Is This The Answer We've Been Waiting For? Army Recruiting Command addresses armed civilians at recruiting facilities?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 21:26:14 -0400

Someone sent us this policy letter last night from the Command Operations Center – Security Division of the US Army Recruiting Command in regards to the folks who are standing outside recruiting offices to ostensibly protect recruiters from terrorists;

Subject: USAREC Policy – Armed citizens at recruiting centers ATO’s,

Situation: The USAREC COC has received reports from two Brigade ATOs, social media and TV coverage that law abiding armed citizens are standing outside of our recruiting centers in an attempt to safeguard our recruiters.

Execution:
1) Recruiters will not acknowledge the presence or interact with these civilians. If questioned by these alleged concerned citizens; be polite, professional, and terminate the conversation immediately and report the incident to local law enforcement and complete USAREC Form 958 IAW USAREC 190-4 (SIR)

2) Do not automatically assume these concerned citizens are there to help.
Immediately report IAW USAREC 190-4 (Suspicious Behavior)

3) Immediately report any civilians loitering near the Station/Center to local police if the recruiter feels threatened. Ensure your recruiters’ clearly articulate to local police the civilian may be armed and in possession of a conceal/carry permit. Ensure recruiters include any information provided by local police in their SIR reporting the incident.

4) Ensure all station commanders implement FPCON Charlie 6 (Lock and secure entry points) addressed in previous email.

5) I’m sure the citizens mean well, but we cannot assume this in every case and we do not want to advocate this behavior.

*** The timely and accurate submission of 958s (SIR) is imperative to track these incidents and elicit support from TRADOC, ARNORTH and NORTHCOM.

I agree with the policy, actually, but, Big Army can rectify the situation by allowing recruiters to protect their own offices. The civilians wouldn’t be there if the Army took some basic force protection measures. You know, beyond closing the blinds and wearing civilian clothes in route to work.

Folks who are planning to make a show at recruiters’ facilities, probably shouldn’t do so in a manner that can be construed as “loitering”.

Response by Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP made Jul 21 at 2015 9:44 PM

Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 21:44:38 -0400

I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not since I'm not exactly sure what the policy means.

1. Don't interact? WTF? Isn't that the purpose of a recruiter? To interact with citizens? Granted, these folks are likely not interested in signing up - and I'll also grant that just because they are standing out front doesn't mean their intentions are positive (i.e. #2). That said, basic situation assessment skills would indicate the above folks are not a threat - and any American willing to stand up to defend any part of America is absolutely somebody we want to interact with.
5. Don't want to advocate this behavior? You mean getting angry about being attacked in our homeland, strapping on a weapon, and taking a position on "the line"? Why do we not want to advocate that? I'll certainly grant that these folks don't appear to be especially capable of mounting a defense, but willingness to be there counts a great deal to me.

Ultimately, if you are suggesting that "basic FP measures" includes arming trained military members, I agree - and would further agree the citizens would not feel the need to stand that post.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Jul 21 at 2015 10:30 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 22:30:26 -0400

i think these people mean well, but it is not going to do anything and won't last long.

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made Jul 21 at 2015 10:32 PM

PO2 Peter Klein — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 22:32:16 -0400

Is the guy in the red cap going to hit an assailant with his golf club? Much better to arm the recruiters.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jul 21 at 2015 10:54 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 22:54:54 -0400

This actually brings up a good point that just hit me. With groups of armed law abiding citizens standing outside recruiting stations are we not making it easier for non law abiding citizens to actually attack us? Think about it, you have a radical who wants to make a statement and sets his/her eyes on a local recruiting station. They see a group of people standing outside with guns. So the next day, they strap a side arm to their hip and walk up and blend into the group. No one does anything because there are 3 others with guns too. Suddenly, the crazed gun man puts his plan into action and suddenly instead of being upset about having 5 service members killed, we are faced with having many more than 5 injured. If I'm not mistaken, we have seen the same sort of debates following shootings in local schools. Both situations have no clear cut solutions because as we saw with the schools, certain solutions like metal detectors being installed in the schools do not stop the attacks. Schools are still being the backdrop of many attacks.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 10:56 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 22:56:15 -0400

In civies, who can say good guys or bad guys. Keep the well intentioned away, so you know when someone approaches that is armed, the recruiters know it's not a friendly...of course this means...YOU HAVE TO ARM THE RECRUITERS...but we all know that someone will want to hire a private security firm and spend millions of dollars so that the Military will not be liable if an "accident" happens. They'll have hundreds of excuses not to arm the recruiters who are fit and trained, but not one good reason not too. Why can"t our leaders make a decision, right or wrong make a decision if it's right, Hoorah! If not...go to plan B.

Response by SFC Tyrone Almendarez made Jul 22 at 2015 12:13 AM

SFC Tyrone Almendarez — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:13:40 -0400

Your more of a nuisance than help. If you want to help the recruiters, enlist.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 7:46 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 07:46:11 -0400

thanks to the good Americans for looking out

Response by SGT David T. made Jul 22 at 2015 10:42 AM

SGT David T. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:42:58 -0400

While I understand the concerns that USAREC has, but my question is what are they doing about it? Why is it that over the last few years military members and civilian employees have been the targets of violence and we have yet to see any meaningful policy changes? I for one do not feel safe at work because the big no firearms sign at the gate is not going to protect me from someone wishing me harm. The best I can muster at work is a stapler and a letter opener which as we all can imagine wont end well if an incident occurs.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Jul 22 at 2015 6:25 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:25:22 -0400

Did anyone NOT see this coming? And at the risk of inevitable backlash, I totally agree with the Army on this one as, the truth is, you really don't know the intent of, or who in the he** that yahoo is standing outside your door with the loaded AR-15... We have quite a few militias, gangs, groups and quite a few individual idiots, etc. out there that would see this as a perfect opportunity for utilizing their "personal/organizational" gains/goals under the guise of providing "protection for America's Military". After all, who wouldn't want to be a part of that? While I understand what the masses are saying, and I, for one, would do anything to protect America and it's assets, I would have to concede to the fact that this would require a look at both sides of the coin, weigh the outcomes of each, then choosing an "acceptable risk". And, with passion and emotion aside, I agree with the Army on this one with the "understanding" and hope that either the Army will provide protection from the Active force or by arming the recruiters, or implement a security program where armed civilian personnel vetted by the Army would assume this role to protect its personnel in outlying areas away from the installation, (kind like our civilian gate guards), or? Simply do nothing at all... But failure not to address this in such a way as to indicate that the Army does not condone these armed civilian operations would be disastrous should something negative happen, such as an accidental discharge, mistaken accidental/intentional shooting, gang/group conflicts, or even worse, the death of another brother or sister in arms at the hands of someone we trusted... We're all know Murphy and Carl, and they both are alive and well... And truthfully? I'd trust them with a weapon watching my back before giving that responsibility to anyone else...

Army To Recruiters: Treat Armed Citizens as Security Threat

The Army has warned its recruiters to treat the gun-toting civilians gathering at centers across the country as a security threat.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 22 at 2015 9:26 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:26:38 -0400

Some things are beyond words...

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 23 at 2015 12:11 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:11:42 -0400

That is a bad idea, IMHO. It needlessly offends citizens that are inclined to help.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jul 23 at 2015 1:13 AM

SSG Trevor S. — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:13:31 -0400

I believe it is a political response from someone in a high influence civilian position that is butt hurt that people rally around our Service Members.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 23 at 2015 1:56 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:56:46 -0400

Probably, Technically the Correct Response. Legally the Correct Response as far as Liability (If they don't the US Military/Government) is on the hook for Injuries or Wrongful Death unless these folks are Police Officers or Private Security Officers with a Commission Card authorizing them to be armed and contracted to the Recruiting Command. Also how are we to tell the good guys from the bad guys with everybody armed. What is to stop a "Bad" guy from mixing in with the "Good" guys and then having a free for all at the Appropriate Opportunity. (Must be my 21 years as a Navy Spook, I trust no one).

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jul 23 at 2015 2:03 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:03:40 -0400

It would be a great service from others to military recruiters and a great cover for a terrorist.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 23 at 2015 2:39 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:39:22 -0400

How dumb. It's insulting to all who are giving of their time

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 2:46 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:46:00 -0400

I would highly recommend following the orders as given.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jul 23 at 2015 11:37 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:37:09 -0400

I understand that these are the decisions are made by the Officers that are appointed over me. I understand that they have to make decisions of the few for the many. But to treat these Citizens as they are Criminals or as if they are not to be spoke to is LUDICROUS! I understand that the ENEMY could go into and amougst them. But these are Law Abiding Citizens that Know each other and have more than likely gotten together and decided to do this as a group and take shifts and days. They will know each other and the shit bag cannot just WALK up and join the group. They will ask questions as most ARE VETERANS wanting to protect there brothers. Some states are asking for volunteers (MP's) for state active duty to be armed and stand guard till we figure this out. I salute the Governors that see that the White House isn't going to make a decision to protect us and have either given the STATE facilities the order to carry at the armories, and recruiting stations!

Response by TSgt Kevin Buccola made Jul 23 at 2015 12:08 PM

TSgt Kevin Buccola — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:08:09 -0400

This is a very bad idea.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 10:41 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:41:25 -0400

civilians know that we are not allowed to be armed, not even on our own bases. we do have some citizens that actually care about the military, of course they are going to want to help protect us. if the military/government doesnt want them to do that then they should realize that if we are allowed to arm up and protect ourselves the concerned citizens wouldnt have to because they would know that we could do the job ourselves.

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Jul 24 at 2015 4:47 PM

SFC Nikhil Kumra — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:47:02 -0400

Oh Lord... it's even in "sergeant major eats sugar cookies" format....

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made May 7 at 2021 7:13 PM

LTC Charles T Dalbec — Fri, 07 May 2021 19:13:25 -0400

I would recommend that the Station Commanders be armed and that there would always be a trained marksman recruiter in the station.