Firearms on Ground team

[Sergeant#40]

Why are firearms prohibited on ground team missions?

[lordmonar]

We don't want Ground Teams shooting themselves....or anyone else.

Next question.

[Walkman]

I don't know the entire background, but I expect it has to do with the Posse Comititus Act. We are prohibited from performing law enforcement actions while on CAP duty. Another aspect of this is as none of our missions require firearms, there is no CAP firearms training or qualifications to make sure that anyone carrying is competent.

[Eclipse]

CAP is fully capable of shooting itself in the foot already, no need for firearms.

[lordmonar]

I don't know the entire background, but I expect it has to do with the Posse Comititus Act. We are prohibited from performing law enforcement actions while on CAP duty. Another aspect of this is as none of our missions require firearms, there is no CAP firearms training or qualifications to make sure that anyone carrying is competent.

I think you are reading too much into it.    I just don't see a need to be armed....and lots of reason not to be armed.

[Sergeant#40]

I'm not thinking of law enforcement. I'm thinking about protection from wild animals. As Tarzan said, "It's a jungle out there," and you don't know if or when a Ground Team might get attacked by an animal. I'm not saying the percentage is very big, but never-the-less, there still is a possibility.  As for training and qualifications, in my opinion, only senior members should be eligible to carry a firearm while on a mission. I would never trust another Cadet with a firearm.... That's my take on it.

[Storm Chaser]

I think one part of it is the liability. The other part is our role as instrumentality of the government, yet still a volunteer, civilian, benevolent, non-profit organization. And did I mention the liability part...?

[Sergeant#40]

Sure it's a liability. But personally, I'd rather be a liability than come face-to-face with a charging Grizzly without any means of defense.

[Eclipse]

If you're in an area with a legitimate threat of bear attack, the ORM is probably too high for you to be there.

I seem to recall AKWG had special dispensation to carry a firearm in the aircraft in the case that they crashed, might be a hallucination.

[SarDragon]

In my experience, ground teams are usually making enough noise to cause most of the wildlife to be running away from, and not towards, the team.

[sarmed1]

The AKWG provision went along the lines "....carried in survival gear when required by law...." or some variation there of.
Personally I am ok with the theory abstractly;  however the practical application ( ie what real humans do is never quite so
black and white)
For every 5 members with a conservative firearm stored concealed or otherwise stowed securely in their gear will be 1 with a desert eagle or taurus judge in a drop leg holster with 100000000 cp tac light laser combo and holographic sight....and that's the guy that will be right in front of the camera showing it off to buba.....and pops one thru the vans door....

MK

[Sergeant#40]

I do agree that you would make enough noise to scare other animals away.  However, I have seen rabid animals before that wouldn't run away from humans, and trust me I wouldn't want to have a stare-down with a rabid animal. Again, this
brings up my point of you never know. You don't have to be in an area with a legitimate threat of bear attack; it can happen to anyone, anywhere.

[Walkman]

In our long history, is anyone aware of an incident of injury or death from an animal attack while on a GT mission?

[Eclipse]

In our long history, is anyone aware of an incident of injury or death from an animal attack while on a GT mission?

Camelot Composite had some issues.

Monty Python-Killer Rabbit

[PHall]

You guys do know you're arguing with a 14 year old, right?

[lordmonar]

Sure it's a liability. But personally, I'd rather be a liability than come face-to-face with a charging Grizzly without any means of defense.

Really?   How many bear attacks has CAP had in its life time?   I do know of at lease one incident where one CAP guy shot another CAP guy on accident.

So.....no.

[lordmonar]

If you're in an area with a legitimate threat of bear attack, the ORM is probably too high for you to be there.

I seem to recall AKWG had special dispensation to carry a firearm in the aircraft in the case that they crashed, might be a hallucination.

I heard rumors from people who participated in AKWG activities...that they would have a "bear box" that had a rifle in it.

It was one of those heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy sort of things.

But like you said.....if the ORM is that high.....I think maybe we should try something else.....or maybe team up with others to support us.
But allowing CAP to carry guns.........I'm not comfortable with that.   We have shown in the past that we can't handle ATVs, under 21 driving CAP vans....and competent pilots pushing their own aircraft into hangars.

So again.......NO

[Spaceman3750]

Ordinarily, I am not opposed to properly licensed people carrying firearms, but in CAPs case the goober factor cannot be ignored, and as the country song goes, "there's one in every crowd".

Then again, Illinois doesn't have grizzlys.

[Ed Bos]

If you're in an area with a legitimate threat of bear attack, the ORM is probably too high for you to be there.

I seem to recall AKWG had special dispensation to carry a firearm in the aircraft in the case that they crashed, might be a hallucination.

I heard rumors from people who participated in AKWG activities...that they would have a "bear box" that had a rifle in it.

It was one of those heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy sort of things.

But like you said.....if the ORM is that high.....I think maybe we should try something else.....or maybe team up with others to support us.
But allowing CAP to carry guns.........I'm not comfortable with that.   We have shown in the past that we can't handle ATVs, under 21 driving CAP vans....and competent pilots pushing their own aircraft into hangars.

So again.......NO

Just a rumor. Not something that happens in AKWG any longer.

[lordmonar]

Just a rumor. Not something that happens in AKWG any longer.

I was pretty sure that was the case.....but you know how those rumors are.....they make it sound like it was last week. 

[Ed Bos]

I was pretty sure that was the case.....but you know how those rumors are.....they make it sound like it was last week. 

I actually asked the CAP/DO about this a year or two ago, and was told that while it was a law that CAP and other airman in AK carry firearms in their survival equipment, CAP did a really poor job of maintaining the equipment... Really demonstrated why it wold be a huge challenge to lobby to carry them ever again.

[LSThiker]

Since no one has really hit on it, I figure I will post about the use of guns to prevent animal attacks.  First of all, I like guns and own a few.  With that being said, having a gun to protect yourself from an animal attack is useless despite what Rick Perry and other "outdoors men" will make you believe.  The gun debate for animal protection was brought up again during the NOLS bear mauling a few years ago.  Of course you heard the standard ignorant arguments of "if you are in the wild, you need a gun" or "how could you send teens out without a gun". 

A study conducted by the US Forest Service back in 1983 (I wish they would repeat the study) demonstrated that most firearms fail against bears.  The minimum handgun necessary was a 0.44 magnum and even that was considered marginally effective.  Unfortunately, they did not test any .454 or .50 caliber weapons.  The minimum rifle necessary was the 0.458 Winchester Magnum.  Yes of course you will hear people say they killed a bear with a .30-06 or a .22 rifle (yes I have heard that).  Shotguns with buckshot had zero penetration beyond 15 yards.  12-gauge shotgun with slugs was the only one that passed for bear protection. 

The University of Calgary, lead by Steve Herrero, has conducted two studies examining guns and bear spray for bear protection.  It was found that 98% of people that used bear-spray walked away unharmed, while 56% that used firearms were injured.  Only 61% of bears actually were killed with firearms.  Granted, there are some problems with these studies, which he acknowledges (I won't get into those, but you can look those up).  However, despite that, he still believes bear spray to be better.

If a person is really afraid of animal attacks, then invest in bear spray.  It is pretty much legal in the entire US, even in areas where pepper spray is illegal.  However, certain national parks have banned it use (even though they have bears).  It is actually banned on most of the John Muir Trail for example. 

If a person is worried about bears, then following certain precautions is advised.  The use of bear canisters is more effective than hanging your food.  Actually bears have already figured out the PCT-Style of hanging your food. 

So with that said, the use of a gun for protection is likely just to anger the bear more and cause them to attack you.

[Ed Bos]

That's great info, thanks for sharing it.

[Eclipse]

Do ya feel lucky?



Well do ya? Bear?

[PHall]

RPG's have proven very effective against Grizzlies.

[a2capt]

Since personalities vary, I'd have to figure that NHQ just would rather not have to deal with the perception that we're anything more than volunteers, and have no other authority.. and a firearm might imply otherwise, that we're just not going to go there.

[lordmonar]

RPG's have proven very effective against Grizzlies.

Nahhhh......I find that too often I'm engaging Grizzlies too close for the warhead to arm....I get a hit.....but it just impacts on the surface. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Well, people reported injuries from ticks, bees, and the like. Even a few have been injured by bee stings... And I like the 1903 Springfield even thou I do not own one. So yes, I will become one of those speaking for firearms on missions. It will be a challenge carrying one, the 24-hour pack, and the Ground Team equipment in New York, because most of the missions I envision will be in New York City and Long Island... I did not know how big a risk I took on my 15 missions some time ago...



Flyer

[Sergeant#40]

Since no one has really hit on it, I figure I will post about the use of guns to prevent animal attacks.  First of all, I like guns and own a few.  With that being said, having a gun to protect yourself from an animal attack is useless despite what Rick Perry and other "outdoors men" will make you believe.  The gun debate for animal protection was brought up again during the NOLS bear mauling a few years ago.  Of course you heard the standard ignorant arguments of "if you are in the wild, you need a gun" or "how could you send teens out without a gun". 

A study conducted by the US Forest Service back in 1983 (I wish they would repeat the study) demonstrated that most firearms fail against bears.  The minimum handgun necessary was a 0.44 magnum and even that was considered marginally effective.  Unfortunately, they did not test any .454 or .50 caliber weapons.  The minimum rifle necessary was the 0.458 Winchester Magnum.  Yes of course you will hear people say they killed a bear with a .30-06 or a .22 rifle (yes I have heard that).  Shotguns with buckshot had zero penetration beyond 15 yards.  12-gauge shotgun with slugs was the only one that passed for bear protection. 

The University of Calgary, lead by Steve Herrero, has conducted two studies examining guns and bear spray for bear protection.  It was found that 98% of people that used bear-spray walked away unharmed, while 56% that used firearms were injured.  Only 61% of bears actually were killed with firearms.  Granted, there are some problems with these studies, which he acknowledges (I won't get into those, but you can look those up).  However, despite that, he still believes bear spray to be better.

If a person is really afraid of animal attacks, then invest in bear spray.  It is pretty much legal in the entire US, even in areas where pepper spray is illegal.  However, certain national parks have banned it use (even though they have bears).  It is actually banned on most of the John Muir Trail for example. 

If a person is worried about bears, then following certain precautions is advised.  The use of bear canisters is more effective than hanging your food.  Actually bears have already figured out the PCT-Style of hanging your food. 

So with that said, the use of a gun for protection is likely just to anger the bear more and cause them to attack you.

That depends on the caliber. If all you have is a 10-22, you're very likely to just agitate him. However if you have a .357, that's a different story.
 

[GroundHawg]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

[Eclipse]

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

900-3 already has that allowance, they can and do every day.

[Garibaldi]

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

900-3 already has that allowance, they can and do every day.

Wow. I did not know that.

[Eclipse]

"(1) A member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law
provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the wing
commander."

The nuance being "required" vs "allowed".

I've personally noticed a trend in that people who have to carry a firearm on-duty are much
less excited about carrying one off-duty.

They also seem much more clear on the term "concealed" in the context of carry.

[Sergeant#40]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

Personally, I would rather meet a snake than anything else because they're easier to get away from.
If I were to carry on a GT mission, it would be for protection against a bear, raccoon, cougar, etc.   

[lordmonar]

As an avid outdoors man.....there are almost NO animals you can't "get away from" if you take even the basic precautions.....and I have had a run it with a bear or two (and a bunch of sharks, snakes, ells, jellyfish, mountain lions, bobcats, deer, sheep, goats, llamas, camels, dogs, cats and a particularly mean raven once).

The idea that CAP GTs are running around armed scares me way way way more then anything I'm likely to run into in the field.

[Storm Chaser]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

Personally, I would rather meet a snake than anything else because they're easier to get away from.
If I were to carry on a GT mission, it would be for protection against a bear, raccoon, cougar, etc.   

Minors will never be allowed to carry weapons on an ES mission. If you're so concerned about animal attacks, then perhaps you should refrain from participating in GT sorties or any outdoors CAP activity, for that matter.

[Spaceman3750]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

Personally, I would rather meet a snake than anything else because they're easier to get away from.
If I were to carry on a GT mission, it would be for protection against a bear, raccoon, cougar, etc.   

Minors will never be allowed to carry weapons on an ES mission. If you're so concerned about animal attacks, then perhaps you should refrain from participating in GT sorties or any outdoors CAP activity, for that matter.

Who said anything about arming minors? The minimum concealed carry age anywhere I've cared to look is 21.

[Storm Chaser]

As a co-owner of a gun store, a LEO, and a firearms instructor for almost 20 years who lives in "Grizzly" country, I will weigh in. I carry a Glock 20 or 29 in 10mm everyday, everywhere I go. I don't check the mail unarmed, and it has nothing to do with bears. The caliber is suitable for those who might attack from either 2 or 4 legs, or those who rattle.

That being said, I don't think 99.99% of all CAP GT's probably will ever need a firearm. The chances of a bear, moose, cougar, etc... attack on a member of a group in the woods are unlikely. As has been stated, a group of teenagers with little supervision in the woods tends to scare off [darn] near everything. I did see a cadet get hit by a deer that was jumped up by a GT and ran smack into him. We all almost peed our selves laughing once we established he was OK.
IF a GT ever needed a gun it would be for snakes, and a .38 with snake shot would do the trick. WIWAC a GTL killed a very large diamondback with this setup. I still have the rattle. 

I still think that LEOs that are in CAP should be able to carry, but that is a whole different discussion.

Personally, I would rather meet a snake than anything else because they're easier to get away from.
If I were to carry on a GT mission, it would be for protection against a bear, raccoon, cougar, etc.   

Minors will never be allowed to carry weapons on an ES mission. If you're so concerned about animal attacks, then perhaps you should refrain from participating in GT sorties or any outdoors CAP activity, for that matter.

Who said anything about arming minors? The minimum concealed carry age anywhere I've cared to look is 21.

I was replying to Sergeant#40, who happens to be 14.

[LSThiker]

That depends on the caliber. If all you have is a 10-22, you're very likely to just agitate him. However if you have a .357, that's a different story.

Are you for real?  Actually it depends a lot on other factors than simply the caliber.  It depends on the grain, length of the barrel, distance between you and the target, and your ability to shoot a moving bear while in a frantic situation.  Remember, Natives were killing bears with sharp sticks long before guns.

If you are really worried about raccoons on a ground team, then ask your parents and your doctor about a rabies vaccine.

Otherwise, if you are following the proper precautions and making noise while walking as you should, animals will never bother you.  If you are still worried, then buy bear spray, which is also effective against other forms of animals to include humans.

[stillamarine]

"(1) A member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law
provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the wing
commander."

The nuance being "required" vs "allowed".

I've personally noticed a trend in that people who have to carry a firearm on-duty are much
less excited about carrying one off-duty.

They also seem much more clear on the term "concealed" in the context of carry.

The way things are now it's less and less common to see an off duty officer NOT carrying. I won't go out without carrying. Plus my dept is a required to carry off duty.

[AirDX]

Yes of course you will hear people say they killed a bear with a .30-06 or a .22 rifle (yes I have heard that).

I have too:

This is a story of self control and marksmanship.  A woman survived a grizzly bear attack with one well placed shot from her itsy bitsy .25 caliber Beretta Jetfire.                     

These are her own words.:

While out hiking in Alberta Canada with my boyfriend, we were surprised when a huge grizzly bear came charging at us out of nowhere.  She must have been protecting her cubs because she was extremely aggressive.  If I had not had my little Beretta Jetfire I would not be here today!  I yanked it out of my purse and fired one shot.  It hit my boyfriend in his kneecap and the bear caught him easily. While the grizzly mauled the poor cripple, I was able to escape by just walking away at a brisk pace.  I love that pistol.  I'll find other boyfriends.

[LSThiker]

I have too:

This is a story of self control and marksmanship.  A woman survived a grizzly bear attack with one well placed shot from her itsy bitsy .25 caliber Beretta Jetfire.                     

I have not heard that one yet.  I will have to use that next time I hear someone.

[Mitchell 1969]

"(1) A member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law
provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the wing
commander."

The nuance being "required" vs "allowed".

I've personally noticed a trend in that people who have to carry a firearm on-duty are much
less excited about carrying one off-duty.

They also seem much more clear on the term "concealed" in the context of carry.

The wording in the the reg leaves much to be desired. I'm not aware of any LAW that requires LEOs to be armed (but, I don't know the laws of every state, county). There are plenty of laws that ALLOW it, with departmental POLICIES that may require it.

When I was an active LEO I carried all the time in CAP. Few people knew it, nobody saw it.

[Flying Pig]

For the many times I did overnighters on a CAP activity, I carried "off-duty".   I know we've had this discussion before.....  Ive never found anything, nationwide where any state or federal law requires an LEO to be armed 24/7 off duty.  I did carry in uniform at CAP meetings because our building was in the middle of the HOOD.  Literally sandwiched between county mental health and the social services office in the middle of downtown Fresno.  We never had any issues during all the years I was there but often times being one of the last to leave, dealing with cadets waiting for parents outside, etc.  Being a deputy, I wasn't about to get caught unarmed locking up the building at 2230hrs unarmed in the city I was a cop in, in addition to it being a national guard armory where every stupid gangster in town thought the army stored weapons.    Ive seen agency policies that highly recommend it, or even suggest that you could be disciplined if you are unable to act off-duty if something were to happen but Ive never seen a state or federal law that listed a specific agency by name as being required to be armed 24/7.  Ive known a Secret Service Agent assigned to the VP who wasn't even required to be armed off-duty. 

I weighed the decisions and decided it was the thing to do.  The several times I attended a CAP activity where travel was involved and a hotel stay, I of course carried off duty, but not during the CAP activity itself.

[Devil Doc]

The AKWG provision went along the lines "....carried in survival gear when required by law...." or some variation there of.
Personally I am ok with the theory abstractly;  however the practical application ( ie what real humans do is never quite so
black and white)
For every 5 members with a conservative firearm stored concealed or otherwise stowed securely in their gear will be 1 with a desert eagle or taurus judge in a drop leg holster with 100000000 cp tac light laser combo and holographic sight....and that's the guy that will be right in front of the camera showing it off to buba.....and pops one thru the vans door....

MK

Theres nothing wrong with my BlackHawk Drop Holster and my Med Pack Drop holster, that Taurus 9mm with a Silence and Scope and red dot sights, its perfectly normal to carry with you on a GT mission.

Besdies that,

I always follow Rule 9, Always carry an Knife, Yes even in "Government" buildings

[sarmed1]

I don't need the drop leg ' cause I have ak krinkov on a sling attached to tacti-kewl vest 'cause its legally a pistol too.

MK

[Flying Pig]

I just carry mine shoved in my waist band with the safety off.

[GroundHawg]

I guess it more of a federal policy issue than a CAP issue. The problem I have had carrying while on CAP time are that my last two squadrons have met on a Federal facility. One was a National Guard building, and had no problems getting clearance. My current is on an active duty AFB, and with badge or not, you will not be carrying unless you are on duty and are called onto base to assist Security Forces. Its the same for the local VA hospital, when I go in uniform to assist VA Police its fine, if I go as a patient, I have to park off property, leave my weapon in the truck. No weapons on the property allowed, LEO or not.

Even with letterhead from my department and county attorney, its a no go. Dumb.

[Flying Pig]

When I was meeting at March AFB in CA, I came to a meeting in my patrol car to do a talk for the cadets and brought all of my SWAT gear.  I called ahead, told them who I was and what I was doing.  I got to the gate and they waived me right on in.  Patrol car, guns, rifle, shotgun and all.

The last time I was on a military base on duty was at a Navy base.  We were going for flight physicals so we could go through the dunker training.  I pulled up in a patrol car, in uniform, weapons, etc.  I met with a guy at the gate and told him what I was doing and was waved right on in.   I was sitting in the waiting room and a navy chief and two navy LE guys walk up and start grilling me on what I was doing, who I was, why I was armed.  Funny thing was none of them were armed, but the two Navy cops had LE badges on their uniforms.  When I told them I had checked in with the gate and also called ahead the day prior along with a name and number of who told me I was cleared to be there they looked a little embarrassed because they had rolled up on me like they were ready for a confrontation.  Of course,   I agreed to secure my duty belt in my patrol car, but they wanted to escort me off base when it was time for me to leave.   When i called them to come and escort me off base when I was done, they told me "We trust you to leave on your own.  have a nice day."   Military LE just isn't used to dealing with armed people coming from off-base. 

[abdsp51]

Military LE just isn't used to dealing with armed people coming from off-base.

Depends on the installation at Travis while I was SF I had a good working relationship with the local LE agencies.

[Flying Pig]

You think getting on base with a weapon is tough as a uniformed LEO.... try talking your way into the Rolls Royce facility in Oakland, CA.  They don't care who or what you are!  I used to go up there for engine parts for the unit.

[Redbird Leader]

My memory could be serving me wrong, but I also thought that BITD, CAP was under the Geneva Convention provision prohibiting the use of firearms.  Of course, the interpretation of the Geneva Convention provisions seem to have to have changed from what I thought I was taught.

Also, having carried a firearm as a Security Police officer for 20+ years, I'm just as happy to NOT carry anymore.  The discussion comes up frequently in my new profession in EMS about carrying a firearm for personal protection due to the increased number of attacks against EMS workers, but I am still against it.  YMMV. 

This is an opinion expressed by the author and not intended to dictate policies or procedures to anyone else.

[stillamarine]

You think getting on base with a weapon is tough as a uniformed LEO.... try talking your way into the Rolls Royce facility in Oakland, CA.  They don't care who or what you are!  I used to go up there for engine parts for the unit.

Forget that. The VA is serious. I went for an appointment and was almost done and the police showed up and escorted to their office to lock up. In uniform. Marked patrol car parked outside their office. Now I take off and drive my personal car.

[Devil Doc]

Ehh, The VA gets mad when I carry my lil Deer Skinner, they freak out over everything.

[a2capt]

Forget that. The VA is serious. I went for an appointment and was almost done and the police showed up and escorted to their office to lock up. In uniform. Marked patrol car parked outside their office. Now I take off and drive my personal car.

I get the gist of what you're saying, but there appears to be a couple words missing.

[Al Sayre]

Ehh, The VA gets mad when I carry my lil Deer Skinner, they freak out over everything.

You'd be paranoid too if you knew that:  At some point in their lives, 90% of the people in the building you work in got paid to kill people and break their stuff, and are probably po'd about something that happened that day...

[a2capt]

Ya know.. I never quite thought of it that way.. but that makes sense.

[stillamarine]

Ehh, The VA gets mad when I carry my lil Deer Skinner, they freak out over everything.

You'd be paranoid too if you knew that:  At some point in their lives, 90% of the people in the building you work in got paid to kill people and break their stuff, and are probably po'd about something that happened that day...

Which is why I refuse to be in uniform with an empty holster.

[GroundHawg]

You think getting on base with a weapon is tough as a uniformed LEO.... try talking your way into the Rolls Royce facility in Oakland, CA.  They don't care who or what you are!  I used to go up there for engine parts for the unit.

Forget that. The VA is serious. I went for an appointment and was almost done and the police showed up and escorted to their office to lock up. In uniform. Marked patrol car parked outside their office. Now I take off and drive my personal car.

Well at least it is not just me they are after. I can have my meds for paranoia lowered...

[Private Investigator]

Sure it's a liability. But personally, I'd rather be a liability than come face-to-face with a charging Grizzly without any means of defense.

Really?   How many bear attacks has CAP had in its life time?   I do know of at lease one incident where one CAP guy shot another CAP guy on accident.

So.....no.

The one incident I know of was during WWII and during the changing of the guards one CAP member fatally shot another CAP member with an 'unloaded' .45 automatic. 

[lordmonar]

Sure it's a liability. But personally, I'd rather be a liability than come face-to-face with a charging Grizzly without any means of defense.

Really?   How many bear attacks has CAP had in its life time?   I do know of at lease one incident where one CAP guy shot another CAP guy on accident.

So.....no.

The one incident I know of was during WWII and during the changing of the guards one CAP member fatally shot another CAP member with an 'unloaded' .45 automatic.

That's the one I'm talking about.  I remember someone from CAP History posting the scan of the original document.

[abdsp51]

IMO i think carry should be allowed unless specifically prohibited.  Here is Az specially my part there are plenty of threats and help is not always right around the corner or up the road.   

[lordmonar]

IMO i think carry should be allowed unless specifically prohibited.  Here is Az specially my part there are plenty of threats and help is not always right around the corner or up the road.

On one level I agree with you.....but you also have to think about the corporate liability in this situation.
Allowing weapons except when prohibited (I assume you mean by law) make CAP liable for all the actions of its members.....and the military as well during AFAMs.    I don't think we really don't want to go down that route.....as a simple cost/risk analysis there is not any real need and we introduce a fairly catastrophic risk.

[Eclipse]

IMO i think carry should be allowed unless specifically prohibited.  Here is Az specially my part there are plenty of threats and help is not always right around the corner or up the road.

Plenty of "threats"?

Again, if that is truly the case, the ORM is too high for a CAP activity, regardless of whether you're talking about a meeting night or a mission.

[abdsp51]

IMO i think carry should be allowed unless specifically prohibited.  Here is Az specially my part there are plenty of threats and help is not always right around the corner or up the road.

Plenty of "threats"?

Again, if that is truly the case, the ORM is too high for a CAP activity, regardless of whether you're talking about a meeting night or a mission.

This part of the state and south is part of the drug corridor. 

[abdsp51]

On one level I agree with you.....but you also have to think about the corporate liability in this situation.
Allowing weapons except when prohibited (I assume you mean by law) make CAP liable for all the actions of its members.....and the military as well during AFAMs.    I don't think we really don't want to go down that route.....as a simple cost/risk analysis there is not any real need and we introduce a fairly catastrophic risk.

I get liability, there was talk of us having to take on a unit right on the border here, and that would have required travel to the area.  Told the CC unless I'm allowed to carry not going that area is not worth the personal risk.

[LSThiker]

There is also the possibility of implying a show of force.

Either way, it is interesting reading some comments on this thread. I no longer carry a CHG, although in my state it is not required to be concealed. However, I have come to the conclusion not carrying one allows my brain to listen to my my fight/flight response so I continue to avoid situations where I need a gun.

As far as the wild, never been in a situation where I needed a gun (barring for the purpose of hunting). In urban environments, I have learned to either avoid those situations or always have a plan of escape. I found that I think more clearly without carrying. Most dangers are really just perceived than actual risk, at least in the US.

[LSThiker]

Told the CC unless I'm allowed to carry not going that area is not worth the personal risk.

And by carrying it made the personal risk worth it?  How did that happen?

[abdsp51]

Told the CC unless I'm allowed to carry not going that area is not worth the personal risk.

And by carrying it made the personal risk worth it?  How did that happen?

The unit folded so nothing occurred but I would not goto that town without carrying.

[lordmonar]

Told the CC unless I'm allowed to carry not going that area is not worth the personal risk.

And by carrying it made the personal risk worth it?  How did that happen?

The unit folded so nothing occurred but I would not goto that town without carrying.

And there you go.....ORM in action! 

[Private Investigator]

Told the CC unless I'm allowed to carry not going that area is not worth the personal risk.

And by carrying it made the personal risk worth it?  How did that happen?

The unit folded so nothing occurred but I would not goto that town without carrying.

And there you go.....ORM in action! 

And I did not think anybody listen to the monthly Safety Brief, now that is ORM   :clap:

[Devil Doc]

Ehh, The VA gets mad when I carry my lil Deer Skinner, they freak out over everything.

You'd be paranoid too if you knew that:  At some point in their lives, 90% of the people in the building you work in got paid to kill people and break their stuff, and are probably po'd about something that happened that day...

Which is why I refuse to be in uniform with an empty holster.

Working in Mental Health, has nothing to do with it

[blackrain]

As long as I take my meds I don't worry about PTSD . The VA said so it must be true.

Trained adults should be able to carry as threats come in 2 and 4 legged forms and they can come at any time. Not paranoid just prepared. BTW I was trusted to carry locked and loaded in government buildings and schools in Afghanistan. Kids and  adult civilians all around and I never shot anyone unintentionally along with the international incident that would have followed. Yet in my own country I can't be trusted to carry.

Sorry gents but bad guys don't care about the law. And the bad guys have a harder time aiming when I'm shooting back.

[LSThiker]

Comparing the US to Afghanistan or even Iraq (where I was), is like comparing a tree to a weed. Sure they are both plants, but that is about as close as you can get

[Eclipse]

The average person, with the bare minimum concealed carry training, is as likely to shoot himself, an innocent bystander, or the sky as the "bad person".

[Mitchell 1969]

The average person, with the bare minimum concealed carry training, is as likely to shoot himself, an innocent bystander, or the sky as the "bad person".

Cite, please.

[Eclipse]

The average person, with the bare minimum concealed carry training, is as likely to shoot himself, an innocent bystander, or the sky as the "bad person".

Cite, please.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation
"In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434012
"Similar to a survey of Arizona motorists, in our survey, riding with a firearm in the vehicle was a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior."

http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(12)01408-4/abstract
Hospital-Based Shootings in the United States: 2000 to 2011
"In 23% of shootings within the ED, the weapon was a security officer's gun taken by the perpetrator."

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full
Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

"Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society."


http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099?journalCode=ajph
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Full disclosure, I am a firearm owner myself, intend to get a CCL now that it is legal in my state, but I wouldn't consider for even a moment bringing it on a CAP activity.

[Mitchell 1969]

The average person, with the bare minimum concealed carry training, is as likely to shoot himself, an innocent bystander, or the sky as the "bad person".

Cite, please.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation
"In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434012
"Similar to a survey of Arizona motorists, in our survey, riding with a firearm in the vehicle was a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior."

http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(12)01408-4/abstract
Hospital-Based Shootings in the United States: 2000 to 2011
"In 23% of shootings within the ED, the weapon was a security officer's gun taken by the perpetrator."

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full
Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

"Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society."


http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099?journalCode=ajph
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Full disclosure, I am a firearm owner myself, intend to get a CCL now that it is legal in my state, but I wouldn't consider for even a moment bringing it on a CAP activity.

Sorry, perhaps I should clarify:

RELEVANT cite, please.

[LSThiker]

Here is a ground team tip to help thwart animal attacks:  Do not take a picture of yourself with a wild animal:

http://nypost.com/2014/05/01/squirrel-attacks-teen-after-he-takes-selfie/

And yes, I refuse to use that "other word".

[Eclipse]

RELEVANT cite, please.

Every study cited, especially the first one is 100% relevent.

Can you cite a single study that disputes what I asserted?

[Panache]

The average person, with the bare minimum concealed carry training, is as likely to shoot himself, an innocent bystander, or the sky as the "bad person".

Cite, please.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation
"In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."

Mother Jones?  Really?  A famously anti-Second Amendment publication?

And the NRA publishes, daily, reprints from newspapers around the country where people use their firearm to protect themselves from violent crime.  Again, this isn't the NRA writing these stories, they're simply re-printing them.

[Eclipse]

Agreed, if MJ leaned any further left they'ed do somersaults, and Thisainthell has their regular "feel good stories", but those are anecdotes, not studies.

We could do this all day, there's plenty of video on Youtube showing trained LEOs emptying
clips and hitting nothing or bystanders, and those are trained officers, but again anecdotes, notes studies.

Facts don't have a bias, even if the publisher does.

[LSThiker]

I am going to regret this but:

A study in 1998 found that for every 1 legally justifiable shooting/self-defense, there were four unintentional shootings.  This was found using a meta-analysis of police, medical examiner, EMS, and hospital records in 3 US cities (Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston).

Kellermann, A., G. Somes, F. Rivara, R. Lee, and J. Banton.  1998.  Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.  Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care, 45: 263-267.

Another study found that children were safer in states with strict firearm laws.  This was conducted by examining 60,224 pediatric patients in 44 states with trauma-related injuries (268 or 0.5% had firearm injuries).  31 were self-inflicted.  The authors noted that firearm injury rates per 1,000 were higher in states with non-strict firearm laws [SFL] (2.2 SFL vs 5.9 non-SFL).

Safavi, A., P. Rhee, V. Pandit, N. Kulvatunyou, A. Tang, et al.  2014.  Children are safer in states with strict firearm laws:  a National Inpatient Sample Study.  J Trauma Acute Car Surg, 76: 146-150. 

A study examining 16 states from 2003-2006 showed that of the 363 unintentional firearm fatalities,  39% were playing with the gun, 29% were hunting, 11% were cleaning, 5% were from "carrying", 4% were showing, 3% were target shooting, 2% were self-defense, 8% other, 7% unknown.  46% of shooters were 15-24 years old and 14% were 25-54 years.  Of the victims, 41% were 15-24 and 23% were 25-54 years.  58% of unintentional fatalities occurred away from home.  In shootings, 47% of victims were family, 43% were friends, and less than 2% were strangers. 

Hemenway, D., C. Barber, and M. Miller.  2010.  Unintentional firearm deaths:  a comparison of other-inflicted and self-inflicted shootings.  Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42: 1184-1188.

Another study in 2011 demonstrated that of the 194 firearm injuries, unintentional shootings accounted for 100 injuries.  Innocent bystander shootings were 39.  9.3% of children died.

Senger, C., R. Keijzer, G. Smith, and O. J. Muensterer.  2011.  Pediatric firearm injuries:  a 10-year single-center experience of 194 patients.  Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 46: 927-932.

[stillamarine]

Comparing the US to Afghanistan or even Iraq (where I was), is like comparing a tree to a weed. Sure they are both plants, but that is about as close as you can get

You've never been to Birmingham. I've had nights on the job I wished I was back in Afghanistan.

[abdsp51]

We can tout statics and surveys all day long.  There are numerous documented incidents where carrying has prevented mass tragedy.  For me personally, I live an half hour to an hour away from the border and I would prefer to have my sidearm on me in the event I did need it than to need it and not have it.  And yes I practice ORM, but sorry ORM will not and does not negate risks and hazards 100% of the time. 

[LSThiker]

Comparing the US to Afghanistan or even Iraq (where I was), is like comparing a tree to a weed. Sure they are both plants, but that is about as close as you can get

You've never been to Birmingham. I've had nights on the job I wished I was back in Afghanistan.

As long as we are talking about the one in Alabama, then yes I have.  I have also been to New Orleans, El Paso, New York City, and blah blah blah and trees and weeds both have green leaves.  Yes there are dangerous areas in the US as much as there are safe areas in Afghanistan.  However, using Afghanistan to justify carrying in the US is still an inappropriate comparison. 

[LSThiker]

We can tout statics and surveys all day long.  There are numerous documented incidents where carrying has prevented mass tragedy.  For me personally, I live an half hour to an hour away from the border and I would prefer to have my sidearm on me in the event I did need it than to need it and not have it.  And yes I practice ORM, but sorry ORM will not and does not negate risks and hazards 100% of the time.

Yup and no one is disputing that guns have been useful in certain circumstances.  The most recent is the purse snatchers this week as reported on major news networks.  And no one is saying that people should not carry a firearm (of course, no one is saying that we all should carry firearms either).  However, that does not justify the need to carry for a ground team or to a CAP activity.  If you are not willing to go to an area without a firearm, then perhaps taking a 14 year old cadet (even if you are carrying a firearm) is inappropriate and dangerous.  Besides, there are plenty of places that do not allow firearms and CAP is no different.  In fact, where I work, there are no firearms, knives (of any length), pepper spray, tasers, or any other weapons allowed in our buildings.

[Private Investigator]

We could do this all day, there's plenty of video on Youtube showing trained LEOs emptying
clips and hitting nothing or bystanders, and those are trained officers, but again anecdotes, notes studies.

I have to agree with Eclipse especially after my experience with the Dorner case. But people are certainly free to do whatever their little hearts desire, as long as they are not in my Area of Operations. 

[Private Investigator]

Comparing the US to Afghanistan or even Iraq (where I was), is like comparing a tree to a weed. Sure they are both plants, but that is about as close as you can get

You've never been to Birmingham. I've had nights on the job I wished I was back in Afghanistan.

You really need to take the Calibre Press, Street Survival Seminar, then. Anything else I say will be harsh   

[blackrain]

Just a little clarification.

I wasn't comparing Afghanistan and the US on a level of threat basis. My point is I am qualified to carry firearms (as are many) in a admittedly dangerous environment yet I am viewed as unqualified to do so in the states. I agree that a known high threat area should be avoided if possible especially with cadets but threats can and do materialize in unexpected places no matter what the ORM says. In the woods you never what you'll come across. I'm also not suggesting carrying a crew-served weapon stateside but a sidearm does give a means of self defense in a pinch.

As far as facilities (like military bases) or any other facility banning firearms is plain dumb. No matter how secure the base itself is, what happens when someone leaves the "safety" of the base? If I'm a bad guy I know it's highly likely that anyone coming or going is unarmed. Even policies allowing weapons to be locked in the vehicle is flawed from the standpoint that it could be stolen and now it ends up in the hands of the very bad guy's who are a threat. I do know without a doubt that it is secure if I always carry it on my person. My .02

[Eclipse]

It's even more secure if you don't own it to start with.

[Panache]

It's even more secure if you don't own it to start with.

Right up to the point when you really wish you had one.

[LSThiker]

Just a little clarification.

I wasn't comparing Afghanistan and the US on a level of threat basis. My point is I am qualified to carry firearms (as are many) in a admittedly dangerous environment yet I am viewed as unqualified to do so in the states.

Actually you are not qualified to carry, you were allowed to carry a weapon due to the operational mission.  This is opposed to other places such as Germany, Japan, Kuwait, Cutter, etc where you are not allowed to carry a weapon due to the operational mission (barring specific jobs).  Also, just because I was trained in the military, does not mean I understand the state's specific gun laws.  Thus again, the military does not qualify you to carry in the US because that is the job of the state as "directed" by the US Constitution.  Even if I have a CHL in one state does not mean another state recognizes it.

Even MPs have extremely limited powers outside of a military post despite being certified peace officers.

In the woods you never what you'll come across. I'm also not suggesting carrying a crew-served weapon stateside but a sidearm does give a means of self defense in a pinch.

Well having walked thousands of miles in the woods as I am an avid backpacker, I do have a fairly good idea of what I will come across.  Never once did I ever sit there and say, gee, I wish I had a gun.  I may have said that in the ghetto of Chicago or in East Saint Louis, but that is a different story.  I would have never taken a 14 year old into that situation.

Also, studies have shown that people become over confident when they have a firearm.  This overconfidence gets them into positions that they would have otherwise avoided.  My citations include some of those already given above plus I can come up with others published in peer-reviewed journals.  But then again, I am not arguing that guns cannot be useful in specific circumstance.  I have a CHL.  That is a different question, one in which I will agree with you on specific points. 

However, that is not the question, which is carrying firearms on ground teams or at CAP activities necessary.  The answer is simply no because of ORM, cost-benefit, liability, and real and perceived need.

As far as facilities (like military bases) or any other facility banning firearms is plain dumb.

Again, that is a completely different question.  I would agree with you on some and others I would disagree.  I agree that a church, even though I am an atheist, is justified in banning them.  I would also agree with military bases.  After all, how many stupid things have we seen with an 18-25 year old testosterone filled 11B PVT?  Of course, I am not saying all 11B, all PVTs, all 18-25 y/o, any other MOSs , etc etc etc.  Furthermore, I believe private business owners should have the right to say whether or not firearms are allowed on their land as much as private home owners.


Also, in the facility that I work in, we have enough microscopic dangers inside that we do not need people walking around with weapons.  The facility already draws conspiracy theorists to believe we are going to create the next zombie outbreak that we do not need people walking around with weapons to fuel to their "beliefs".  FYI, we do not have "Rage".

No matter how secure the base itself is, what happens when someone leaves the "safety" of the base?

Depending on the base's rules, you can always stop by the provost and ask for your weapon prior to leaving base (unless Army policy has changed as it has been sometime).

Even policies allowing weapons to be locked in the vehicle is flawed from the standpoint that it could be stolen and now it ends up in the hands of the very bad guy's who are a threat. I do know without a doubt that it is secure if I always carry it on my person.

And you have just made the case as to why firearms should be banned from CAP events.  Since current laws allow specific places to ban weapons, leaving it locked up in a CAP vehicle would be a bad idea.

So the reasons for prohibiting them include:  liability, possible show of force when in a military style uniform (remember knives on a ground team need to be stowed when performing site security), safety and security of the weapon, member lack of judgement, lack of justifiable need, and so forth.

Presented reasons for firearms:
-4-legged natural hazards.  This can be overcome by appropriate following proper attraction techniques, other means such as bear spray, and distraction techniques.  A question that I like to ask, if a bear attacks, should you play dead?

-2-legged humans:  Really depends on the situation, but the appropriate question is, would you take a 12-year cadet into the situation and then tell their parents?  Either way, no one has presented a verifiable situation in which a ground team should have had a firearm.

[sarmed1]

...member lack of judgement

I am a pro-gun, pro carry, but this is the number 1 reason I can see to avoid the firearms by GT personnel.
(please see my earlier post)

mk

[Johnny Yuma]

CAP, Inc. allowing you to carry firearms for defense? HA! It wasn't that long ago they didn't even want you reporting cadet abuse to anyone but your Wing Commander, even if your real job required it! What ever made you think they'd allow you to use your own tools to protect yourself and/or others while on CAP's clock?

Be glad they don't just ban their members from owning them outright, after all their organization, their rules as so many on here have said in the past...

[/sarcasm]

I've got a different take on this subject: NHq, Inc. is out to protect NHQ, Inc and its corporate officers only. Even if they allowed it in the 900-3 I wouldn't trust NHQ, Inc to toss a member under the bus if they had to use a firearm while on a mission, be it legal or not.

Besides, I'm doing everything i can to reduce the amount of weight (read crap) I'm packing on my 24 and 72 hour gear as it is. Adding a long gun, mags and ammo kinda defeats the purpose. Even your military CSAR operators working stateside missions aren't loaded out, so one's a little hard-pressed to justify it for most any of our missions.

That doesn't mean i don't have a 'special' bag or two that might get tossed in the car trunk along with my GT gear, it just doesn't go along with me on CAP sorties.

As far as CCW goes, let your conscience be your guide there. FWIW I'd rather get a 2b and go ride my horse more than get a SMOV at my funeral. I'm sure one day NHQ, Inc will get around to providing a policy involving violence against its members, probably have to report it to NHQ,Inc. for their investigation and reporting to Law Enforcement...

[Panache]

Did this thread loose about five days worth of replies?

EDIT:  Nevermind.  I see that somehow it branched out into another thread ( http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18826.0 ).