Posted on Jul 21, 2015
Is This The Answer We've Been Waiting For? Army Recruiting Command addresses armed civilians at recruiting facilities?
11.6K
80
57
10
10
0
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”.
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”.
Recruiter
Murder
ISIS
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 21
1
1
0
It would be a great service from others to military recruiters and a great cover for a terrorist.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Curtis Ellis
Dammit Christopher!!! Sheesh...
Guards Kicked Off Recruiting Center Grounds After Civilian Accidentally Fires Rifle
Lancaster Police tell 10TV 28-year-old Christopher Reed fired the weapon at the Army/Air Force Recruiting Center on River Valley Boulevard Thursday afternoon.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT David T., I think that is the $64,000 question. Leading and ensuring our military members are safe begins at the top. Need I go on?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Your more of a nuisance than help. If you want to help the recruiters, enlist.
(1)
(0)
SFC Tyrone Almendarez
It was 24hrs from when I made that comment. SGT (Join to see)
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/civilian-guarding-army-center-nearly-kills-bystander-with-accidental-gunshot/
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/civilian-guarding-army-center-nearly-kills-bystander-with-accidental-gunshot/
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I expect more of these accidents from people who don't know what they're doing. That guy is an idiot. The cops need to keep that M-16. When you made the statement, " you're more of a nuisance than help. If you want to help the recruiters, enlist". Were you directing that towards anyone in particular?
(1)
(0)
SFC Tyrone Almendarez
I was directing it towards people like this guy. People with a mindset that more guns is a solution. What happen that day was horrific but to think that service members would be more comfortable with people walking around with weapons outside of there workplace is insane. Again who is friendly or foe?
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Got you! And I agree. It would be insane. If it happens again, something for sure will have to be done. Do you think this guy was a lone wolf?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I would recommend that the Station Commanders be armed and that there would always be a trained marksman recruiter in the station.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SFC Nikhil Kumra
Situation, mission, execution, service/support, command/signal. Sergeant major eats sugar cookies! That always stuck. lol
Except it's just situation and execution ...
Except it's just situation and execution ...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
How dumb. It's insulting to all who are giving of their time
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google