Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: US Law Protects Weapons Carry during Emergencies  (Read 6367 times)
K9ZW
Member

Posts: 180


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2007, 06:34:02 AM »

> It's a non-issue affecting hardly anyone as most
> folks have enough common sense and a public service
> attitude to respect the wishes of a served agency.

I see we are making progress in understanding this new law.

The interesting part is "the wishes of a served agency" in this case are illegal, and actionable agaist not only the agency, but each leader personally.

It truly is a non-issue, excepting where Emcomm leaders and/or served agencies choose act illegally.

Where they do act illegally coming afoul of the Vetter Amendment it could be personally very expensive for the leaders.  If they conspire to violate the Vetter Amendment as some of the posts hint, one would expect the personal liabilities might be limitless on the co-conspirators' parts.

73

Steve
K9ZW

http://k9zw.wordpress.com/

Logged

K2GW
Member

Posts: 535


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #61 on: May 25, 2007, 07:48:32 AM »

Steve:

I must be missing something.  Please point out where in the law that you quote that it specifically says what assignments that I must give to which EmComm volunteers.

I've got a lot of watertanks in our section that might need protection in an emergency.  After all, armed terrorists might be sneaking up on them trying to affect our "essential bodily fluids", a la Dr. Strangelove.   So that seems like a logical place to put the armed EmComm volunteers.

To me, that meets both the requirements of the law and protects the public.  From whom, I'll leave it to you to figure out.

73

Gary, K2GW
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6000




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: May 26, 2007, 06:45:40 PM »

K2GW is absolutely right (on the bottom of the second responce page)--the purpose of this law is to prevent confiscation of firearms in an area where there is a state of emergency--not to provide first responders carte blanche to carry firearms in that area.

It is interesting to see how laws meant for one thing can be twisted to by some to try to cover something different--and how some armchair lawyers will insist that the law WILL cover that difference.
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6000




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: May 26, 2007, 07:02:42 PM »

An earlier post--

Drill Sgt: "Son, you can't get up in the morning and walk across that parking lot without breaking some sort of regulation. Don't worry about it, just don't do anything stupid."

Common sense at last.  I too am a gun owner and licensed for self protection.  Since I am no longer a private cop (security guard) I feel I no longer need to carry--the only time I do lately is when I go to the range to practice.  If I'm called up, I DO NOT take a weapon--the professional LEOs have to, but I do not.

If you are in a situation where you may be threatened, get a LEO to go along--or DON'T GO.  Simple enough--and smarter too.
Logged
W7CLC
Member

Posts: 39




Ignore
« Reply #64 on: June 06, 2007, 11:27:47 AM »

Quote
If you are in a situation where you may be threatened, get a LEO to go along--or DON'T GO. Simple enough--and smarter too.


So you're saying that if I have AAA or don't drive where there's nails in the road, I can get that heavy spare tire out of the trunk?  Maybe you have some sort of ESP such that you are aware of danger before it happens?

Man, that kind of wisdom is often lost on people who can think for themselves.
Logged
K2GW
Member

Posts: 535


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2007, 05:54:51 AM »

>>Maybe you have some sort of ESP such that you are aware of danger before it happens?

I don't think anyone needs ESP if they've had actual experience in providing EmComm as opposed to simply posting things in forums on the web.

In my 30 years of being in EmComm including deployments in hurricanes, floods, blackouts, 9/11, etc., I have never seen a situation where an EmComm volunteer was sent out to a remote dangerous location alone and had to defend themselves.

EmComm folks are usually assigned to provide comms from established Red Cross shelters, service centers, EOC's, hospitals run by our served agencies.  All of those agencies have security plans for those locations and there are usually Law Enforcement Officers assigned to them to provide security.

Once again, the law that started this entire thread was intended to prevent officials from confiscating guns from legally registered homeowners and shopkeepers in a disaster area.  It is not designed to send a bunch of self-appointed vigilantes into a disaster area under the guise of EmComm.

73

Gary, K2GW
Logged
K9ZW
Member

Posts: 180


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #66 on: June 07, 2007, 01:52:23 PM »

With all due respect to be part of an Emergency Response Team is to be prepared for the unexpected.

Neither can any Emcomm Leader suppose to by "insight" know what risks their field people willactually encounter, nor can they offer an real protection.

An Emcomm responder who does not afford themself of what protection they feel needed AND which is legally allowed, is unprepared and as bluntly unsuited for deployment as if they were unprepared radio-wise.

They risk becoming a field liability.

To pontificate about what the law's intentions are is unwise, as the factual words words stand.  An Emcomm leader who proposes to violate the law because they just know inside the law never meant to protect their people's rights is unfit to lead.  He is a loose cannon.  

To openly contemplate how to conspire to set aside the protections congress has seen fit to codify in the law, is immoral, though a welcome public revaltion as to how distorted the mandate to respect the law first has become in some Emcomm personnel.

73

Steve
K9ZW

http://k9zw.wordpress.com/

Logged

K2GW
Member

Posts: 535


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #67 on: June 07, 2007, 06:16:44 PM »

>>Neither can any Emcomm Leader suppose to by "insight" know what risks their field people willactually encounter, nor can they offer an real protection

But they can know by practical real world and personal experience how EmComm peolple are actually deployed and used in real emergencies.  They thus can also know how they assess situations before deploying people.

Steve, we still haven't heard about your actual EmComm experience.  Please list some of the ACTUAL EmComm responses you have been on as part of ARES, RACES or other teams and indicate on which them you needed to use your firearms.  That way we'll have an idea of your true level of first hand knowledge about subject.

Thanks & 73

Gary, K2GW
Logged
K9ZW
Member

Posts: 180


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #68 on: June 07, 2007, 07:07:33 PM »

"Steve, we still haven't heard about your actual EmComm experience. Please list some of the ACTUAL EmComm responses you have been on as part of ARES, RACES or other teams and indicate on which them you needed to use your firearms. That way we'll have an idea of your true level of first hand knowledge about subject."

Interesting request, but has nothing to do with our discussion of this new law.  My personal experience will not somehow make your potentailly illegal statement of intended course of action concerning the Vetter Amendment suddenly legal.


73

Steve
K9ZW

http://k9zw.wordpress.com/
Logged

K2GW
Member

Posts: 535


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #69 on: June 08, 2007, 05:40:00 AM »

"Interesting request, but has nothing to do with our discussion of this new law. My personal experience will not somehow make your potentailly illegal statement of intended course of action concerning the Vetter Amendment suddenly legal."

I guess that infers your lack of experience in EmComm.  

You also conveniently ignored my previous request to point out where in the law it says what assignments I must give to which EmComm volunteers.  

Since the law says nothing about that and my job description includes assigning folks to assignments appropriate to their skills, equipment and abilities, assigning the folks carrying guns to locations where they can't hurt someone accidentally is most certainly permitted under the law you cite.  I'm not taking their guns away at all, just putting a safe distance between them and the public. Perfectly legal and prudent.

Of course, if you devoted half as much effort to getting trained and participating in organized EmComm activities with ARES, RACES, SATERN or the Red Cross as you do in this one single quest to arm folks, you might actually become a useful EmComm resource.  Let us know when that happens, so we can discuss things in  this Emergency Communications (not NRA) forum intelligently.

Thanks & 73

Gary, K2GW


Logged
K9ZW
Member

Posts: 180


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #70 on: June 08, 2007, 06:05:20 AM »

Very curious why you think anyone's resume changes how Emcomm needs to respond to this law.

My reticence implies nothing, other than a public acknowledgement that I don't rate a question posted as "bait" as a question worthy of response.

For what it is worth I've work this field both here and overseas over the last 25+ years, both professionally & additionally as a hobbiest.

I am also puzzled why you would thinking being insulting chages anything, specially as you've gone into print in a public forum with your explicit intentions to deliberatly put any Emcomm volunteer under your control in harms way AND to deny them their legal rights.

This is not anyone's personal agenda Gary, but the very simply "Law of the Land."  Getting miffed at anyone personally is misdirected.  If you feel the new law is so bad, write your Congressmen & Senators to ask them to recind the Vetter Amendment.

Otherwise learn it & live it, like we all have to do with the laws of our society.



73

Steve
K9ZW

http://k9zw.wordpress.com/

 

Logged

K2GW
Member

Posts: 535


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #71 on: June 10, 2007, 05:57:23 PM »

>>I am also puzzled why you would thinking being insulting chages anything, specially as you've gone into print in a public forum with your explicit intentions to deliberatly put any Emcomm volunteer under your control in harms way AND to deny them their legal rights.

Please indicate were I said I would put anyone in harms way. The point I and others have been making is that in EmComm we do not put people into harms way; we place them at locales where security is provided by the served agencies which is why our civilians do not need to be armed.  Anyone who has actively participated in organized Amateur Radio EmComm activities would know that.  You obviously haven't and thus don't.

Moreover, knowing your credentials either as an EmComm volunteer or as a lawyer, would let everyone here know the validity of your self-appointed opinions as to what experienced EmComm volunteers must do or not do.

>>Otherwise learn it & live it, like we all have to do with the laws of our society.

I have and am doing so.  Posting the folks who insist they need to carry guns out in the boondocks watching watertowers where they can’t hurt anyone is most certainly in compliance with the law and a local judge agrees. I would encourage other EmComm leaders to do the same to avoid the potential liability of accidental shootings from folks whose judgement and training is suspect.  That liabilty is the far greater one.

You can’t find a clause in the law which says we are required to assign them anywhere else, can you?  This is the third time you've been asked the question.  Your silence on this point is deafening.

73

Gary, K2GW
Logged
K9ZW
Member

Posts: 180


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #72 on: June 12, 2007, 09:19:16 AM »

For the record this thread is to point out a new law with impact on Emcomm.

I do not proport to tell anyone how to run their Emcomm operations, or how they personally respond to the law.

Personally I disagree with many of the statements made about working-around the law, on the basis that this new law has specific provisions to personally hold responsible anyone doing this sort of creative thwarting of the law.

What an Emcomm leader in the end does, is up to them, but they must remember that in this case calling it wrong can result in full personal liability in both civil and ciminal courts.  

We are all waiting for the mainstream Emcomm organizations and served agencies to address the Vetter Ammendment.  Those opperational guidelines will be more useful than a forum thread.

Again I have no intention to respond to the diversion of the thread off topic.  If you want to know about me, check my websites, and call me up - I'm good on QRZ.  It has nothing to do with this new law, but as long as you buy the first beer I'd even be happy to chat in person.

73

Steve
K9ZW
http://k9zw.wordpress.com/

Logged

K2GW
Member

Posts: 535


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #73 on: June 12, 2007, 11:34:08 AM »

>>For the record this thread is to point out a new law with impact on Emcomm.

Correction - with an EXTREMELY MINIMAL impact on EmComm. Can anybody here recall a specific event where they were on a real EmComm activation and they had hams show up with weapons and insisting on carrying them?

I haven't and the question has never even come up before in my 30 years of personal experience in hurricanes, floods, tornados, winter storms, blackouts and terrorist attacks. Most of our folks seem to have more common sense. But I'd love to hear from other EmComm leaders who have personally witnessed it.

73

Gary, K2GW  
       
Logged
K1LDS
Member

Posts: 20




Ignore
« Reply #74 on: July 04, 2007, 09:34:38 PM »

Yo.

But then, a lot of disasters out here in the West involve conditions which cause wild animals to flee in panic (fires and floods, mostly), and a lot of our communicators operate in the path of said critters (some of which are on two legs).

It would sure be nice to live in New Jersey, where there are no animals, criminals or panic, where the disasters are all gentlemanly and there are enough LEOs to provide an escort for every ham sent into the field.

BTW, when I'm responding ANYWHERE (including drills) with my 4-legged partner, I carry my pistol, with a snake load in the chamber.  Only once have I had anyone tell me that I leave it in the car, this was the cop in charge of a drill.  He freaked out when I loaded my partner in the car and got ready to leave.  I explained to him that she doesn't go into the field without me being able to protect her, or being able to provide a mercy release if necessary.  This was backed up by the K-9 cop in charge of search dogs.  End of problem.

Keith K1LDS
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!