Violent crime's up, homeowner groups patrolling neighborhoods armed, and more:

[oakchas]

Here's what some are seeing and doing about the rise in crime....

Story here

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[OldVet]

They need to check the legalities of that in their states. It may be considered as armed security and thus may need to be properly licensed. Other than that--if done properly--I'm all behind neighborhoods taking back their turf and ensuring their security.

[xXxplosive]

Well...............we can't CC here in NJ but we've been plagued with a rash of home invasion / burgleries in a 8 town surrounding area including right in my neighborhood. This has even gotten noteriety on Fox.....LE is calling them the James Bond Gang....Pros who use Hi-tech tactics and fancy cars....haven't caught them yet and the number of homes robbed seems to be on the rise.......Geeeezzzzz.......my GS is working overtime.

[ccw9mm]

They need to check the legalities of that in their states. It may be considered as armed security and thus may need to be properly licensed. Other than that--if done properly--I'm all behind neighborhoods taking back their turf and ensuring their security.

Yes. Some states have retentive statutes that are intended to control "social experiments" like citizens refusing criminals to take control of their neighborhoods.

In any relatively compact neighborhood with lots of eyes and ears around, with lots of people with differing schedules, I'd think that having a simple neighborhood understanding about who's going to be up and about at certain times could go a long way toward maintaining fairly decent coverage across the neighborhood. If many were armed (via CHL or OC), so much the better. It could hardly be claimed to be a security force of any sort, if neighbors were merely adjusting their "walk-the-dog" schedules to overlap more efficiently, doing what they'd otherwise be doing anyway.

[Ksgunner]

That's what concealed carry is all about. Loaded guns in my house always. Can't carry yet no permit....

[suntzu]

Yes. Some states have retentive statutes that are intended to control "social experiments" like citizens refusing criminals to take control of their neighborhoods.

In any relatively compact neighborhood with lots of eyes and ears around, with lots of people with differing schedules, I'd think that having a simple neighborhood understanding about who's going to be up and about at certain times could go a long way toward maintaining fairly decent coverage across the neighborhood. If many were armed (via CHL or OC), so much the better. It could hardly be claimed to be a security force of any sort, if neighbors were merely adjusting their "walk-the-dog" schedules to overlap more efficiently, doing what they'd otherwise be doing anyway.

Come on. I thought us CC'ers were lawabiding and honest. Honest means being honest. Call it what it is. If folks want to carry on their own that is cool. If the HOA or whatever wants them to carry then that is cool also. But if something goes wrong because some trigger happy guy/gal shoots someone on their "watch" then the HOA is responsible also.
When a group agrees to something then the group is responsible for the actions of that group. And we all know that not everyone is responsible with a firearm. In fact, some folks are not responsible at all while doing a neighborhood watch.Encounter with a rabid Neighborhood Patrol

[ccw9mm]

Come on. I thought us CC'ers were lawabiding and honest. Honest means being honest. Call it what it is. If folks want to carry on their own that is cool.

That's my point: doing what people are willing to do already, but being a bit more smart about the "eyes" out there in terms of timing/coverage. It is what it is. And what it ISN'T is an armed security force working on behalf of anyone else or some other entity (such as an HOA). It's merely people doing what they're already doing, but being smarter about it by being more communicative as neighbors about the reality of what's going on in their neighborhoods. "Come on?" Such doesn't mutate neighbors into criminals merely by improving their neighborhood in such ways.

[OldVet]

That's my point: doing what people are willing to do already, but being a bit more smart about the "eyes" out there in terms of timing/coverage. It is what it is. And what it ISN'T is an armed security force working on behalf of anyone else or some other entity (such as an HOA). It's merely people doing what they're already doing, but being smarter about it by being more communicative as neighbors about the reality of what's going on in their neighborhoods. "Come on?" Such doesn't mutate neighbors into criminals merely by improving their neighborhood in such ways.

That's easy for you to say, but the state may take an entirely different view on this. They need to take CYA steps if any group decides to perform "security duty," especially if doing so while armed. Any "organized" security group, whether armed or not, should check into the legalities of their actions.

[goldshellback]

I think the 'meat' of the article was to point out that many people and communities are tired and had enough. Taking matters into their own hands has it's own perils and an intimate understanding of their states laws are necessary when that next 'step' is taken.

Self-reliance is a very American 'thing' and wether it's an individule or group, it is definatly a direct reason for people arming themselves and accepting the responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their neighborhoods and communities.

[Mike1956]

I have been patrolling my neighborhood armed for years in the form of my daily walks, runs and bicycle rides.

[OldVet]

To be specific to Florida, and according to Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq., author of FLORIDA FIREARMS LAW, USE & OWNERSHIP, he often is asked about a church congregation forming a "security detail," which would easily transpose to an HOA or other neighborhood organization. (See Pg 114 for those interested in reading his comments.)

He says the answer is in Chapter 493 of the FL Statutes that permits only LE and properly licensed individuals (ie: "G" license, not a CWFL) to carry a firearm in security work--even as a volunter.

The issue is, and the point I was trying to make, what constitutes a security detail or force? He says individual carry with a CWFL is perfectly okay in a (FL) church; being part of a security detail evidently is not. Again, this may vary from state to state.

This is why I recommended researching your state's legal opinion in regards to an organized, armed security effort or detail--even if a volunteeer force--before doing so. I am not questioning anyone's right to self protection, or even one's right to walk your neighborhood while armed and observing the going-ons. Few here will, but an armed Neighborhood Watch force can enter into legal grounds they may or may not be aware of.

[ccw9mm]

That's my point: doing what people are willing to do already, but being a bit more smart about the "eyes" out there in terms of timing/coverage. It is what it is. And what it ISN'T is an armed security force working on behalf of anyone else or some other entity (such as an HOA). It's merely people doing what they're already doing, but being smarter about it by being more communicative as neighbors about the reality of what's going on in their neighborhoods. "Come on?" Such doesn't mutate neighbors into criminals merely by improving their neighborhood in such ways.

That's easy for you to say, but the state may take an entirely different view on this. They need to take CYA steps if any group decides to perform "security duty" ...

There's the miscommunication, I believe. And that's not what I was speaking of, what people are apparently geting stuck on.

My comment on neighborly info exchange was between individuals, not anything related to reporting back to or planning as part of a group of any sort. Let alone taking marching orders from a Neighborhood Watch formal group. Nothing of the sort.

I appreciate the distinction, and why zealot bureaucrats and DA's would consider such an opportunity for CYA. Hence the limited intel between neighbors, regarding the pulse of the neighborhood, routines, schedules. Beyond that, I agree it could be misinterpreted with potentially ugly results.

Agreed, that any bunch of people in a neighborhood who are discussing such things as a group have every possibility of being wrongly (IMO) blamed for criminality by an over-zealous bureaucrat or DA who'd believe points could be earned by slapping such things down and going after people, whether merely to be seen as "doing something" or actually believing it would be thwarting crime in the least way. No surprises, there, given the state of things.

The comment regarding neighborly communication was intended to simply suggest that info about people's routines and schedules being shared could yield benefits of improved coverage of eyes/ears out in the neighborhood. Nothing more. It wasn't hardly to imply that group-think, reporting back to a group, or working at the behest of a group was a smart plan of attack, as some appear to be taking it.