ARRL/ARES apparently nixes gun rights?

[AG3NT]

Just stumbled across this thread on operncarry.org that seems to indicate that the ARRL has dictated that we strip ourselves of our self-defense when participating in anything to do with ARES.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ps-CC-OC-in-AZ

From Chris Imlay, ARRL General Counsel:

Greetings, Don. Let me be very, very clear about this. We are not going to talk about choice here, or "rights" or anything else on this issue. There is no place within ARES for weapons of any type. No one in connection with ARES is to carry a weapon on their person at any time they are participating in any ARES activity whatsoever. We are not going to discuss this or negotiate this with anyone at any time. If this is a problem for anyone, then as Dan says they are welcome to withdraw from the ARES program. We do not want anyone participating in ARES while possessing a weapon outside their home or vehicle and if we hear about it the person will be thanked for their services and terminated. This is an ARRL program and weapons are no part of it whatsoever. We can't have any liability on this issue. Please tell your field appointees this.

73, Chris W3KD

Time to withdraw my name from the ARES ranks. =(

[N5MUD]

It's never been an issue with my county ARES (don't ask don't tell) but if this is their official policy then I'll withdraw my membership also.

[AG3NT]

I'd certainly encourage folks to verify before trusting a post on a forum, but it does appear to be their policy. This same idiocy is why I've chosen not to work with more than a few organizations, despite fully supporting their primary mission(s).

[WB7X]

Their organization, their rules.

Comply or vote with your wallet or feet.

I'm a fan of voting.

[AC0VH]

Their organization, their rules.

Comply or vote with your wallet or feet.

I'm a fan of voting.

Yup. KF7MMX is helping us to be fully informed voters, too.

[AG3NT]

Oh don't get me wrong, I fully support their right to make their choices. Much the same as I do with businesses around town that prohibit firearms, I simply don't frequent them. I'm not the type to force my money upon the ignorant ones who don't want it (same goes for my free time, equipment, etc.) =)

[KE7KUS]

Disappointing, but not surprising.

[N5MUD]

... I fully support their right to make their choices. Much the same as I do with businesses around town that prohibit firearms, I simply don't frequent them. I'm not the type to force my money upon the ignorant ones who don't want it (same goes for my free time, equipment, etc.) =)

Well-stated, and exactly my feelings and practice also.

[W6SDM]

Sounds like the opinions of the few are becoming the rules of the many. Some people have a problem with anything related to weapons. This is especially true on the east coast. Even when someone is legally entitled or obligated to carry, they want to encroach on those rules.

In California (of all places) a peace officer is required by section 832 of the California Penal Code to respond to any felony committed in his presence regardless of his duty status. This is true in many states. Of course, to respond, you must be armed. I guess this narrow minded, dictatorial policy would preclude a law enforcement officer who is also an amateur radio operator from participating in ARES.

Personally, I have never liked the mentality of ARES to start with. It's as though they monopolize ham radio contribution in emergencies. If I want to use my resources, as I have done in the past, to assist in an emergency or other incident, I will do so. I don't need anyone's sanction or permission. As long as whoever is in charge of the incident, if it's localized, needs my assistance it will be made available.

I can understand why ARRL/ARES wouldn't endorse the carrying of weapons. However, if someone is legally entitled to carry a weapon and choose to do so, then it is a personal choice, the consequences of which they are personally accountable.

[KF7ORO]

I was thinking of joining ARES. I think I'll put that on hold. I'm for voting too.

[WB7X]

Ultimately it's all about liability and money. Any "sanctioned" event is in the cross hairs should someone stub a toe.

Keeps the "in a wreck, need a check" guys in biz.

Having said that, based on New Orleans, the citizenry had more to fear from the LEOs.

[N7BES]

For the guys that vote with participation (or lack thereof) make sure that you send some kind of letter (email or snail mail) to inform them of the reason for your choice. Obviously it is best to be civil and polite but without that feedback I can almost guarantee you that no one will realize that a downturn in participation is a repercussion of this policy. And you cant hope for someone to change their ways if you don't let them know what they are doing wrong. The key is to be cordial so they don't just write you off as some crackpot....

[N6RFI]

Don't ask, don't tell. Carry concealed.

Obviously there is no need for ARES to suggest members wear firearms. ARES affiliation does nothing to increase, or decrease the need for a weapon. Anyone who thinks they need a gun because of ARES is fooling themselves. By the same token, if we have a need or desire to carry, ARES doesn't diminish that.

I am a member of another national organization with a variety of rules. When I joined I agreed to follow their rules. Being a man of my word I follow those rules or I don't participate. When I affiliated with ARES there was no paperwork, no code of conduct, no background investigation, nothing to violate. If I choose to carry a concealed weapon as permitted by law, it's my own business. I don't see how the supposed national ARES leadership can impose any requirements or conditions in the absence of any contract whatsoever. Until such a contract exists the gun sissies can pucker up in the vicinity of my rear.

[W6SDM]

Don't ask, don't tell. Carry concealed.

Obviously there is no need for ARES to suggest members wear firearms. ARES affiliation does nothing to increase, or decrease the need for a weapon. Anyone who thinks they need a gun because of ARES is fooling themselves. By the same token, if we have a need or desire to carry, ARES doesn't diminish that.

I am a member of another national organization with a variety of rules. When I joined I agreed to follow their rules. Being a man of my word I follow those rules or I don't participate. When I affiliated with ARES there was no paperwork, no code of conduct, no background investigation, nothing to violate. If I choose to carry a concealed weapon as permitted by law, it's my own business. I don't see how the supposed national ARES leadership can impose any requirements or conditions in the absence of any contract whatsoever. Until such a contract exists the gun sissies can pucker up in the vicinity of my rear.

[W6SDM]

I received a very polite e-mail from the Media and PR Manager for ARRL, Allen Pitts, W1AGP. He referenced my post here, so we are read in Newington.

He stated, as we all suspected, that the intention of the League is to avoid liability. I think most of us understand that. It's hard to argue with - nobody wants to get sued over something that they had nothing to do with other than to lend their name or official sanction. It's the same issue we face when we walk into a business here in Arizona and there is a "No Firearms" posting. It's too bad because liability exists no matter what. My guess is that there is as much liability from a car accident at an ARES incident, or a antenna related injury at Field Day. Day one of law school tells potential litigators that anyone may be sued for anything at any time for any reason.

Back to some of the original statements: The rules are what they are and people should either comply with them or not participate. I agree with N6RFI in that regard. It also makes sense that a simple statement that "members will comply with all laws and ordinances" would do t he trick. That, along with a don't ask, don't tell policy for concealed carry would put the accountability right back on the individual.

[K7VZ]

You guys are making some waves. I received a call tonight after the net. (from someone who didn't want to comment publicly or in an official manner at this time, but does have higher standing with ARRL and MCECG relating to AZ.) It was partially in response to my comment on the net about carrying during remote events such as Ragnar and Highline Trail. Arizona has many dangerous creatures in the remote areas such as snakes, etc. Heck, the 2nd half the Highline Trail goes through the area where they recently had 3 reported bear attacks.

At least in AZ, we may not see a reversal of the legal stance in post 1 from ARRL/ARES, supporting carrying during their activities, but there will be further discussion and clarification at higher levels regarding this issue thanks to you guys. Stay tuned.

[K7NNT]

We are an ARRL affiliated club. Is this strictly related to ARES or all affiliated clubs? Are they targeting ARES because of wackers? I could maybe see that.

[N6RFI]

It's interesting that ARES feels the need to take a position on concealed carry. Do they have rules requiring amateur radio operators to comply with Tread Lightly principles? Perhaps they should regulate those pesky Apple products; after all, it's harder to find radio related software on the Mac side.

I understand liability concerns associated with an apparent endorsement of certain activities. However it's also true that "liability" is an overused excuse to push certain agendas. A simple "you're on your own" statement and instruction to follow local laws should be adequate.

[WB7X]

We are an ARRL affiliated club. Is this strictly related to ARES or all affiliated clubs? Are they targeting ARES because of wackers? I could maybe see that.

That would then beg the question of the ARRL insurance coverage for affiliated club activities if the club is not in compliance with the 2A provision, or any other.

On a semi-related note, I will re-mention the benefits of an LLC.

[KE7KUS]

At least in AZ, we may not see a reversal of the legal stance in post 1 from ARRL/ARES, supporting carrying during their activities, but there will be further discussion and clarification at higher levels regarding this issue thanks to you guys. Stay tuned.

I think it would be most helpful for the folks at MCECG to clarify where they stand on this. ARES has always seemed a very loosely run organization from the national level, in other words, my perception of ARES was that it was encouraged by national level ARRL folks; however, the implementation was largely left to the local levels. (The way it should be.) This apparently "official" directive from W3KD seems to universally apply to all ARES organizations. If MCECG insists on continuing as an official ARES organization, personally speaking, I'm going to have a tough time supporting any MCECG events in the future. Should MCECG choose to officially dissociate from ARES and act as an independent organization, the "problem" created by the ARRL's overreaching national-level policies is easily solved with minimal local impact. Either way, some kind of official word from our local organization would be most helpful.

I'm with Virgil, and probably the rest of you here in AZ...there are too many "undesirable" things crawling around in the remote parts of AZ to not carry a gun when supporting MCECG events. Even if there weren't, I don't support organizations that use self-initiated regulation to deny me my Constitutional right to bear arms. They've made their choice, and I'm free to make mine, accordingly. In order to make my choice, I need the organizations that I have supported in the past to clarify their stance on this issue.

For the ARRL, whether Chris, W3KD, likes it or not, simply quelling the discussion on Constitutional rights doesn't make it a non-issue in this instance. His use of quotes around the word rights makes me quite leery, as quotes around words in that context are usually used to indicate that something is not actually what the word in quotes indicates. Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure there weren't quotes around the word right in the 2nd Amendment. While I understand his, and ARRL's interest in limiting their liability exposure, W6SDM and N6RFI both make excellent points regarding the fact that liability dangers are everywhere and the decision to single out firearms over other types of liability seems a bit odd when taken in a larger context of potential liability risks while undertaking ARES operations.

As already metioned, I support ARRL's right to make their own determination on this issue as a private entity. For the record, I will be voting with my feet on this one. Thanks, Adam, for bringing this to our attention.