious.

Hawk200 · October 25, 2011, 07:48:02 PM

I wouldn't carry while on a CAP duty, but something in the trunk of my car wouldn't necessarily be out of the question. Unless I have to bring it out, nobody is gonna know anyway. (Can't boot be if you didn't know I did it.)

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

When it comes to agencies required, that's a different story than authorized. But, if you've been in law enforcement any length of time, you know that not carrying is a bad idea.

Hardshell Clam · October 25, 2011, 08:03:34 PM

my last thoughts:

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

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

3. I have only been in the professional LEO field for all my adult life and a fed for most of that and can tell you this: More cops have gotten into trouble with their off duty guns then have ever needed them. I carry sometimes but I just don't see the need to carry 24/7 but that is my choice. I know agent/officers who weare guns in their own back yards and that is just sad...

Phil Hirons, Jr. · October 25, 2011, 08:08:02 PM

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

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

From the discussion it appears very few LEOs are required to carry off duty so the number of Wing CC authorizations should be close to zero.

Major Lord · October 25, 2011, 08:15:47 PM

I have not heard of any Law Enforcement Agency requiring full time CCW, and a lot of Cops and Lawfully armed citizens become complacent if no one tries to kill them for a little while, and so leave their gun at home, the trunk, etc.. My Squadron meets on an Air Base, my CCW permit means absolutely nothing to them, and I would no doubt be enjoying a raging good time while the SP's and civilian guards got to do a felony stop at the front gate, and I don't think my CAP ID would do much to help either! I agree that as a condition of my relationship with CAP, not to carry a firearm, date cadets ( my wife would be miffed too) etc. If I thought I needed my sidearm on a CAP mission, I would have to weigh the consequences carefully, and consider risk versus reward.

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

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

Major Lord

lordmonar · October 25, 2011, 10:45:13 PM

You....know this is one of those "I got you rules".

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

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

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

Bottom line......don't do anything that your commander is going to have to do paperwork on!

Hardshell Clam · October 25, 2011, 10:54:42 PM

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

And you d not have the authority to do pat-downs. The "don't do anything that your commander is going to have to do paperwork on" is good advise and I would carry it a tad further: Don't disobey regs and if you must carry, move on.

lordmonar · October 25, 2011, 11:05:53 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 10:54:42 PMAnd you d not have the authority to do pat-downs.

Like I said we can argue legalistics all day long.

Ned · October 25, 2011, 11:08:29 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 10:54:42 PM
And you do not have the authority to do pat-downs.

Why do you say that?

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

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

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

ol'fido · October 25, 2011, 11:22:47 PM

Just going to try to answer the original question. I know of no one currently authorized to carry a weapon in the name of CAP. Someone has already mentioned the Alaska exception and you've all debated the LE/CCW thing for a couple of pages now. However, if you go look at some of the historic photos from the WW2 days, you will see some aircrew members wearing .38s and .45s.

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

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

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

Hardshell Clam · October 25, 2011, 11:41:51 PM

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

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

ol'fido · October 25, 2011, 11:42:14 PM

Another one I really like:

http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/CAP%20categories/World%20War%20II/WWII%20Subchasers/pages/CAP_104_177.html

a2capt · October 25, 2011, 11:45:23 PM

Ya know, I really do have to wonder what the motive of this thread was. Because it sure does seem like an evolving trolling session.

JeffDG · October 25, 2011, 11:49:06 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on October 25, 2011, 11:41:51 PM
"What sort of "authority" do you think is "required" for a CAP commander to check to see if a member is violating regulations?"

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

Under what law would such kid's college be paid for?

You are aware that things like the 4th Amendment have zero applicability to CAP, right?