Force protection and armed CAP members

[Eclipse]

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.

[DogCollar]

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.

[vmstan]

I would be fine with a change to allow LEO to carry concealed while in uniform.

[Chappie]

I would like to see an additional item added to this poll...

Should CAP Chaplains be allowed to carry guns?   

[cap235629]

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?

[Ned]

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?

[Gunner C]

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.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

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.

[High Speed Low Drag]

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.       That way you won't feel hypocritical.    LOL

[MichaelAGates]

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.

[blackrain]

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.       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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[vmstan]

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.

[lordmonar]

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!

[vmstan]

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.

[RiverAux]

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!

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>>

[wuzafuzz]

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.

[Stonewall]

Guns?  No!

Reflective Belts?  YES!!!!

[C-150]

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.

[Thrashed]

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