Posted on Jul 24, 2015
The North Carolina National Guard approach. Would you rather have an MP instead of arming a recruiter as an option?
25.4K
166
77
24
24
0
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.
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.
Army National Guard
Security
Military police
North Carolina ARNG
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 39
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.
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.
(15)
(0)
SMSgt Thor Merich
Before I switched over to Blue, I was a active duty Army MP. We were told that MP actually stood for Multi Purpose. With that thought in mind, You could make an entire Army out of MP's... Seriously though, the Air Force uses armed DOD Police and Security Guards to assist Security Forces as some instillations. An armed DOD Security Guard could be a more feasible solution than M.P.'s.
(0)
(0)
SSG Ricardo Marcial
Placing MP on Title 32 orders makes sense. Let the recruiters concentrate on their job, recruiting. Placing MP's allows for a more vigilant approach to protecting the recruiters vs placing the burden on local LEO's and the communities. Why take a cop off their patrols on the community where they will be static and not have a bigger presence in their community, which what they are there for, to protect the community as a whole vs one building or individual. If the governor of a state thinks this is a feasible short term idea, then it should at least be given the chance to see if it works and two is it cost effective. Some folks will ask about funding for this, well there are a limited amount of options, armed civilians, local LEO, state police, of MP's. or you can just arm the recruiters, every single one of them. Not one in the office, but all of them.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Since they are using the National Guard, it may only require use, or an increase, to the Unit's PERSTEMPO to place MP's on orders to assist with the mission.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
True. I think this is able to work in NC as there are a lot of MP units and not that many NG recruiting offices.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Or we could make a bill similar to LEOSA for the military in general to be allowed to carry concealed.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss
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.
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
These are good options. What would you do with Federal Military Members that don't have Armories or the ability to drawn weapons so easily?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Now that gets tricky..lol. Looking at cost only. Move the Federal (or even NG locations to one central location). They are usually set up in a strip mall type areas anyway. So you would have 2 or 3 separate offices in a central area. It is A WAY.
(0)
(0)
SGT Glenn E Moody
it dose no good to have to go draw a weapon from the Armory. it is to late if someone comes to shoot at them. when so many sporting good's stores sell a safe type gun volts that could be installed for cheap. $$$$. and alarmed to prevent unuatherised use of the weapons by anyone other than the personal assigned to the offices. and to prevent theft of the weapons.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Either way it is going to be a hassle but I think we need to do something until we figure this out.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
This works for me but do we have enough MP's for this task and how long will this last?
(3)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
I know at my last duty station, we had an MP Battalion and they still didn't have enough MP's to man all the gates and to conduct patrols. At my current duty station, we have no MP's.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
That is a better use. But I just see this as a short term solution. I think NG MPs would be a better option than RA MPs.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Are they on some type of orders? I know our budget/funding here in TN is shot to shit.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I would imagine that they are. Recruiters are allowed recruiting assistants so why not have them be MPs. Or you could just rotate soldiers on a 2 week cycle using AT funds. Their MP AT would be sending soldiers to a Recruiting Station for Two weeks. That wouldn't be a bad idea.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Rotating AT's.. Now that has some merit. Bad thing is we used our MP's this year during our AT as OPFOR..lol.
Here's my question though. What about individual armories? More often than not these Recruiting centers are in built up areas with high visibility. Some armories are tucked away off the beaten path (per say). That's my concern.
Here's my question though. What about individual armories? More often than not these Recruiting centers are in built up areas with high visibility. Some armories are tucked away off the beaten path (per say). That's my concern.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
CPT (Join to see)
I am infantry and I like it. Although I will say that the North Carolina National Guard is the home to some great leadership.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google