Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2018, 01:19:05 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Safety  |  Topic: Armed CAP Members
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 Print
Author Topic: Armed CAP Members  (Read 28268 times)
Extremepredjudice
Banned

Posts: 1,453
Unit: Freebooter

« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2011, 10:13:25 PM »

Why would we need to carry?
What purpose would it serve? We are a SAR organization.

The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)


Just throwing something in the ring.
Logged
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"
titanII
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 658

« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2011, 10:19:28 PM »

The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)
IMO there are better alternatives for this purpose: "bear spray," i.e. pepper spray.
Logged
No longer active on CAP talk
cap235629
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,251
Unit: SWR-AR-083

« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2011, 10:22:07 PM »

The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)
IMO there are better alternatives for this purpose: "bear spray," i.e. pepper spray.

If you are close enough to spray a bear with pepper spray, you are dinner.
Logged
Bill Hobbs, Major, CAP
Arkansas Certified Emergency Manager
Tabhair 'om póg, is Éireannach mé
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,420
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2011, 10:29:11 PM »

The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)
IMO there are better alternatives for this purpose: "bear spray," i.e. pepper spray.

If you are close enough to spray a bear with pepper spray, you are dinner.

"The National Park Rangers are advising hikers in Glacier National Park and other Rocky Mountain parks to be alert for bears and take extra precautions to avoid an encounter.

They advise park visitors to wear little bells on their clothes so they make noise when hiking.  The bell noise allows bears to hear them coming from a distance and not be startled by a hiker accidentally sneaking up on them.  This might cause a bear to charge.

Visitors should also carry a pepper spray can just in case a bear is encountered.  Spraying the pepper into the air will irritate the bear's sensitive nose and it will run away.

It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area.  People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.

Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur.  Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper."
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Extremepredjudice
Banned

Posts: 1,453
Unit: Freebooter

« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2011, 10:31:56 PM »

The only thing that comes to mind is wild animals...(for Ground teams)
IMO there are better alternatives for this purpose: "bear spray," i.e. pepper spray.

If you are close enough to spray a bear with pepper spray, you are dinner.


It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area.  People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.

Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur.  Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper."
Personally, I'll just leave the area for any type of scat.  8)
Logged
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"
tsrup
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 738
Unit: NCR-SD-031

« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2011, 10:32:21 PM »

Sound's like you should write to your congressman, because it sounds like you're far more likely to encounter people that you deem unqualified to carry outside of CAP than inside. 

And what does grant you the person to make those distinctions?

Again, who would be the certifying authority for these classes and range instruction.  Where would the cost come from?  And from your reasoning alone, then why limit it only to CAP members?



Maybe some people see the right to carry a Right, and not a privilege granted from an authority akin to the DMV...
That being said, I have no problem conforming to the regulations of CAP as they are written.  CAP is voluntary, and by joining we agree to act in accordance with their regulations.
Logged
Paramedic
hang-around.
Hardshell Clam
Seasoned Member

Posts: 242

« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2011, 10:34:47 PM »

Eclipse:  I made no proposal. I expressed a thought and wow, you even got to get an "NCO" dig in!

Tsrup: You asked a question, twice and I gave your an opinion, period. No one said it should be policy and/or I should judge anyone, etc, blah, blah, blah.

All LEO types: Department regs are NOT "required by law" and would not excuse one for carrying a firearm if caught doing so.

Now folks are going on about pepper spray and bear poop... Geeze, is it possible to get a straight answer without all the off topic bull?

I should have known better then ask the question and for that I must say "my bad".


Moderator, PLEASE end this now.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2011, 10:52:19 PM by Hardshell Clam » Logged
johnnyb47
Seasoned Member

Posts: 296
Unit: GLR-MI-117

Van Dyke Cadet Squadron
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2011, 10:55:34 PM »

I do not and I know of no members who are armed while performing CAP duties or activities.
That doesn't mean they don't exist but as the regs are terribly specific about it I doubt you'd get anyone to admit to it if they did carry on "duty".

Even if i was required by law, had a written letter of permission from the national commander and the president of the us followed me around letting people know it was OK I wouldn't advertise it. This could be why you aren't getting any "yeah I carry my glock...." answers.
hope that helps.
Logged
Capt
Information Technology Officer
Communications Officer


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
SARDOC
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,434

« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2011, 10:59:27 PM »

SARDOC: Is there any place that actully requires (by law) that off duty officers carry firearms? I would be interested to know who has that in their charter. HUGE liability as it makes the city/county, etc. absorb libility, just like when on duty. Even the NYPD dropped that years ago and department policy is not law.

Yes...Technically, My former department did indeed require it and that our department policies are adopted by reference into the City Charter.  The liability is really no different if they required you to carry or authorized you to carry off duty.  The only issue we had was that if we were required to do so that there would be an FLSA compensation issue...because the Chief law enforcement officer in our city is the Sheriff which by another weird quirk is considered a State Constitutional Officer we were combination Local/State LEO's.  The local PBA sued for overtime wages because of the requirement but the State Circuit Court ruled that we were exempt from the FLSA because we were appointees from an elected official.  State Rights vs Federal Gov't issue.   In the Time since I've retired the requirement is still on the Books, but from what I understand it's not enforced like it used to be...New Sheriff.  But they won't change it because they refuse to admit it is dumb.

NYPD dropped it a LONG time ago...My Dad retired from there around 1986 and he wasn't required to carry off duty.  Matter of Fact I remember that when he did bring his gun home he did so illegally because he had to drive through New Jersey to get home.   Which at the time was against the law because NJ required a permit, which my Dad did not have because he was not a NJ resident and there was no Out of State LEO exception.  There were a few stories about NYPD cops getting charged for having an illegal firearm in NJ by Jersey Troopers.
Logged
tsrup
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 738
Unit: NCR-SD-031

« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2011, 11:10:35 PM »

Eclipse:  I made no proposal. I expressed a thought and wow, you even got to get an "NCO" dig in!

Tsrup: You asked a question, twice and I gave your an opinion, period. No one said it should be policy and/or I should judge anyone, etc, blah, blah, blah.

All LEO types: Department regs are NOT "required by law" and would not excuse one for carrying a firearm if caught doing so.

Now folks are going on about pepper spray and bear poop... Geeze, is it possible to get a straight answer without all the off topic bull?

I should have known better then ask the question and for that I must say "my bad".


Moderator, PLEASE end this now.

Well what kinds of answers were you expecting? 

It's called a Forum, because that's what happens.  You start a topic, and you get feedback.  You cant ask the mods to close it just because you don't like the response.

I'm just asking for you to expand your "thoughts".  If you really want change, then talk about it. 

Logged
Paramedic
hang-around.
a2capt
300,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,095
Unit: pǝʇɹǝʌuı

« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2011, 11:14:22 PM »

Don't like response? Don't read the thread anymore. Simple.
I've yet to see a request for lock, end, or delete honored here, simply because it's desired. OTOH. If the thread goes off and gets stupid, that is a different story. But deleted, rarely. Still there for google to sniff...
Logged
Hardshell Clam
Seasoned Member

Posts: 242

« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2011, 11:17:52 PM »

 "The liability is really no different if they required you to carry or authorized you to carry off duty."

Back the cart up but there is a LOT of difference... A huge one as a matter of fact and that is why 99% gave that up a long time ago Again: "HUGH" libility and difference. 

If you had a "bad shoot" off duty the department was just as much on the hook just as if it was on duty. A lot of case law stating just that. Feds dropped that (even the FBI) a long tome ago as well.

I would be interested in reading any "required law".

Folks: As far as "asking" to lock the thread, it was made tounge in cheek at the inane responses...

As far as wanting any change to the CAP rule, I would say, oh heck no, I do not want armed CAP staf unless they have a letter from wing, just like the rules say. They are worded the way they are to prevent folks from carrying with a CCW or "off duty" because they can. The wing CO is not going to give out a letter unless there is a real need and a law (not a local dept reg) requiring the weapon.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2011, 11:27:47 PM by Hardshell Clam » Logged
johnnyb47
Seasoned Member

Posts: 296
Unit: GLR-MI-117

Van Dyke Cadet Squadron
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2011, 11:26:44 PM »

"The liability is really no different if they required you to carry or authorized you to carry off duty."


If you had a "bad shoot" off duty the department was just as much on the hook just as if it was on duty. A lot of case law stating just that.


:)
Logged
Capt
Information Technology Officer
Communications Officer


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
SARDOC
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,434

« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2011, 11:27:49 PM »

"The liability is really no different if they required you to carry or authorized you to carry off duty."

Back the cart up but there is a LOT of difference... A huge one as a matter of fact and that is why 99% gave that up a long time ago Again: "HUGH" libility and difference. 

If you had a "bad shoot" off duty the department was just as much on the hook just as if it was on duty. A lot of case law stating just that.

I would be interested in rading any "required law".


I think you are kinda making my point.  Yes, a "Bad Shoot" is just as bad off duty as it would be on duty.  That still has no bearing on whether or not the Department requires you to carry off duty.  Two very separate issues.
Logged
SARDOC
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,434

« Reply #34 on: October 24, 2011, 11:35:53 PM »

That being said I disagree with CAP members carrying Firearms...it is a lot more responsibility than people realize it is.  My Earlier Posts, I mentioned that my Department Required off duty members to carry, while true, most LEO's disagreed with it because of the level of personal responsibility it placed on us in our off duty hours...so much that we actually sued our employer over it.  Nobody in the Civil Air Patrol should ever really consider allowing members to carry other than where required to do so by law.
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,420
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #35 on: October 24, 2011, 11:39:22 PM »

When preceded by "If CAP allowed weapons,..." this could certainly be implied to be a proposal:

Quote
At a minimum, I would require 40 hours of range training and another 40 hours of classroom/legal training, a background investigation (not just a fingerprint check) and a mental exam such as the written MMPI test and a follow up interview with the shrink before considering allowing CAP members to be armed.

Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Hardshell Clam
Seasoned Member

Posts: 242

« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2011, 11:43:15 PM »

SARDOC: Ok, I will make it it even simpler: The police departmet/insurance co HAS to pay out $$$ in any "bad shoot" on duty, but to avoid the same thing "off duty" the departments stopped requiring off duty carry to avoid all the $$ payouts. Sad to say, but plain simple math did in the "required carry" rules.

If any officer thinks your department would not feed you to the wolfs in a bad off duty shoot even faster then an on duty one, they are delusional. That is why 99.9% of real fed agents (not "security police" or guards, etc.) carry special insurance offered through FLEOA, unions etc.
Logged
SARDOC
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,434

« Reply #37 on: October 25, 2011, 12:00:57 AM »

See...I'm more of the "City is going to screw us for a bad shoot whether we are on duty or not" crowd.
Logged
Major Lord
Suspended

Posts: 1,817

« Reply #38 on: October 25, 2011, 12:02:10 AM »

I have been armed by CAP, and fired weapons, many times under CAP's authority, including the firing of fully automatic ( 3 round burst, technically) assault rifles, and I know many others have too. As far as my personally going CCW, it does not happen on CAP's time. When I was actively involved in workplace violence conflict resolution, I carried a 4 Million dollar E&O policy, which thankfully, I never had to make use! Now I view a personal weapon as part of my insurance, not as a thing I need to be protected from, by a usurious insurance policy. If I have to shoot anyone (or anything) now, I am confident that the powers that be will make my life miserable, but it will still be my life, a subtle, but important differentiation!

Major Lord
p.s. My favorite question on the MMPI is "Are you a special agent from god?" it makes me laugh every time I see it.
Logged
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
NCRblues
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,480
Unit: lostiguess

« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2011, 12:05:31 AM »

Just real quick back to my posting about the marshal...

It’s not a fight the wing wanted to pick. He is an outstanding SM, puts in tons of time, and has great connections with other federal agencies.

The man does a very hard and very dangerous job; he has also made several enemies in his line of work. He said he needed to be armed (not all the time, just when on alert) and so it is allowed in the wing.

If you all want to chase someone like that away, than so be it, but it’s a wonder CAP has such a hard time playing nice with other agencies.

Now back to your regularly scheduled argument….
Logged
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Safety  |  Topic: Armed CAP Members
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.081 seconds with 25 queries.
click here to email me