Firearms & GT (Split from NYPD Aux. thread)

[DNall]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_nm/texas_deadlyforce_dc related article.

[JC004]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_nm/texas_deadlyforce_dc related article.

Hurray for the Castle Doctrine!  Now to get it passed in Pennsylvania...   

[lordmonar]

If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Wanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

CAP, Inc. tosses out people for little or no reason. If they toss me out for defending myself when in fear of my life or for another then then CAP, Inc. has proven they care about no member's life at all.

Johnny...I think you don't understand what we are saying.  Your right to bear arms ends at the CAP door.  Because you are now the CAP's responsibility to keep safe.  CAP cannot afford for you to input an uncontrolled element of danger.  Sorry that is just the way it is.  Just like you can't take that gun with you when you go to a school campus.  CAP has a direct responsibility to keep its people safe.  And at a squadron meeting you represent the greatest threat...and therefore they wrote 900-3.  It is not that don't care for peoples lifes....it is that the "cure" that you bring with you is worse than the disease.

[DNall]

Johnny...I think you don't understand what we are saying.  Your right to bear arms ends at the CAP door.  Because you are now the CAP's responsibility to keep safe.  CAP cannot afford for you to input an uncontrolled element of danger.  Sorry that is just the way it is.  Just like you can't take that gun with you when you go to a school campus.  CAP has a direct responsibility to keep its people safe.  And at a squadron meeting you represent the greatest threat...and therefore they wrote 900-3.  It is not that don't care for peoples lifes....it is that the "cure" that you bring with you is worse than the disease.

While a nice thought, you know very well that's not the reason why it's like that. The reg is everythign to do with liability. As a corp independent of the govt when it suits them or us, we can be sued for problems. They govt will not pay the results of that suit! If that suit is high enough (probably based on gross negligence or punative damages) then CAP cannot collect enough from member dues or outside donations to remain in operation & will shut down. The better legal strategy is to ask that the individuals & CAP be seperated into two or more cases, and then for CAP to help prosecute the individuals, cause the more liablity that lands on them the less there is for CAP to settle.

[lordmonar]

Johnny...I think you don't understand what we are saying.  Your right to bear arms ends at the CAP door.  Because you are now the CAP's responsibility to keep safe.  CAP cannot afford for you to input an uncontrolled element of danger.  Sorry that is just the way it is.  Just like you can't take that gun with you when you go to a school campus.  CAP has a direct responsibility to keep its people safe.  And at a squadron meeting you represent the greatest threat...and therefore they wrote 900-3.  It is not that don't care for peoples lifes....it is that the "cure" that you bring with you is worse than the disease.

While a nice thought, you know very well that's not the reason why it's like that. The reg is everything to do with liability. As a corp independent of the govt when it suits them or us, we can be sued for problems. They govt will not pay the results of that suit! If that suit is high enough (probably based on gross negligence or punitive damages) then CAP cannot collect enough from member dues or outside donations to remain in operation & will shut down. The better legal strategy is to ask that the individuals & CAP be separated into two or more cases, and then for CAP to help prosecute the individuals, cause the more liability that lands on them the less there is for CAP to settle.

You are right, of course...I already used that argument...but Johnny Y did not want to hear about that.  He wanted to say that his right to self defense was more important than CAP's right to protect its people and itself.  And I just used a precedent that already exists.

[DNall]

I understand, I just wouldn't go so far as thinking it has anything to do with taking care of our people. CAP has never demonstrated any concern for members, quite the opposite in fact. This particular rule can be written up exclusively to cold hearted no soul at all self-serving protection of the org even & especially when it screws members that are doing the right thing. That's standard practice in civil law, and especially in the area of risk mgmt.

[JohnKachenmeister]

If you don't believe Dennis, read the Safety Pledge... Even THAT was written by a lawyer!

[SAR-EMT1]

I don't want to be seen as a threat, subversive or one who disregards the National Leadership; for submitting this chain of thought. BUT:  Why the fascination with GUNS?! I have several nice tent stakes that could make instant weapons,- not to mention a BFK and a throwing star- in the gear-.  I have no reason to bring a gun on a mission. And I would bet that my with defense training / martial arts and the knife that I could deal appropriately with the situation.

As for reaction: if  a crazy trys to mess with a GT I'm on, or aims a gun at me... well then.. well just see what a throwing star or Kbar looks like lodged in the guys windpipe (I'm an EMT too, so I suppose I can keep him from dying if I'm of a mind.)
I can (and have) taken down "wild things" with the star as well.

[DNall]

Well, I didn't bring the topic up, but I've been very nearly killed a half dozen times on CAP missions and to the extent that's peventable & nothing is done about it, that's unacceptable.

Far as I remember, I've had a gun pulled on my GT twice, one was innocent enough but I didn't much like it, the other was 10 seconds short of shotgun thru the brain pan.

I've also on several occations encountered dangerous wildlife that didn't particularly care for my folks being near them & expressed that fact to us in a few different ways. Luckily no one has been hurt, but if an animal charges my team & starts attacking one of my guys, which reg would you recommend I cite to make it all beter, or maybe just throw at it while I call for a troop of girls scouts to come & rescue us.

UDF with 911 & cops around the corner is one thing, it's completely another when you're talking about GT in places where a desperate emergency & perfect comms means maybe a two hour response time if your're real lucky. The same kind of places where a game warden gets gunned down a couple weeks back by a poacher who fliped the selector to full-auto, or you walk up on meth labs or stands of dope. Should I tighten up my boy scout hankie & instruct them not to hurt my people or should I defend the people placed in my charge?

I'm just saying, there's some places where it's not real smart to go unarmed, & folks like park rangers will tell you that. There's also the other end of the spectrum where we don't get to go to Katrina till two weeks late cause it's too dangerous to put poor innocent little volunteers in there that can't take care of themselves. That's BS.

By the way, KBar & throwing star (especially) are both exactly as illegal to possess at a CAP function or take with you in the field. No weapons of any kind, no large sheath knives. Get real Jackie Chan. Try that crap on a Gator, bear or charging javelina & see what happens to ya.

[JC004]

not to mention a BFK and a throwing star- in the gear-.

In this state, I can carry my pistol just about anywhere I please, but all hell would break loose if I got caught with a throwing star.  Unlike some states like Florida, my concealed carry permit doesn't cover knives and such.

[Major Lord]

Man, I would love to see you try to defend yourself against bears, mountain lions or a dog pack with a throwing star! BTW, its a  misdemeanor to carry a gun concealed in California,(without a permit)  but a felony to carry a shuriken (throwing star) Do the math...

As a GTL, I have had a few close calls, but I have decided to play by CAP rules and not carry my gun. Yes, the United States Constitution DOES trump Corporation rules, but if in good conscience you cannot abide CAPRs, than don't do CAP. CAP does have sometimes have a decidedly un-American flavor to it, but it is up to us to keep the bedwetters from running this organization.

Capt. Lord

[JC004]

Man, I would love to see you try to defend yourself against bears, mountain lions or a dog pack with a throwing star! BTW, its a  misdemeanor to carry a gun concealed in California,(without a permit)  but a felony to carry a shuriken (throwing star) Do the math...

Well you could kill somebody with a throwing star!  Sheesh!  Even if they were legal in CA, there'd be a 10-star limit.     Stupid high capacity magazine laws.   :angel:

[lordmonar]

Yes, the United States Constitution DOES trump Corporation rules, but if in good conscience you cannot abide CAPRs, than don't do CAP.

Just to emphasise the point!

[JohnKachenmeister]

John I understand where you are coming from and your reasoning (to a point...I won't say that it is lack of activity on part of the NB...but maybe a why waste time on something that is not likely to happen).

Bottom line is that 900-3 gives CAP an out when it comes lawsuit time.  That is if you assist Deputy Johnny Lawenforment and it brings heat on CAP....they can always pass the liability directly on the member by saying he violated regulations.

The thing is...the law enforcement assistance thing works both ways.  The MOU between the CAP and local LE should point out that it would be inappropriate for the LE Officer to even ask for that type of help.  That the LEO acted incorrectly when he was trying to avoid a sexual harassment suit by passing the liability to another agency.   If he does not feel right about executing an arrest because of possible litigation...he should not execute the arrest in the first place.  If the bust is a good bust....he should follow his training in a professional manner and accept the risk of a lawsuit.  If he is doing what he is supposed to do and the way he is supposed to do it...then all is good....it just takes time to prove it.

But that brings us back to CAP.  Even when we are on a corporate assigned mission we do not represent ourselves.  We are NOT private citizens.  Yes that does not allow you to totally disregard police assistance, but it does mean that you are between a rock and a hard place.  You have to please two masters.  So it is a judgment call in the field.  Follow the law or CAPR's.  Your choice.

You are absolutely right.  900-3 is a protection for CAP.  I cannot use that as a legal defense for failing to aid a LE officer.

And as to the propriety of the request for assistance, assuming that a street cop would even KNOW the provisions of the MOU, his statement in court that actual conditions at the scene required him to take actions and make requests not envisioned by the MOU would carry plenty of weight in front of a jury. 

I mean... here's an officer saying that he needed assistance from a volunteer disaster worker, and there YOU are reading to the jury a bunch of legalese in a contract between lawyers for the various parties.  How would YOU vote if it came down to a cop saying "I needed help and asked Lt Jones to help, and she refused."  versus,  "At no time during the pendency of this Agreement between the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. and any other party or party to said Agreement shall any of the contracting parties, either directly or through agents, demand, request, authorize, permit, or suffer and member of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. to be deputized, sworn, or appointed as a law enforcement officer, nor to assume the duties of a law enforcement officer, not to make arrests, nor to use any force, restraint, or coercion in detaining another, nor to carry or use lethal, less-than-lethal, or non-lethal weapons, nor to employ deadly force upon another except such force as may be reasonably expected to be used as self-defense in the event of a criminal attack directly upon the person or persons of such member or members of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc.  Nor to makes searches and seizures of persons arrested or about to be arrested to include documenting, inventorying, securing or otherwise processing physical evidence of crime as might be uncovered in such searches and seizures."

[DNall]

Yes, the United States Constitution DOES trump Corporation rules, but if in good conscience you cannot abide CAPRs, than don't do CAP.

Just to emphasise the point!

Absolutely! No question of that at all. I'm not advocating breaking the reg in any sense of the word. Please don't misunderstand me on that point in any way shape or form!!!

What I'm advocating is changing the rule to something that accounts for the reasonable circumstances under which it'd be a good idea to have the option of carrying a firearm in accordance with state laws, and with ample liability waiver to the org (you pull it you're on your own, & may be held criminally liable for abuse of official authority if you cross the line into LE). Stong restictions, min requirements, etc.

There are certainly routine circumstances (stated above) that warrant such an option, but really what I was originally thinking was being able to get quickly into a disaster zone w/o needing police escort when there ain't no free cops to hold your hand & probably are both looters & people shooting at them.

You are absolutely right.  900-3 is a protection for CAP.  I cannot use that as a legal defense for failing to aid a LE officer.

No of course you can't use THAT, but you can MUST use your status as a legal employee of the AF while on AFAM to prevent you from engaging in LE. The reg is there for two reasons. One, is flat out liability being more important than the lives of memebrs; and the second is, to create a barrier in the degree to which you're able to physically engage in LE & thereby break federal law.

[Major Lord]

1) Lets call 900-3 a contract between members and CAP.
2) 900-3 calls for us to commit a crime.
3) A legal contract cannot be for an illegal act
4) Quad errat demonstrandum, the 900-3 is not a valid contract...

[lordmonar]

You are absolutely right.  900-3 is a protection for CAP.  I cannot use that as a legal defense for failing to aid a LE officer.

And as to the propriety of the request for assistance, assuming that a street cop would even KNOW the provisions of the MOU, his statement in court that actual conditions at the scene required him to take actions and make requests not envisioned by the MOU would carry plenty of weight in front of a jury. 

I mean... here's an officer saying that he needed assistance from a volunteer disaster worker, and there YOU are reading to the jury a bunch of legalese in a contract between lawyers for the various parties.  How would YOU vote if it came down to a cop saying "I needed help and asked Lt Jones to help, and she refused."  versus,  "At no time during the pendency of this Agreement between the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. and any other party or party to said Agreement shall any of the contracting parties, either directly or through agents, demand, request, authorize, permit, or suffer and member of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. to be deputized, sworn, or appointed as a law enforcement officer, nor to assume the duties of a law enforcement officer, not to make arrests, nor to use any force, restraint, or coercion in detaining another, nor to carry or use lethal, less-than-lethal, or non-lethal weapons, nor to employ deadly force upon another except such force as may be reasonably expected to be used as self-defense in the event of a criminal attack directly upon the person or persons of such member or members of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc.  Nor to makes searches and seizures of persons arrested or about to be arrested to include documenting, inventorying, securing or otherwise processing physical evidence of crime as might be uncovered in such searches and seizures."

Well if we are going to ask those kinds of questions....what DA is going to risk his career on looking foolish?  That is a good defense lawyer would just say...."my defendant did not help out due to neglect or not caring...but he was following the rules and regulations of his organisation and the MOU between CAP and the Police Force.  It is they who are negligent and are trying to pass off this bystandard who is not a laywer, does not know the law and was presented with seemingly conflicting instructions.  Was he wrong?  Maybe...but was he ciminally wrong?"

It would look bad for the DA to say that the CAP member refused to do something the Police Force AGREED to not do.  

That is easy to explain.

[lordmonar]

1) Lets call 900-3 a contract between members and CAP.
2) 900-3 calls for us to commit a crime.
3) A legal contract cannot be for an illegal act
4) Quad errat demonstrandum, the 900-3 is not a valid contract...

True.....but also....by contract if you violate the rules of the corporation you loose all benifit of protection of that corporation.  Nothing in 900-3 makes it completly invalid.  You can be deputised right this minute and get armed and raid drug houses.....but you can't do that as a CAP member.

Also remember that 900-3 was written before the 2000 Title 10 change where we no longer the 24/7 USAF AUX.  When 900-3 was written, we were always the USAF AUX and always covered by PCA.

Anyways....other than a theoritical exercise...most of this is not going to likely happen.  No one is going to get charged for not assiting and CAP is not likely to expand it LE role anytime soon.

[DNall]

^ that's right... the reg is not invalidated. It was written at a time when we were always the AFAux while participating in CAP activities. Thereby always a legal agent of the military & bound by PCA. So yes as of now you could be deputized from a meeting & required by law to do LE stuff (please remove your uniform as best as possible so as not to give the wrong impression).

However, during AFAM, you are still legally part of the military & bound by PCA, therefore federal law trumps state law. The federal law does not restrict you from CCW (excpet on base & a few other locations), but nothing in that process negates 900-3 with regard to carrying a weapon, which means it's still valid & you are bound by it.

I can promise you you'll get no sympathy in court. It's a volunteer org you chose to participate in, knew the rules, and were free to quit of your own free will. No one forced you to do anything, and the jury will recognize that.

[Al Sayre]

I don't want to be seen as a threat, subversive or one who disregards the National Leadership; for submitting this chain of thought. BUT:  Why the fascination with GUNS?! I have several nice tent stakes that could make instant weapons,- not to mention a BFK and a throwing star- in the gear-.  I have no reason to bring a gun on a mission. And I would bet that my with defense training / martial arts and the knife that I could deal appropriately with the situation.

As for reaction: if  a crazy trys to mess with a GT I'm on, or aims a gun at me... well then.. well just see what a throwing star or Kbar looks like lodged in the guys windpipe (I'm an EMT too, so I suppose I can keep him from dying if I'm of a mind.)
I can (and have) taken down "wild things" with the star as well.

Rule #1 for gunfights:  Bring a loaded gun!
Rule #2:  There are no other rules.