Firearms & GT (Split from NYPD Aux. thread)

[Lancer]

For legal reasons firearms will never be allowed for regular carry by members. Do I wish I could have my CPL allowed during CAP missions, sure. But it'll never happen.

That doesn't mean I don't think something like this couldn't be allowed.

[carnold1836]

Alaska would probably be the only exception where a gun would actually be of use as there would be a very real possibility of being on your own for weeks if something went wrong.  Thats just not the case anywhere in the rest of the US.

Never been to west Texas much have you, or possibly the mountains of Montana and Idaho. These areas are rife with large predators such as mountain lions grizzly bears and wolves, much like Alaska.

You don't even have to go out west.  There are plenty of bear encounters in the Appalachian regions.  The best response is to avoid them, but they are there.  Sometimes they even wonder into town.

Didn't mean to saythat there weren't large predators out east just making the point that there is a whole lot of nothing out here and you can go for hundreds of miles and not see anybody.

But yes, there are big eaty type critters back in the civilized part of the country.

[Trung Si Ma]

I started to get a new (and anonymous) account to answer this, but we should have the courage of our convictions ...

After very careful thought, I'd prefer the end of the newspaper article to say something to the effect of " ... his use of the legally carried firearm to protect the teenagers has resulted in his removal from the civil air patrol for violating their internal policies of firearms. "  Rather than something like " ... an accurate description of the kidnappers car was given by the adult supervisor of the teenagers, who was present at the scene."

My companion is an H&K .45 USPC and the second "C" of CCW is concealed.

[lordmonar]

I have worked in all sorts of remote areas all over the country, mostly by myself and not once have I ever come across a situation where a firearm was necessary.  I'm a hunter and use guns all the time for recreational purposes, but they aren't something you need to survive in the woods.  Alaska would probably be the only exception where a gun would actually be of use as there would be a very real possibility of being on your own for weeks if something went wrong.  Thats just not the case anywhere in the rest of the US.

Regarding snakes -- you are probably more likely to get bit while maneuvering to get a shot at the snake that you would if you just got the heck out of the area when you saw it.

If you really want to start getting into pi**ing matches with your local sheriffs and LEOs, start having CAP teams carry weapons in their towns and counties. 

Now, frankly I don't really care if some police department requires their officers to carry weapons at all times.  If that conflicts with CAP regulations, then they shouldn't join CAP.   If my employer required me to carry a weapon for whatever reason, should CAP honor that as well?  I'd be sorry to lose them, but I don't believe that is a valid reason to change CAP regs and open up the can of worms that it would. 

This has got the most intelligent thing said on this thread!

AT THE MOST....a .22 in the aircraft survival kit.....and even then that would be stretch!

Every GT should have 2 full meals...they are only expected to be in the field 12 hours...but plan for a 14 hour stay.   Allowing GTM's to carry weapons is just asking for trouble.

We would have to come up with some sort of qualification process, we would have to come up with caliber guidelines (because someone will insist that his Barret .50 is necessary to protect his team from rabid squirrels.

Then we will have to make sure our insurance carrier will cover us.

Just not a good idea...even if we take on a more active role in LE.

[carnold1836]

I do agree with the thought that being armed is not really needed. I'm just wanting to point out that Alaska isn't the only place in this country that is desolate and at times barren. Stay away from the big eaty critters. As the old saying goes "They are more scared of you than you are of them."

Also remember avoiding natural hazards is part of your GTM 3 training.

[Flying Pig]

I have been a cop for 10 years and have been a Senior Member since 1998. I havn't had any real issues with not carrying my weapon.  I would like to, especially on CD or SAR missions.  Im going to have to look into CAPR 900-3, I hadnt heard of it.  My Dept carries the S&W 4506, what a horse that is!  We are now getting the new S&W TSW 45.

Id have some issues with just anyone with a CCW carrying on a CAP mission.  Thats a little much.  I could see some big issues arising out of that.  Compared to a police officer, the training to get a CCW is actually pretty low.  Sorry, dont mean to insult anyone.  I had a CCW before I was a law enforcement officer.  Im all for an armed citizenry.  

But, that being said, if for some reason you were in CAP uniform and shot someone DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT remove your uniform.  PLEASE!  Do not change anything. You would be safer explaining something as simple as that vs. explaining why you tried to change or alter the evidence.  
The law doesnt care that you are in a CAP uniform.  If you have a CCW and your legal, provided your not on a military base, your good.  Law enforcement doesnt care about CAP's regulations.  The investigation is probably going to come down the the city or county your in.  Of course, I could see some problems if you were on a CD and DEA and ICE got involved.

But as far as a LE officer carrying, I really think it comes down to this line by River Aux......

"Now, frankly I don't really care if some police department requires their officers to carry weapons at all times.  If that conflicts with CAP regulations, then they shouldn't join CAP.   If my employer required me to carry a weapon for whatever reason, should CAP honor that as well?  I'd be sorry to lose them, but I don't believe that is a valid reason to change CAP regs and open up the can of worms that it would."

Id say he's right.

On a side note, I would NEVER fly with someone on board with chemical agents.  On our helicopter I carry everything a street Deputy does with the exception of OC.  

[RiverAux]

Yes, there are some very remote areas in the lower 48, but please find me some cases where after an airplane crash with survivors that they were forced to live on their own for weeks prior to rescue? 

Big animals?  please, you're crashing around in the woods with a bunch of people, they're going to be long gone.  People read too many articles in Field and Stream. 

This part of the discussion is very closely related to other threads regarding aircrew survival equipment. 

The only time where it might be good to have someone with a gun is doing late night ELT missions in the bad part of town.  And in that case the proper solution is to ask a local cop to come along. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

A .44 Magnum would be sooo much more fun than a .22 LR survival rifle.     I love my Springfield XD-40, though.  As much as I don't like to leave it lonely at home when doing a CAP thing, I don't have a strong opinion either way on carrying like this.  When I was a cadidiot, I would have strongly favored cadets carrying firearms to revolt against the seniors.   

"The Cadets are revolting!"

"Ewww,... Yes they are!"

[JohnKachenmeister]

I said in another thread, force protection is the elephant in the room.  We are not supposed to talk about it.

I have been a policeman for 25 years.  I hold a CCW permit in Florida.  I can view it from both sides of the qualification debate, and yes, the standards of most states for a CCW license are too low. 

Given full authority and responsibility, I would...

1.  Use the CCW license, or other state authority to carry a weapon as a starting point. 

2.  If the person is legally entitled to carry, I would structure a web based instruction program on the CAP rules of engagement, and require a passing score on a short scenario-based quiz.

3.  I would require documentation that the member fired an approved LE/Military/NRA qualification course with the same type of weapon he intends to carry.

4.  I would require re-certification every two years, documenting authority to go armed on the 101 card.

5.  I concur that hand guns should be carried by at least one officer of a GT, and either a hand gun or a folding survival rifle carried by one member of any aircrew flying over desolate or hostile terrain.

Also, I would require that they be kept concealed.  No sense advertising how many officers are armed and who they are.  Also, I would NOT authorize a new BDU patch for this, for the reason just explained.

[lordmonar]

I said in another thread, force protection is the elephant in the room.  We are not supposed to talk about it.

I have been a policeman for 25 years.  I hold a CCW permit in Florida.  I can view it from both sides of the qualification debate, and yes, the standards of most states for a CCW license are too low. 

Given full authority and responsibility, I would...

1.  Use the CCW license, or other state authority to carry a weapon as a starting point. 

2.  If the person is legally entitled to carry, I would structure a web based instruction program on the CAP rules of engagement, and require a passing score on a short scenario-based quiz.

3.  I would require documentation that the member fired an approved LE/Military/NRA qualification course with the same type of weapon he intends to carry.

4.  I would require re-certification every two years, documenting authority to go armed on the 101 card.

5.  I concur that hand guns should be carried by at least one officer of a GT, and either a hand gun or a folding survival rifle carried by one member of any aircrew flying over desolate or hostile terrain.

Also, I would require that they be kept concealed.  No sense advertising how many officers are armed and who they are.  Also, I would NOT authorize a new BDU patch for this, for the reason just explained.

John this is just scarry!  The same guys we can't trust with 2b powers you want to arm!

The same guys we say who can't follow the simple regulations because it does not suit their empire building or political goals....you want to arm!

The same guys who you don't want to have boonie hats because of the cool factor you want arm!

Gods it get chills just thinking about it!

As I said before.....maybe as part of the aircraft survival kit and nothing bigger than .22 LR.  Anything else you are just asking for trouble.

And don't get me wrong...I am not anti gun.  I have .357 S&W and the whole range of Rifle and shotguns.  But this is just going down the slippery slope head first!

[Nick]

1.  The old .38 revolver sidearm.  Good for snakes and varmints, both two and four legged.  Will also work on most small-to-medium alligators.  Don't use it on a bear.  It will make the bear mad at you.

Bears are the #5 threat against America, you know.

[ZigZag911]

Can anyone document an instance in which a CAP member was harmed or endangered because of lack of means of self defense?

In other words, is there a demonstrable need for arming CAP personnel?

[floridacyclist]

I'm not going to try to whiz as high as you guys....I love to hunt and qualified expert in both the AF and Army and support almost complete freedom to keep and arm bears...or something like that.

I honestly don't understand the fuss since I have yet to hear (from a credible and verifiable source) of anyone being hurt in CAP because we didn't have guns.

I do want to point out that Alaska is also the only state in the US that legally REQUIRES all aircraft to have a weapon on board. To me, that kind of puts a different perspective on CAP allowing aircraft in Alaska to carry firearms. Note that there's no mention of GTs packin' in Alaska.

As for LEOs being armed, 900-3 addresses that as well and only requires written proof that you are required to carry. A copy of the municipal code or other ordinance should be sufficient.

[desert rat]

When thinking saftety, we never wait until something bad happens to make change.    I have been hiking and seen many strange things.  I was hiking Red Rock canyon in Las Vegas and saw a porn movie being filmed.   I have seen drug deals going down and have hiked into drug field in FL.   I know of people that live in the AZ desert without any running water, electricity, phone or name.  These people don't want to be found out.  I have met militia (and I don't mean the good types) in the desert.    Also in AZ we have illegal immigrants that would mistake a CAP uniform for border patrol.

There was a hiker in AZ that was attacked by another hiker for no reason and ended in death last year.  Bad people can be found almost anywhere.  The difference between a city and the wilderness is that police don't routinely patrol the wilderness and would take too long to respond to a distress call. 

I don't know what the solution is, but a CCW permit should be the starting point for any weapon. 

[floridacyclist]

Most folks that don't want to be noticed won't shoot at you if you're moving away as quickly as possible....which with a group of cadets I would still probably be doing no matter how much heat I was packing.

[lordmonar]

When thinking safety, we never wait until something bad happens to make change.

When also thinking safety you have to consider the safety risk you are introducing as you implement a safe guard. 

Arming ground teams to be ready for the one time that you happen onto the the terrorists crossing the border with the illegals and getting shot at....has to be compared to the safety risk of having a fire arm.

Now granted most of us who have fire arms and carry them (I don't but that is because my guns are still in Arkansas  ) we only have to control the situation we normally encounter at home.  We teach our kids, and keep it safe at home, work, the car, etc.   But now we are talking the bigger world of a mission base.  There are many more people around...some of them who are not very smart.  12 kids who's only fire arms training is playing GTA on the Play Station.  We also have to extend our circle of risk to include by standers and the public.  As a private citizen with a CWP our level of liability is that as a lay person.  As a member of the CAP on an AF assigned mission we suddenly become Federal Instruments and now our level of liability enters the gray area of being professionals.

No...as a former squadron commander...I just don't see the risk being acceptable to the level of the threat at this time.  If our mission changed into more active support of LE operations.  Maybe....this is a very big maybe.  But for the level of operations we do now and with an anticipated expansion of our aerial operations...no.  There is just no need to arm CAP members.

[sarmed1]

There was a time at HMRS (early 90's) where it was the norm for at least one senior staff member per squadron to be armed during field operations.  Never to my knowledge was there ever any problems.  Weapons were either carry concealed on ones person or stowed securely in the pack.

Like most similar discussions in CAP world its the paranoia of one bad apple.  Or if you like the lowest common denominator.  No doubt 99% of CAP officers could safely and appropriately carry a concealed firearm and if presented with that life and death, shoot/no-shoot scenario execute the proper descision and likely save  the day.  However its the 1% that worries me.

I see drop leg holsters with excesively big handguns with a bizzilian lights, lasers and night sights, or a a pair of mac 10's  (technically a hand gun) chuck norrised under the arms...because they can.  A lot of the saem cool factor with berets and boonies we all fear....not to mention the show off factor that would likely ensue.


mk
.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Again, force protection has not been addressed.  All of us know of situations where we compromise the mission to avoid KNOWN hazards.  What about hazards that are not known until you are hip deep in them?

I'm not calling for every member to be armed.  Simply a mechanism to make a firearm available if needed.

The issue of "Firearms safety" with NHQ has been addressed in terms of safety FROM firearms, not safety from the hazards that firearms can protect against.

[RiverAux]

And we have yet to hear a legitimate reason for a ground team to be armed other than "something might happen".  Well, that can happen at any time to any person in any place and the vast majority of folks seem to get along ok. 

I think ground team members should probably worry more about having the proper equipment to treat for bad reactions to bee stings, which is probably more than 100 times as big a risk to our personnel. 

[Psicorp]

And we have yet to hear a legitimate reason for a ground team to be armed other than "something might happen".  Well, that can happen at any time to any person in any place and the vast majority of folks seem to get along ok. 

I think ground team members should probably worry more about having the proper equipment to treat for bad reactions to bee stings, which is probably more than 100 times as big a risk to our personnel. 

Exactly.  The only thing we should be doing is ducking for cover and calling for help.