Army Recruiting Command addresses armed civilians at recruiting facilities

| July 21, 2015

Hiram GA

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.


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”.

Category: Big Army

Comments (59)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Claymore says:

    You know and I know that for the most part, when the SHTF, the vast majority of these people will not have the skills to respond properly…they are there to show support and bring awareness to the situation, which seems to be working in some states. It’s laughable that the people with the actual training to handle this sort of thing are left cowering behind those they are sworn to protect.

    • GDContractor says:

      And yet they will hire civilian security guards, many who could not pass a BMI test or run 100 yds… otherwise known as “Meat Shields”.

      • Thompson says:

        The majority of the ones I have come across, including myself, are Marines that are either retired or no longer active duty, the news just happens to have highlighted two civilians.

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        Especially the one(s) with PhD’s from unaccredited diploma mills with a penchant for devouring XXXXL servings of CHEESE!

    • corey says:

      So you don’t think that majority of the people who are doing this are ex military protecting their own?? And furthermore if you seriously think that these folks won’t have a clue what to do when shtf you are the one that’s clueless!!!!

      • Claymore says:

        Some may be vets…most are not (Jonn even highlighted a potential phony a couple days ago). That’s not meant to disparage the sentiment of them standing guard, which is exactly what this boils down to; a show of support meant to raise awareness.

    • FatCircles0311 says:

      I could say the same thing about your average mil recruiter too, but I won’t.

      Whatever helps that high speed low drag military identify I guess. Disparaging law abiding people you don’t know is pretty elitist of you.

      • Claymore says:

        It’s not disparaging in the least, it’s a reality based assessment. I noted very clearly that these people are raising awareness, which one of them actually mentioned in his interview with local media. He knows damn well he’s no DELTA operator, but by standing there he’s at least shaming those in power into acting. Stop getting butthurt that everyone with a CCW and an AR might not be the next Chuck Norris/Rambo.

    • desert says:

      Be careful with your talk! Those recruiters are not “cowering”, they would glady take out those goat humping cowards if they were armed and one on one even if they weren’t armed!!

  2. Bobo says:

    “Ensure all station commanders implement FPCON Charlie 6 (Lock and secure entry points) addressed in previous email.”

    So, if some morons want to shut down recruiting offices, all they have to do is stand outside with some airsoft guns in holsters?

  3. Ex-PH2 says:

    I know they mean well, but if I thought it would be effective, I’d put on my United Space Fleet stuff or my Starfleet thingy and go camp out in front of the local recruiting shop with a garden hose.

    The Army/military needs to start using some common sense in response to the potential for events like last week’s shooting, and that does not mean hunkering under the desk in an office with no escape from a gunman.

  4. Wireman611 says:

    This is from DUFFLEBLOG right?

  5. dnice says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with it. People just want to show support and are saying it’s not happening in my town (or not happening Chattanooga again).

    Our subways in NY have armed Air and Army Nat’ Guard personnel why shouldn’t recruiting offices – which were always a target in Iraq and ‘Stan.

  6. Oldav8or says:

    Step 4 should be changed to read “cower in place”. smh

  7. MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

    The US Army and the policy seems appropriate, now arm our Warrior at home. PERIOD!

  8. Rock8 says:

    WTH? Is there a complete disconnect between the armed forces and the people we are willing to die for? This policy is written from a position of fear and weakness.

    Recruiters had better engage these yahoos rather than cower behind their locked storefronts, especially if they plan on encouraging their sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews into enlisting.

    This is the craziest & saddest thing I’ve read in a while.

    • Rerun0369 says:

      Engage with what? Sharpened pencils and staplers? You are just looking at more dead service members at that point. The policy is written as an appropriate response to a potential threat considering the current policies in place. There is no guarantee that those standing outside those offices are what they say they are, allow the appropriate law enforcement personnel to handle it.

      Let’s be real, the majority of recruiters are not combat arms, and do not have extensive combat experience. That doesn’t make them worse or inferior, but they are not necessarily the most qualified in uniform to respond to an armed threat.

      I am all for arming our military here in the United States, but with a common sense approach.

      • 11B3P says:

        But I thought everyone was basically infantry in combat! I mean, that’s why every non-infantry soldier got the CAB, right? You can’t sit there and tell me, while we right now have females in RANGER SCHOOL, that any soldier is somehow “less” able to directly their enemy and maneuver under direct fire just because they are “in a different field.” I thought all soldiers were equally deserving of the respect given to seasoned combat vets. Because they all are. Even if they haven’t deployed. Because they’re all basically infantry.

      • yuletide7900 says:

        I recruited for the Army….three of our recruiters were combat arms (two infantry, one artillery) and two of the Marine recruiters next door were infantry…combat arms soldiers are not exempt from recruiting and it does not take a grunt to utilize defensive measures that were taught in boot camp/AIT.

    • Rerun0369 says:

      Unless you mean engage with words, then I stand corrected.

      I automatically associate engage with the firing of weapons at a threat.

  9. Mr Wolf says:

    Funny how they never mentioned anything earlier about people in beards, burkas, or Keffiyeh scarves. And still don’t.

    Methinks too many of those that establish the policies have lived in big city areas too long, and don’t understand flyover country AT ALL.

  10. 2/17 Air Cav says:


    As the undersigned arrived in the parking lot of his assigned recruiting office at 0755 this date, he witnessed two individuals (described in detail below) loitering within approximately 20 feet of said office. The undersigned remained in his vehicle and observed the individuals, both of whom carried firearms in hip holsters and held what appeared to be a 16 oz. Dunkin Donuts coffee cup, with lid. After attempting to notify HQ of these observations by cellphone, and leaving a voicemail when no one answered, the undersigned exited his vehicle and approached his office. One of the two loiterers said, “Good morning.” The undersigned elected to say “Hi” in response, as it was much shorter than any other greeting and would thus allow termination of the interaction in the least amount of time. The undersigned then notified the local police.

    • MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

      To: Undersigned (2/17 Air Cav)

      Fr: US Army Recruiting Command


      1. You are hereby ordered to remove your US Army Recruiting Command Badge, clean out your office and return home to await follow on orders due to your violation of paragraph 1. of recently promulgated directive. To wit you said, “hi” to a person drinking a presumably hot cup of Dunkin Donuts coffee.


      General Seemore Dumfukski, USA

      • Mike Kozlowski says:

        Guys, my apologies, I accidentally fat-fingered the report button while using the smartphone to view the site.


  11. Thunderstixx says:

    To me, the whole thing is a sad commentary on the condition of our military in that they have to have armed civilians to protect them because their CinC won’t let them shoot back at the pukes with rags…
    Typical liberal bull shit.

  12. nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

    Concentina wire and claymores to establish a 100 meter safe zone around the offices should be sufficient. Works at my house.

    What’s sad is that the DA directive makes sense. What better way for an armed bad guy to get close to a target than to blend in as a “protector”?

  13. ohio says:

    Some of “those civilians” did that in my town. Some were open carry, City police were notified in advance, not an issue.

  14. Just an Old Dog says:

    If the perfumed princes in the pentagon had any pride whatsoever the would commit ritual sepeku.
    Its pretty bad when you allow your armed forces to be manipulated to being so sheeplike that civilians have more balls than the twats that write policy.

  15. B Woodman says:

    Surrre. Piss off the population even more that are:
    1-trying to protect you
    2-that you’re attempting to recruit from

    Meanwhile, act like the TSA, in that you frisk and strip search the nuns, wheelchair bound, and infants, while NOT PROFILING and ignoring the young men with the goat hugging beards.

    It seems that the jokes we used to tell (while I was in) about, the higher you go in rank, the more you’re lobotomized, isn’t a joke.

  16. Ex-PH2 says:

    This idiocy is, in effect, closing the barn door. The horse has already run off into the wild. You’ll never catch him.

    If you are NOT prepared for the possibility that you are a target, then you WILL be a target and you WILL be taken by surprise.

    Everyone in this country crossing the street with the green light is a target for a careless driver on a phone, if they don’t look both ways.

    How difficult is it to understand that? People at recruiting stations and on military bases, including reserve bases, should have been placed on alert and taught how to respond, with the very first time it happened, but no one has taken that precaution. It’s just hunker down, become another target and don’t try to resist.

    How many hijackings and Pearl Harbors do we have to have before someone snaps out of it? I want an answer.

    My taxes and yours are paying for this incompetent crap. This is total bullshit.

  17. Pinto Nag says:

    People on the street are known to go from docile to dangerous, and just that fast. Armed, things can go to hell that much quicker. How close do you think a young man of ME extraction, or even east Indian extraction, that wants to join the military would get through a group of armed, untrained civilians who think they’re ‘protecting’ the recruiters? Maybe twenty feet?

    • OWB says:

      Any evidence that the folks who are doing this are armed and untrained? Sure, the possibility exists, but I have no more reason to assume them untrained than to assume they are all retired special forces.

  18. Matt256 says:

    Just read in the local paper this morning that the FBI found a privately owned Glock 9mm that may have belonged to one of the Marines that were shot and killed. It is unknown if he was able to return fire if it did belong to him. Anyone else hear about this? Richmond Times Dispatch A7.

  19. valerie says:

    Charges of “loitering” can be avoided if the civilians carry a sign. “God Bless Our Troops” works for me. That, and “Honk if you love these guys.”

  20. E-6 type, 1 ea says:

    Headlines you’ll never read:

    Firebombing of ISIS Capital Continues for Third Day After Marines Killed in Terror Attack

  21. streetsweeper says:

    Will it help ease your gastrointestinal pain’s any if I personally vouche for those people in that picture and the rest of the group featured in the above? Come visit some time, I’ll be happy to introduce y’all to them.

    • Hondo says:

      Actually, street – no.

      The civilian response is a bit problematic, but that’s a minor issue for me. What’s making me sick is our military’s supine and spineless response here.

      Military facilities have been attacked now, repeatedly, in the US. And yet our military leadership is too freaking spineless to tell the POTUS, “Sir, it’s time we require at least selected military personnel to be armed while on-duty in CONUS. The threat is such that it’s now necessary.”

  22. FatCircles0311 says:

    So now the US military official policy is the same as obnoxious anti second amendment turds to call the police reporting fake shit in order to harass law abiding gun owners excersizing their rights.


  23. rustypaladin says:

    I can kinda see where they are coming from, but this seems like a dumb way to handle the risk. And the “Don’t talk to them and call the police” thing just makes it dumber.

  24. Mad Max says:

    The circumstances leading up to these shootings, the Media response to them, the Higher U.S. Military response to them, and the fact that Obama refused to lower the flag at the White House until a short time ago (a direct result of P.R. pressure- not concern or interest in the fate of the slain)should come as no surprise to anyone here. And I can guarantee you that the guys inside the Recruiting Centres would (typically) not be concerned or alarmed in the least about the armed citizens outside. Personally, I can take one look at a guy or group of folks and know almost immediately whether they are “for or against” me. Seeing a group of people who look and sound like me, are armed, and obviously friendly is the most basic form of common sense “profiling”. These Leftist- Muslim types are quite easy to spot. Their facial expressions, dress, deportment, etc. are pretty clear combat indicators to me. The ones who hate you have a “tell”. If you can’t tell whether someone is a potential “friend or foe” then you’re just not paying attention. Threat assessments should be done according to circumstances, time, and space. The same Ass Clowns who refused to name “Islam” or “Muslim” ONCE in the post- Ft Hood report are the idiots promulgating this ridiculous S.I.R. order. As far as I’m concerned WELL DONE concerned citizen supporters of the 2nd Ammendment, and SHAME on the Washington cowards who have allowed all of this to occur.

  25. Richard says:

    Okay I read the directive. Sounds pretty F’d up to me.

    AS I see it, we have three choices:

    1. arm the recruiters
    2. let citizens guard the doors
    3. do nothing

    Is there another choice that is different that those? If DOD won’t arm the recruiters, do you like 2 or 3 better?

    Personally I think that 2 can work. We know how well 3 works – see last week. I suspect that (in the end) the president would have to approve 1 so that seems unlikely to me.

    The sad part about using armed civilians is, after a while they will get tired of the duty or cold or have other stuff to do and stop showing up. Then we are back to 3, see last week.

  26. Retired Topkick says:

    From the Directive: 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).

    So USAREC and its’ higher-ups now believe they have authority to tell troops who they can and cannot talk with? About non-mission-related things?

    Any commander who gives that order has to know it’s unenforceable and will do nothing but subject said commander(s) to ridicule. That or else the commander(s) needs to be given a mental eval . . .

  27. Roh-dog says:

    I said it before and I’ll keep screaming it right up til they put my sorry ass in the incinerator, USAREC is the sorriest excuse of dirtbags that walk around pretending to be Soldiers.
    Any pretense of living the Warrior Ethos, or any other creed of one who fights, is lost on those that drink that brand of Kool-Aid.
    Waste of money, time, manpower and is constantly sacrificing profit (read: recruits and the waste so some field grade can get an excellent) over the task of winning wars.

    • Sorensen25 says:

      Friggin A man. Replace USAREC with the Marine MCRC and you have the exact same opinion.

  28. Jordan Rott says:

    Send the Guard Soldiers or let the recruiters be armed instead of wasting time typing up policy letters and memo.

  29. Roger in Republic says:

    A modest proposal: Park a fully manned and loaded Bradley right in front of Every recruiting station located in a publicly accessible locale. Park it sideways so it takes up three or four parking spaces, train the gun outboard into the parking lot and dare anyone to take a shot at it. Park two in front of each gate at reserve centers. Paint a red line on drive way, post signs that say STOP. Light up any thing that fails to stop for inspection. It will not take long for the Jihadis to get the word that these are no longer soft targets.

  30. 1TreeFox says:

    When I recruited from ’03-’07, we were on the DADT policy when it came to be strapped up. After the Little Rock and NY recruiter shootings, I carried regularly and Pretty much every recruiter I knew carried a gun on them at some point for one reason or another.

  31. Sorensen25 says:

    Recruiting is a hard job as it is. The last thing recruiters need is a bunch of bearded civs with tacticool beer bellies hanging around with guns, talking about how cool they are, in front of their offices when they’re trying to convince 17/18 year old kids and their families to come and chat in the office.

  32. DaveGinOly says:

    “Loitering” is usually defined as being some place in public without a purpose for being there. Someone out front of a recruiting center to provide security isn’t, and can’t be, loitering. I’m sure the USAREC letter was using “loitering” colloquially and not in its legal sense.

  33. DaveGinOly says:

    Being a civilian armed in public is now considered “suspicious behavior” by our military. Haven’t we been warned for years that the military is cultivating among its personnel an atmosphere that’s hostile towards armed citizens? Do we need more proof than this? The presumption that a citizen doing what he has a right to do is “suspicious” seems hostile to me. (Note – USAREC has not ordered its recruiters to report actual “suspicious behavior.” I wouldn’t have a problem with that. The problem is that they’ve defined a specific type of behavior as “suspicious,” and that behavior happens to be constitutionally protected.)

    Newsflash, USAREC – the kids you recruit take an oath to support and defend the Constitution that protects citizens’ rights to do exactly what you’re asking your recruiters to report to police as if it were criminal activity. How do you justify reporting as “suspicious” that which you are sworn to protect?

    What this boils down to: USAREC has ordered its recruiters to employ local police forces to harass people for exercising their rights.

    Imagine how the wheels would come off if USAREC ordered its recruiters to “report to local law enforcement all men in Muslim garb, and all others who appear to be Muslims in the vicinity of recruitment centers.” This order would be seen for what it is. But it’s OK to harass someone who belongs to one of the few unprotected classes in America – the armed citizen.