The North Carolina National Guard approach. Would you rather have an MP instead of arming a recruiter as an option?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:23:02 -0400

The North Carolina took a different approach with the security of their recruiting stations. Instead of arming their recruiters they sent armed Military Police soldiers instead. I am not trying to be bias but I think this is the best means of securing a recruiting station. They are already trained in Law Enforcement Operations and escalation of force. They are the most qualified soldier that could accomplish this mission by far. Most of the recruiters that are serving in various offices may not be well trained in small arms. We found this out with the Navy Recruiter shooting him while handling his personal weapon.

Benefits of having an armed National Guard Soldier is that they can be sworn by the jurisdiction which they are in with a mutual aid agreement. It would give them additional abilities to deal with civilians. This could only happen with National Guard Troops. I don't believe that Federal Troops could do this due to their Federal status.

But at the location in the Cary Towne Mall there is also other military recruiting offices near by. Could this be a detail that the National Guard could pick up to provide security for these offices nation wide. I don't know if a National Guard that doesn't have MPs or a training area for them. In some states, like Vermont, you don't have much a military presence at all. But even there they have MPs. Would this be a good option and an addition mission for the Guard.

North Carolina National Guard recruiting centers now protected by armed guards

Armed guards are now posted at all of North Carolina's National Guard recruiting centers.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 5:24 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:24:09 -0400

I think this is an excellent idea. Of course I'm biased being an MP.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 5:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:25:13 -0400

Are they on some type of orders? I know our budget/funding here in TN is shot to shit.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 5:29 PM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:29:41 -0400

Good idea but would they be guarding just NG recruiting offices or All recruiting offices regardless of branch?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 5:30 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:30:21 -0400

MPs not a bad idea idea, but as a taxpayer, Im concerned about the personnel costs to provide on at all the thousands of recruiting stations across the county. it would be much less expensive to arm the recruiter. Also another disadvantage of MP is it might b intimidating for a prospect. If the recruiter is armed, not only would it be less intimidating, prospects might as about it just as if there were visiting a static display with weapons at a public event.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 24 at 2015 5:38 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:38:10 -0400

I am fine with this approach but I do trust Marine NCO's and Staff NCO's with firearms, escalation of force and the ability to effectively and safely use their weapon if necessary. I don't think we have to have a single approach for all locations. This works well for many I am sure.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jul 24 at 2015 5:39 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:39:03 -0400

This doesn't seem sustainable. Is the military going to put a permanent MP every hour that a recruiting station is open in the thousands of stations around the country? One doesn't need to be a logistics wizard to know that can't possibly work. Also, what happens when the next attack is at a MEPS station? Get a couple thousand more MPs to guard those? How about every national guard building in the country? Get thousands more MPs? Once you harden those targets, what about ROTC centers? MPs would soon become the majority of the military. Pretending that we can use MPs to guard everything we care about in the military is not a sustainable solution

If you can't trust our NCOs with firearms, then I would say THAT is the problem. It is a huge national problem if we can't trust our military members... That is what should be fixed. The only way to fix it is to let service members actually be trained in proper firearm use and handling... And that does sound like quite a reasonable idea to me.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jul 24 at 2015 5:41 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:41:13 -0400

While I like the MP option, I think that there are more locations than MPs..... It would be easier to arm the NCOs and Officers.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jul 24 at 2015 6:11 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:11:54 -0400

Not speaking of where but there are another state also doing this!

Response by SGT Glenn E Moody made Jul 24 at 2015 6:36 PM

SGT Glenn E Moody — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:36:17 -0400

In my day if you didn't qualify with your weapon you got a discharge from the Military. so i say qualify the recruiters as and with the MP'S to hold there own have them qualify once a month with there weapon's just like the local & state police do in fact have them do it with the state local police & the MP'S all together it would save life & funds & set up a task force to handle this issue with a direct line to the task force if help is needed just my thought's on this

Response by LCDR Rich Bishop made Jul 24 at 2015 6:38 PM

LCDR Rich Bishop — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:38:17 -0400

There are plenty of reserve security forces, provide them additional active duty and extra drills. they are trained and willing to support / protect the rest of our forces.

Response by LCDR Rich Bishop made Jul 24 at 2015 6:38 PM

LCDR Rich Bishop — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:38:25 -0400

There are plenty of reserve security forces, provide them additional active duty and extra drills. they are trained and willing to support / protect the rest of our forces.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 6:40 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:40:31 -0400

This is an ideal solution, IMO. They are trained in use of force and procedures for dealing with a "target + civilians" situation, whereas there is no guarantee that a Recruiter will know these things.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 7:15 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:15:22 -0400

Of the two, I'm prefer an MP...but do we have enough to station them at every recruiting station and still man their own bases?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 8:54 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:54:13 -0400

How are soldiers, sailors and airmen not considered proficient in handling small arms, but passed initial training and are considered combat ready. It's proposterous to think that we are openly admitting our military service members can't handle firearms. DUH!

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jul 25 at 2015 12:30 AM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 00:30:31 -0400

This only works for the National Guard in a SAD capacity. Active Duty and REserve MPs could not do this

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 10:25 AM

CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:25:32 -0400

LT, this is a nice "either or" discussion, but it parallels a contemporary fascination with dichotomies.
It's a resource drain to do this, and though you make a good point it is going to have to be funded. It is a wonderful idea, and perhaps should be done in the days surrounding military related holidays and patriotic memorial days. The recruiters should still be armed. We are a profession of arms, yet neutered in our own country. While there won't likely be a Red Dawn scenario going on, it is still a group of people that have been trained to handle weapons, and 99% of recruiters have been deployed meaning the ROE has been ingrained in them. ROE for law enforcement is far more relaxed than our military ROE.

I would allow all of us to carry arms unless psychologically seen as unfit. If that would have been the case at Fort Hood that (insert explicative) would have been mowed down within seconds. Being in the profession of arms and not being armed has left us as targets. I'll go with Marcus Lutrell and say that we are a force that shall not yield out of fear, we will not take off our uniforms, and we should be armed. There is no time in history that we have had a more professional volunteer fighting force. While some privates use this as a jobs service and others use it as money for school, the vast majority do it for the honor of serving and out of a deep seated belief that they are earning their citizenship rather than taking it for granted like civilians. The pseudo criminal "join the army or go to jail" is no longer an option. It is harder to get in than to go to college. We are ready for reform and all soldiers and marines, perhaps even airmen and squids should be allowed to carry at will. If you want to force everyone to take a protocol class in order to be certified to carry just take out one of the weekly EO or SHARP trainings and it doesn't cost the military anything more.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 10:35 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:35:09 -0400

I think that this is a good idea in theory but not realistic given funding authority and fiscal issues.
Recruiters should be able to protect themselves with some additional training from their command to avoid a repeat of the sailor incident.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 10:41 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:41:51 -0400

This works for me but do we have enough MP's for this task and how long will this last?

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 25 at 2015 11:02 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 11:02:12 -0400

Our recruiters should be able to work in a safe environment but at the same time potential recruits should be able to speak with a recruiter in a casual manner without the threat of injury.

Response by SSG John Bacon made Jul 25 at 2015 11:17 AM

SSG John Bacon — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 11:17:12 -0400

There would be Jurisdictional issues not to mention having to add additional personnel when they are trying to reduce forces. Have the recruiters complete a CCDW course and let them protect themselves.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 25 at 2015 11:36 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 11:36:16 -0400

What will happen like in Iraq is you will need to train other MOSs and units to become MPs to sustain that kind of mission. We had TC, FA, ADA, EN, IN, USMC and AF Security units under our command because all the MP units in the inventory had been deployed and re-deployed and their just weren't any more.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jul 25 at 2015 12:18 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:18:19 -0400

Works for me. Good advertising as well for the MP Corps.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 12:22 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:22:20 -0400

I don't understand how anyone can think the MP idea is a bad idea. Are the duties associated with such a tasking not in the realm or "lane" of an MP? I'm sick to death of soldiers being told "you can't do your job". Who do you think did the jobs contractors do before the Army had contractors? That's right soldiers and we need to get back to that.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Jul 25 at 2015 12:44 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:44:18 -0400

I think that this idea is better than having civilians protecting these establishments. There would be know way to vet these people. Are they there to protect or to do harm? I would like to see the recruiters armed.

edited to add an idea...

Why worry about logistics? We have recruiting battalions full of recruiters, staff and etc. right? Why not train them up and they it becomes an additional duty. Maybe that means adding to the recruiters numbers, but it seems more plausible then having a crap ton of MP's. The big issue is complacency...you can train all day, but as soon as you become comfortable, your lose your ability to defend or protect you and your brothers and sisters.

Response by SSG Ronald Williams made Jul 25 at 2015 12:52 PM

SSG Ronald Williams — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:52:32 -0400

I think an MP at each location would be ideal. Recruiting centers should be treated as if they were a small military installation.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 4:29 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:29:26 -0400

In 2015 America the days of national guard only being primarly used as state organization are gone. The NG is more like the reserve then ever. Always deploying for the national govt. The MP branch in the army is a relatively small componet. I believe that guard/reserve and guard units should be used at all recruiting offices across the country. You could have AGR mp units and use federal techs. Who says a drill has to be on saturday and sunday. Why not do a drill a 4 day drill Monday through Thursday each month. I am not opposed to arming the recruiters but what happens when a recruiter has to go to a school to recruit or other places that are gun free. Are we going to change legislation? I doubt we will. Who watches that recuiters weapon when he leaves the office. Do we buy a safe for each recruiter to store if? Let's say there is 100 recuiting centers in a state. Your going to need 200 MPs per station. So technically 3 companies could cover all each office in a state. I don't think that is impossible to expand to

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 4:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:43:30 -0400

This doesn't seem like a realistic approach. How long would they be able to keep these people on orders. And putting out one soldier will only bring an escalation of force in the form or multiple assailants. It only seems logical for the "enemy" to start attacking in numbers. Why not coordinate with local law enforcement, why not use an asset that has knowledge of the area and its people and dare I say it probably better command and control than one mp

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 5:44 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 17:44:52 -0400

At face value I think it's a decent solution. The biggest issue I see, as others have pointed out, is sustainability. My state is already hurting from the budget crunch. There's no way we could afford long term ADOS for a Company or more of MPs. Finding quality MPs who have that level of employment flexibility would also be difficult. The alternative would be detailing AC MPs, but that would require increased force structure during a time where its being cut. Ultimately I think it's a better use for MPs than writing speeding tickets for 1 MPH over on post.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 11:58 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:58:22 -0400

I've really been thinking about this a lot since the shootings in Chattanooga (mainly because I live and work in TN, and this is the 3rd shooting in the last 18 months here against military). Couple of thoughts I have. Mind you I'm only speaking for what I know(what we have in TN).

1. We have 85 Armories in TN that are open on a daily basis. The store front recruiting offices I'm sure number the same if not higher.
2. Yes we do have MP units in TN. They are spread out all over the State. We also have a ABCT here.
3. Each armory has a min of 2 personnel working at each location(Co and Det level. Obviously higher HQ's have more pax.)
4. The store front recruiting offices (that I am aware of). Are fairly close to A Armory(within 5 miles'ish)

-I don't believe it's feasible to bring additional pax in on some kind of order for security. We are really getting kicked by the budget/drawdown.
-Yearlong around AT for MP units to do this security. Also not feasible. Reasoning they also have other training etc that they have to keep up with. Also with the budget woes they are using more and more internal assets to support other units during AT ie: our AT this year we had MPs as our OPFOR for our AT.

What I do see as feasible. 1 NCO or Officer per Location (AGR/Tech) that will be armed. Now with that the following needs to be met:
-they must have CCW permit.
-they must qualify every 6months with the weapon they are carrying. Either 9mm or 12 gauge shotgun(whatever is in that units respective vaults). NO PERSONAL weapons.

As far as recruiting locations. Another simple solution. 1per location with same rules as above. The store front recruiting locations do not have vaults, but the ones I'm aware of are reasonably close to a Armory.

Apologizes about the length of this, but it has been weighing on my mind as of late. It's what we have to be aware of on a daily basis.

Response by TSgt Manuel Perez made Jul 25 at 2015 11:59 PM

TSgt Manuel Perez — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:59:59 -0400

That is a Great Idea, however the Armed Forces, does not have the resources to provide Secuity to the recruiting offices, and comply with there Military mission requirement, however make the part of the service member training . Whe are trained in the safe use of Firarms. Safety should be our country main concern.

Response by SFC Walter Mack made Jul 26 at 2015 12:21 PM

SFC Walter Mack — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:21:58 -0400

Two problems. One, you've created a target for the bad guys to shoot first. Two, now recruiters have someone else to hide their 'work' from.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jul 26 at 2015 4:49 PM

SN Greg Wright — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:49:37 -0400

I think this is the best idea, too. It will serve two important points: protection for the recruiters, who can now focus on their jobs, and it would negate the need (and probably desire) for armed (untrained) civilians that are cropping up.

Response by SPC Steven Nihipali made Jul 27 at 2015 12:18 AM

SPC Steven Nihipali — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:18:57 -0400

Nope... Sucks for disabled vets like myself and the other 3000+ in my near vicinity to come armed and do my civilian duties. Just because I have my discharge papers, doesn't mean in don't protecting my country from ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2015 8:32 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:32:16 -0400

I think they need to revoke former President Clinton's Executive Order banning concealed carry by Soldiers who have a permit while on military installations. Civilians have more privileges for personal protection than Servicemen/women, and that's ridiculous.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2015 8:03 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:03:14 -0400

Yes. I think that is a wonderful idea. Not only does that provide security and solid augmentation to local law enforcement, but it is also a great chance at PR and possibly a source of employment for soldiers who may not have a civilian job at the moment.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2015 8:05 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:05:25 -0400

caveat to my response; I also believe in my heart of hearts that arming at least the SNCO at recruiting offices and or the OIC is a good option coupled with MP's.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 3:15 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:15:53 -0400

31B Military Policemen

Response by SGT Michael Miller made Aug 18 at 2015 10:15 PM

SGT Michael Miller — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:15:08 -0400

Military Police training on Law & Order operations is very minimal these days since it has shifted to a combat support and detainee ops role. Most MPs now a days don't even have actual L&O experience either. Most troops get training in using escalation of force with non-lethals, lasers, and etc. prior to use deadly force as ROE in theater. The Army had developed Law & Order Detachments in reserve components that would constantly train for that L&O operations both CONUS and OCONUS. Since they're very few of these small detachments that wouldn't make sense either to use. I feel NCOs and Officers should be allowed to carry to protect themselves. Another person commented about making a law similar to HR218 LEOSA for law enforcement (including Military LEOs) for the whole military would make better sense. LEOSA requires members to successful complete a satisfactory probation time in service prior to qualifying for the ID card. The must also qualify yearly on a handgun as well (Both active & retired). This would just make more sense. Commanders could designate certain people to be armed always since obviously when your training it would be to risky for everyone to be armed. However, these soldiers could atleast lock up a firearm in their vehicle which currently they cannot so they can atleast protect themselves to and from duty or drill. As of right now they can't even protect themselves en route. Which is only MPs are armed other shit bags will just target then in transit.

If we can trust our military members to be armed 24/7 in theater now on and off FOBs why can't we trust them to protect themselves CONUS? Letting them protect themselves isn't that same thing as granting them LEOs. Also I think they should be able to use personally owned firearms as well since they won't be allowed to take home a M9 after duty. I say even having an approved personal weapon list would even be ok stating what caliber and manufacturer/models.

Thought I'd throw my 2 cents in...

Response by LCDR Rich Bishop made Aug 23 at 2015 8:52 PM

LCDR Rich Bishop — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:52:55 -0400

From: Commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command [ [login to see] .com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:18 AM
To: Bishop, Richard K CIV USSOCOM HQ
Subject: Master-at-Arms (MA) VOLUNTEERS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY!

CNRFC is soliciting MA volunteers (E5/6) to provide 45 days (ADT) of armed sentry watchstander duty at 53 NOSCs commencing 17 Aug. CNRFC is seeking MA volunteers (E5/6) for 1 year (ADSW) of armed sentry watchstander duty, commencing 1 Oct 15, at 70 NOSCs. CNRFC is seeking MA volunteers (E6/7) for 1 year (ADSW) of armed security oversight duty at the 6 RCC staffs and CNRFC HQ. There is a strong likelihood that your duty can be performed at your local NOSC if your NOSC is not located on a base/installation. Volunteers must be either MA "A" school graduates or have completed the Security Reaction Force - Basic (SRFB) course, have a current 9mm semi-annual weapons qualification, and have a current OC spray qualification.

CNRFC is also seeking volunteers (any rate) who hold the 0812 NEC and can perform the function of armorers for the same time periods above.

To volunteer, send an email to LCDR Steve Moreus (CNRFC N33) at [login to see] , indicating whether you are volunteering for 45 days of ADT commencing 17 Aug, or 1 year of ADSW commencing 1 Oct, or both. Due date is 31 July. LCDR Moreus's phone number is [login to see] if you have questions.

We need volunteers!