Firearms & GT (Split from NYPD Aux. thread)

[Major Lord]

"by contract if you violate the rules of the corporation you loose all benifit of protection of that corporation.  Nothing in 900-3 makes it completly invalid"

The provision prohibiting deputization is illegal on the face of it. I actually do not believe that the regulation is a "contract" within the legal definition of the term. If it was it would be prima facie invalid. The CAPR's are just Corporate rules, having no more legal standing than the J.C. Penny's salesman manual. In the event that I refused deputization, and a third party died as a consequence of my illegal actions, I guarantee you that CAP would be named in the suit, and having provided a written instruction knowing that said instruction could foreseeably lead to the death of a third party, AND that they knew or should have known that such actions were deemed  by (black letter) CA law to be illegal, CAP would bear the brunt of the liability. (okay they could try to sue us, but you can't get blood from turnips!)

I will refrain from carrying a gun, because I am willing to accept the personal risk attendant to that action. If in the event that I am summoned to assist a LEO, I will do so. In the event that I am subject to the call to militia, I will respond to supress riots or what ever is needed. To think that our faux AF duds makes us immune to the law is just proposterous. It sickens me to hear CAP members think that we are above the law. It sickens me further to think that anyone wearing the uniform of this country would not assist the police to protect it. Many of you were never police, and I understand that, but to think that you would let a brother defender of our country fend for himself in an emergency is just too awful for words. If you feel that way you should join earth first, or some other pinko group.




Capt. Lord

[JohnKachenmeister]

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

Just to emphasise the point!

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis:

If the situation were on an AFAM, then refusing to comply with the officer would be, in fact, legal.  He cannot request assistance of the USAF (Which on an AFAM, we are) due to the Posse Comm. Act.

But in the example I gave, the mission was under an MOU with the EMA (The police would not be a party to the MOU).  We would not be protected under the PCA, and would be, in fact, private citizens subject to being called to aid a LE officer.  The rules and policies of a corporation do not trump state and local law.

[JohnKachenmeister]

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

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

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

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

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

That is easy to explain.

The basic argument of the DA would be strong, especially (as in my example) the MOU was with the EMA and not the police.  The police cannot be held to comply with a agreement to which they are not a party. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

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

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

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

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

Bingo!

Your second paragraph is my point.  CAPR 900-3 needs to be re-written to recognize the new legal world we are in since 2000. 

[Johnny Yuma]

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

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

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

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

ROFLMAO!

That right only ends if the door's posted. If not, then too bad.

If you really believe that CAP will keep you safe, you've been drinking Tony's KoolAid for too long. CAP, Inc. will protect you as long as it doesn't cost them money nor jepoardizes the corporation or its officers. By officers, I mean The board, NEC and BoG.

I'll keep the repsonsibility of keeping myself safe in my own hands, thank you very much.

[Johnny Yuma]

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

Just to emphasise the point!

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis:

If the situation were on an AFAM, then refusing to comply with the officer would be, in fact, legal.  He cannot request assistance of the USAF (Which on an AFAM, we are) due to the Posse Comm. Act.

But in the example I gave, the mission was under an MOU with the EMA (The police would not be a party to the MOU).  We would not be protected under the PCA, and would be, in fact, private citizens subject to being called to aid a LE officer.  The rules and policies of a corporation do not trump state and local law.

And NHQ isn't above playing both sides of the USAF AUX/Corporation to keep the members confused  and everyone in line at the KoolAid stand.

[FARRIER]

 

[JC004]

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

Not true.  The other rule is to bring all your friends who have guns.

[flyerthom]

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

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

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

Murphy's lawsof combat:

1) your weapon is supplied by the lowest bidder.
2) If you're close enough to shoot, you're close enough to be shot.

[SAR-EMT1]

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

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

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

Murphy's lawsof combat:

1) your weapon is supplied by the lowest bidder.
2) If you're close enough to shoot, you're close enough to be shot.

After having read your comments and reviewed my own submission I will concede that I was in error and that my actions would most likely get me killed in a situation as you all have concieved. I will remove the star, but I will keep the knife. - Regs say no BFKs visible on team gear, I keep mine tucked out of common view -

As for my actions in a situation so concieved,- drug labs, shotgun crazies etc... I must conclude that my only goal would be to protect any cadets on my team 1st, the other seniors, and myself. 
As for guns on my personal part: I have been waiting on FOID card approval for over a year now. - Paperwork is SLOW here in Nazi Germany  Illinois.

---
As an aside: a javelina is a man eating wild hog correct? Cant be worse then an "upset"  mother wolverine. CAN IT?! 

[Al Sayre]

The javelina is probably a little faster on the run, and the tusks can cut you to the bone in a heartbeat.  I've never dealt wih javelina's, but I have dealt with wild (feral) hogs (we hunt them with dogs in Florida) and a wild sow with piglets is a VERY dangerous animal.

[JC004]

As for guns on my personal part: I have been waiting on FOID card approval for over a year now. - Paperwork is SLOW here in Nazi Germany  Illinois.

Ha.  Good luck with that.  IL has a long heritage of severe gun control.  Not as crazy as some states, though (CA, MA, NY, NJ).  PA is shall-issue and the law requires it to be processed within 45 days (for carry).  Hopefully the new legislature won't change that.

So far as regs go with knives and other pointy things, it's debatable how authoritative the task booklets are (where most of the guidance was originally inserted), but in most states, a large knife would likely be acceptable on a SAR mission, just probably not roaming the streets.

[Al Sayre]

I have a machete, a small tree saw and an entrenching tool I keep behind the seat in my truck.   They're just tools...

[Flying Pig]

Its amazing how these threads just spin out of control

[DNall]

The javelina is probably a little faster on the run, and the tusks can cut you to the bone in a heartbeat.  I've never dealt wih javelina's, but I have dealt with wild (feral) hogs (we hunt them with dogs in Florida) and a wild sow with piglets is a VERY dangerous animal.

We got hogs too. They began as domesticated hogs turned lose on the range. They are concerned with protecting their spot/family & will chase you only so far as that objective is met. Javelina began wild. They are faster & lots more aggerssive. They take the intrusion personally & will keep chasing you a long way (they're lots faster than you with bog ole tusks). That's empty a 45 a short range pray, just like some guy on PCP. Very very dangerous.

[Major Lord]

As for guns on my personal part: I have been waiting on FOID card approval for over a year now. - Paperwork is SLOW here in Nazi Germany  Illinois.

Ha.  Good luck with that.  IL has a long heritage of severe gun control.  Not as crazy as some states, though (CA, MA, NY, NJ).  PA is shall-issue and the law requires it to be processed within 45 days (for carry).  Hopefully the new legislature won't change that.

So far as regs go with knives and other pointy things, it's debatable how authoritative the task booklets are (where most of the guidance was originally inserted), but in most states, a large knife would likely be acceptable on a SAR mission, just probably not roaming the streets.

Most states, including California, do not prohibit carrying any length sheath knife openly. ( You can carry a Samurai sword if you are so inclined.) Carrying a fixed blade knife concealed is a felony most everywhere. If you need a big knife for the mission, carry a big knife for the mission. I have found little use for combat knives on CAP missions, but a good Machete has come in darn handy. I think the perfect SAR knife would be a short blade ( less than 2 inches is legal in California) serrated switch blade with a blunt tip and a seat belt cutter. For Northern California, it should have a corkscrew and a cheese knife. For Alabama, it should have a possum "legal length" gage.. (waiting for the outraged Alabamans to find someone to read this to them...)

Capt. Lord

[ZigZag911]

The CAPR's are just Corporate rules, having no more legal standing than the J.C. Penny's salesman manual. In the event that I refused deputization, and a third party died as a consequence of my illegal actions, I guarantee you that CAP would be named in the suit, and having provided a written instruction knowing that said instruction could foreseeably lead to the death of a third party, AND that they knew or should have known that such actions were deemed  by (black letter) CA law to be illegal, CAP would bear the brunt of the liability.

The situation is somewhat confused because of our 'part time' Auxiliary status (which might be an argument in favor of restoring full time Aux standing)....considering it strictly as a layman, the controlling factors are federal statue establishing the PCA rules, and AFIs on the same subject.

In other words, arguing that one followed a CAP regulation which was written specifically to conform with U.S. law and AF regulations, in that case, might stand legal testing.

It is a matter of the primacy of federal law where there is a conflict; CAP is not seeking to be 'above the law', but rather in compliance with the laws that govern us as an auxiliary to a military service, as well as those that control us as a Congressionally chartered corporation.

[RiverAux]

can one of the the cops here cite a specific state law that gives a police officer the authority to demand the assistance of non-police officers and that would leave teh civilian open to prosecution if he did not comply?  Please give specific title/chapter, etc. for the law.

By the way, I'm not questioning that such a law might exist, I'd just like to see an example and to see exactly what the language of such a law says. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

ZZ:

You hit the point ZZ.  On an AFAM, we are a part of the Air Force. We USED to be a part of the Air Force all the time.  Now, we are only USAF when actually called into service on AF orders.

900-3 was written when the world was a better place, when we were ALWAYS the USAF auxiliary.  Now that on some missions were are not part of the AF, 900-3 is, literally, of no more legal consequence than the J.C. Penny's Instructions to Ladies Intimate Aparrel Sales Associates.

900-3 needs to be re-written to give proper legal guidance in the light of our changed legal status.

[DNall]

Actually... well I do think it needs to be re-written to grant teh option in reasonable situations as I stated before, BUT in general I think it should be presented as part of a body of evidence to show the full-time Aux status needs to be respored & adequate regulatory & command authority granted to ensure that's executed within the lines with ref to penalties that may ensue from not doing so. In other words, what they should have don in the first place, but I wasn't working there at the time to tell them how stupid the idea was.