HR1333 - current status

[RiverAux]

Here is a link to the ammended version (with reports) of HR1333: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_reports&docid=f:hr691p1.110.pdf
This is what was reported by the House homeland security committee on June 5th.  Apparently the House Committee on Transportation has granted itself an extension until the 13th to study it some more. 

[sarflyer]

Thanks for the update!

[James Shaw]

At 12:48 the House Passed HR1333 06/18/08

[mikeylikey]

woo-hoo.........

So we will wait on the report from the GAO.  Can anyone guess what the report will say.  Most likely something along the lines of "it is not feasible to use CAP.......".  Why would they say to use CAP, when it would cut into funding of other Federal agencies and make known the incredible costs that taxpayers are already paying for those agencies. 

This was not the intent of the original legislation.  Oh well. 

[Cecil DP]

woo-hoo.........

So we will wait on the report from the GAO.  Can anyone guess what the report will say.  Most likely something along the lines of "it is not feasible to use CAP.......".  Why would they say to use CAP, when it would cut into funding of other Federal agencies and make known the incredible costs that taxpayers are already paying for those agencies. 

This was not the intent of the original legislation.  Oh well. 

More along the lines of we'll continue to use the free manpower, but not the things that cost money

[Psicorp]

Incredible cost to taxpayers? Like the $1 million dollar cost of conducting a 180 day study?  yikes!   

[RiverAux]

I'm pretty sure that they just use "less than a million dollars" as a cost estimate for tiny projects where it isn't actually worth their time to come up with a specific cost estimate.  I'm sure the study price will be much, much less than that. 

[Frenchie]

Is there a companion bill in the Senate on this?

[mikeylikey]

After thinking about this even more I came to a realization.  We will have AFAM's, Corporate Missions, and hopefully Federal Missions (where FED agencies pay directly).  So If we have more Federal Missions than AFAM's, should we become something more than the USAF Auxiliary?  If we don't perfrom for the AF, but for another Agency, say DHS......could we possibly see a new piece of legislation in a few years moving us from the AF budget to another agencies budget?

Face it, in my estimation, we perform more Corporate missions now than Air Force assigned.  Maybe this is the first step to move the organization into a more federal operating capacity. 

We can easily do everything aerial for DHS that we now do for the AF and more.

This actually may be the turning point that we all look back on in ten years. 

NOTE:  I am not starting a "move CAP from AF, but keep the cadet program, but be more corporate" argument.  We already have like 12 of those!! 

[RiverAux]

Any mission done for another federal agency is done as an AFAM per regs. 

[Earhart1971]

HR1333 says that CAP will be the Air Force Auxiliary only when performing AF Missions.

I thought the reason for that was the HLS Police functions that the Military cannot be involved with.

[mikeylikey]

^ Correct. 

So maybe we will become the major flying asset of DHS.  Not a bad thing in my opinion.  In fact, since we really are not the AF AUX anymore, maybe the flying AUX to DHS. 

[Earhart1971]

We got our budget cut last year, what was it 3 to 5 million.

I say we get clear on the money, first before accepting more missions.

[RiverAux]

I think that money got restored.

[SDF_Specialist]

HR1333 says that CAP will be the Air Force Auxiliary only when performing AF Missions.

I thought that's all we were to begin with. Either way, I'm happy to be a member, and I'm anxious to see what comes of this new bill.

[FW]

I think that money got restored.

It did, plus a few extra dollars were added for my new Porsche   (just kidding).

BTW, As I've posted on a couple of occasions, CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF all the time.  Flying AFAM missions only gives us the extra protection of the US govt.  We don't do many "other" missions for U.S.  because of  certain sensitivities with the LEA status some requestors have.

If, and that's a big if, the GAO study concludes CAP is the "best bang for the buck", our "Statement of Work" and Cooperative Agreement" will be renegotiated.  We will then be able to fly any "outside agency" mission as a AFAM and have govt. protections given to us.

[mikeylikey]

BTW, As I've posted on a couple of occasions, CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF all the time.  

It is?  Funny.....didn't we have this long drawn out debate when CAP legal said we had to remove "USAF AUX" from our planes?  Same arguments when we got an "updated" Command Patch.  We can all dig up the AF documents that say "Part time Auxiliary" or "Auxiliary ONLY on AFAM's"

We are not the AF Aux.  They only want us when we actually do work for them, then we get medical, death and certain legal protections. 

[RiverAux]

Please refer to this thread in which I make a compelling argument that CAP, as an organization, is always the AF Auxiliary, it is only certain members who are, or are not. 
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4407.0

[JohnKachenmeister]

It is possible that we might end up like the Coast Guard... assigned to DHS for most missions, but attached to the Air Force on call.  Just like the CG is a part of DHS, unless the Navy wants them, then those assets they need fall under the Navy Dept.

But... be careful what you wish for.

If we fall under DHS, you will not be able to hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act.  You will be called upon to perform law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons.

I don't have a problem with it, but there's a lot of folks who like to tell me that they are, first, foremost, and always, CIVILIANS.  They just might have some heartburn with our proposed new role.

[RiverAux]

If we fall under DHS, you will not be able to hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act.  You will be called upon to perform law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons.

I guess I'm missing out on all those CG Aux combat missions that they're doing for DHS....

[Major Carrales]

I have examined the wording of the "Amendment."  This Bill would amend the Homeland Security acts to allow CAP to be a "tool" in the execution of certain homeland security missions...

Behold...

A BILL
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary to enter into
an agreement with the Secretary of the Air Force to use Civil Air Patrol personnel
and resources to support homeland security missions.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2007.'SEC. 2. 1. CIVIL AIR PATROL STUDY.

(a) Study- The Comptroller General2002 is amended by adding at the end of the United States`SEC. 890A.
CIVIL AIR PATROL SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS.`(a) In General- The Secretary shall conduct a study understanding or other agreements with of the functions and capabilities of the Civil Air personnel and resources Patrol to support the homeland security in accordance with this section.`(
b) Use missions of State, local, and tribal governments and the Department of Homeland Security.

In conducting the study, the Comptroller General shall review the process by which use of the Civil Air Patrol may provide assistance to the Secretary of Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and States to support homeland security missions by--
`(1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities for
border security;
`(2) providing capabilities for collective response to an act of terrorism,
natural disaster, or other man-made event, by assisting in damage assessment
and situational awareness, conducting search and rescue operations,
assisting in evacuations, transporting time-sensitive medical or
other materials; or
`(3) such other activities the Secretary as may be determined appropriate by`(c) Inclusion in National Planning Activities- Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding or other agreement entered into under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the Civil Air Patrol as an available resource
for purposes of national preparedness and response planning activities, including the National Response Plan.` (d) Reimbursement- A memorandum of understanding or other agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall include a provision addressing the Comptroller General which the Department
of Defense is to be reimbursed for costs associated with in the conduct of this review.

(b) Report- Not later than 180 days after the date the of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report containing the findings of the review
conducted under subsection (a). The report shall include--

(1) an assessment of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using Civil Air Patrol assets for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
(2) an assessment as to whether the current mechanisms for Federal agencies and States to request support from the Civil Air Patrol are sufficient or whether new agreements between relevant Federal agencies and the Civil Air Patrol are necessary.
(c) Report to Congress- Not later than 90 days after completing the study under this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall review and analyze the study and submit to the Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on such review and analysis, which shall include any recommendations of the Secretary for further action that could affect the organization and administration of the Department of Homeland Security.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘A bill to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel and re- sources to support homeland security missions, and for other purposes.’. .

the above is what they are up to, nothing more and nothing less (at this time)

[RiverAux]

I have examined the wording of the "Amendment."  This Bill would amend the Homeland Security acts to allow CAP to be a "tool" in the execution of certain homeland security missions...

No, all it does is to direct that a study be done on that topic.  It doesn't "allow" anything new. 

[MIKE]

If we fall under DHS, you will not be able to hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act.  You will be called upon to perform law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons.

I guess I'm missing out on all those CG Aux combat missions that they're doing for DHS....

Yeah... they ain't had me qual on the Sig and M-4 yet either.

[JohnKachenmeister]

All I am saying is... be careful what you wish for.

The CG is an armed force, its auxiliary performs unarmed duties.

Based on what is being studied here, we would cease to be an auxiliary of the Air Force, and become (at least for HLS missions) a direct reporting agency to DHS.  In effect, we would become the flying coast guard, and nobody's auxiliary.  That will certainly entail direct involvement in law enforcement duties (That, as I understand it, is the whole purpose of the study) and probably will result in some or all CAP members being armed.

This was discussed right after 9/11, and was rejected by the Air Staff.  The Air Force wanted to retain control of its auxiliary.

[Major Carrales]

I have examined the wording of the "Amendment."  This Bill would amend the Homeland Security acts to allow CAP to be a "tool" in the execution of certain homeland security missions...

No, all it does is to direct that a study be done on that topic.  It doesn't "allow" anything new. 

Yes, but it does quell the "WILD SPECULATON."  I encourage everyone to explore the matter further before adding to any "misinformation."

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have examined the wording of the "Amendment."  This Bill would amend the Homeland Security acts to allow CAP to be a "tool" in the execution of certain homeland security missions...

No, all it does is to direct that a study be done on that topic.  It doesn't "allow" anything new. 

Yes, but it does quell the "WILD SPECULATON."  I encourage everyone to explore the matter further before adding to any "misinformation."

I don't consider it "Wild" speculation, Sparky.  Just plain, old, everyday, generic speculation. 

We can do HLS missions right now.  All DHS has to do is say:  "Hey, Air Force... let us use some of the 500+ light planes you have pre-positioned around the country."  But when that happens, we are activated as an element of the USAF, and therefore restricted from LE missions.  That's why we're calling the Border Patrol missions "Rescue" missions, looking for under-hydrated Mexicans who just happen to be under-documented as well.

The new law being studied, if passed, will allow us to serve as a direct arm of DHS.  A "Tool" to use the term from the law itself.  Is a "Tool" the same as an "Instrumentality?"  The only possible reason for this change to our command relationship would be to assign us direct Law Enforcement support missions.

Personally, I do not mind.  I carried a gun for most of my life.  I still carry a gun, even though I am retired.  I not only can qualify, I am a certified police firearms instructor.  I still never sit with my back to a door, and I would no more walk into a bank lobby unarmed than I would walk in naked.  (Sorry for that visual, but I'm making a point).

Some folks here, and I'm making this judgement based on their postings, would welcome a divorce from the Air Force.  They do not feel the same kinship and affiliation with the military that I and some others feel. 

But IF that happens, stand by.  The nature of our organization will change radically.

[MIKE]

All I am saying is... be careful what you wish for.

The CG is an armed force, its auxiliary performs unarmed duties.

All they have to do is reactivate the Temporary Reserve... Still on the books from WWII... and issue me my Sig.

[JayT]

If we fall under DHS, you will not be able to hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act.  You will be called upon to perform law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons.

I don't have a problem with it, but there's a lot of folks who like to tell me that they are, first, foremost, and always, CIVILIANS.  They just might have some heartburn with our proposed new role.

What do you mean 'hide' behind the PCA?

I'm sorry, but I don't ever see us "performing law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons." Not this year, not next year, not ten years down the road. That sounds like something one of my fourteen year old cadets would have a fantasy about.

You were a cop, no? Would you want some unpaid volunteers who can't even show up dressed right taking over your roles? What would your union say about that?

Border Patrol? Sure, but only if the Border Patrol can't cover area's with drones that have more and better capabilites then our birds. Port Security? What does that mean? Last I checked, the US Coast Guard has that down pretty well. Fi they need more troopers to cover the ports, then increase the side of the CG. That's their job, and they're good at it.
Surveillance? Again, what does that even mean? An expanded CD mission? Greater use of the the ARCHER platforms? If we can do a great service to our country by flying enviromental impact missions, or helping track flights of birds, is that okay with you? Or is that not sexy enough for our great, green bag wearing aviators?

As for 'qualifying on weapons.' Honestly...........

[Eclipse]

I'm sorry, but I don't ever see us "performing law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons." Not this year, not next year, not ten years down the road. That sounds like something one of my fourteen year old cadets would have a fantasy about.

We're already doing border patrol, harbor surveillance and assisting law enforcement today, pushing things a little harder and further won't be much of a stretch at all.

You were a cop, no? Would you want some unpaid volunteers who can't even show up dressed right taking over your roles? What would your union say about that?

Probably very little - the harsh reality is that fewer and fewer agencies are unionized, and where they are, the union has much less to say about anything, let alone staffing and assignments.

Most of the decent-sized suburbs around here already have a corps of unpaid volunteers who do traffic patrol, parking enforcement, crowd control and similar activities, and the comment had been made to  me by my town that they'd welcome more help, especially in an on-demand capacity.

Many departments made efforts to professionalize their officers in the 90's, which is fine, except it makes it much more difficult to hire them and the pool is much smaller.

For the record, I have no interest whatsoever in being an unpaid LEO, the risks associated in the implied authority where there is no means to enforce it are too great for me.

[JohnKachenmeister]

If we fall under DHS, you will not be able to hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act.  You will be called upon to perform law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons.

I don't have a problem with it, but there's a lot of folks who like to tell me that they are, first, foremost, and always, CIVILIANS.  They just might have some heartburn with our proposed new role.

What do you mean 'hide' behind the PCA?

I'm sorry, but I don't ever see us "performing law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons." Not this year, not next year, not ten years down the road. That sounds like something one of my fourteen year old cadets would have a fantasy about.

You were a cop, no? Would you want some unpaid volunteers who can't even show up dressed right taking over your roles? What would your union say about that?

Border Patrol? Sure, but only if the Border Patrol can't cover area's with drones that have more and better capabilites then our birds. Port Security? What does that mean? Last I checked, the US Coast Guard has that down pretty well. Fi they need more troopers to cover the ports, then increase the side of the CG. That's their job, and they're good at it.
Surveillance? Again, what does that even mean? An expanded CD mission? Greater use of the the ARCHER platforms? If we can do a great service to our country by flying enviromental impact missions, or helping track flights of birds, is that okay with you? Or is that not sexy enough for our great, green bag wearing aviators?

As for 'qualifying on weapons.' Honestly...........

Well, I mean exactly what I said.

And it is NOT a 14 year old fantasy, unless the 14 year olds of which you speak are our elected officials in the House of Representatives.

It is the House that has proposed making CAP a "Tool" of the DHS, and has proposed a study to see if that is cost effective.

IF that happens, what I am saying is that CAP will no longer be serving as a part of the Air Force.  If we are not a part of the Air Force, we can be assigned law enforcement duties and missions.

Then... what will happen is that some terrorist will try to use a general aviation aircraft to spread ebola virus, or something.  CAP will then suddenly be tasked with GA security and enforcement.  I don't know if you recall "Operation Drop In," but such a role is not all that farfetched.

I realize you think the CAP is incapable of such missions, and you take particular delight in denigrating the organization.  But in this case, it does seem like there is a possibility that such missions may go forward, if the GAO comes to the conclusion that we are a cost-effective asset.

And for the record, I do NOT agree that such missions are in the best interest of either CAP or the US.  Our present role as an AF auxiliary performing CONUS SaR missions is what we were designed for and what we do best.  But on the other hand, I have no moral objections to carrying weapons and I am not averse to getting, or (considering my background)giving, additional training.

[KyCAP]

Maybe I am going to step out on a limb...

My puny brain sees the CAP "Corporation" holding a Statement of Work to accept a "Purchase/Task Order" from the USAF to work as an instrumentality of the Air Force at certain times when they request it.

I don't see why anything would change with the CAP "Corporation" if we were to hold an additional Statement of Work from the DHS and work as a "tool" for them from time to time.

This funding stream and task order for the statement of work would define the requirements.  I think that is why that the leadership has been peeling the CAP-USAF AUX off the gear we own.  In order to be able to in a sense serve multiple clients without the everyday citizenry immediately screaming "posse comitatus" the Air Force can't do that...

If we look at this from the perspective if we were "employees" of a corporation rather than volunteers then CAP would just be another subcontractor rather than a Federal Non-profit Corporation.   We would some times need one type of tool and some times another type of tool depending on the job.

Maybe I am over simplifying this.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
    Subtitle D - Air Force
    PART III - TRAINING
    CHAPTER 909 - CIVIL AIR PATROL

-HEAD-
    Sec. 9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

-STATUTE-
      (a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary. - The Civil Air Patrol is a
    volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of
    the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any
    branch of the Federal Government.      (b) Use by Air Force. - (1) The Secretary of the Air Force may
    use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat
    programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
      (2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality
    of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the
    Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in
    carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

[FW]

^ Well done.  CAP will remain the Air Force Auxiliary.  DHS will reimburse the Air Force for CAP's use.   That's how it will work.  "USAF Aux" is taken off aircraft because of PC conflicts;  that's the only reason.  We are now prohibited from flying some DHS missions because funding comes from our "grant".  If AF says no to mission, aircrews don't get govt. insurance protection.  IF DHS would fund these missions,  AF would say "great, go for it".  Aircrew is protected (DHS picks up insurance costs), mission has AFAM or DODAM status (doesn't matter which).  Life goes on.  No uniform changes, no procedure changes.  Maybe some extra training.  

I don't see any major differences in the way we will do business however, we may need to get more members to get this stuff acomplished.

[Eclipse]

I don't see any major differences in the way we will do business however, we may need to get more members to get this stuff accomplished.

Me either - DHS would just be another corporate client, and would likely help us maintain our viability and credibility as a service organization.

Unlike professional organizations where you can tell people what they will do and wait for them to show up, CAP would still have to rely on the benevolence of volunteers willing to participate.

As an example, I'd do just about anything in an airframe, surveillance from a good distance, and REMF support for real LEO's, but I'd leave any kind of "in your face" stuff for the pros.

CAP today is like the Fire Department, people beg them to come and thank them for helping, unlike the police, where generally >somebody< involved would prefer they weren't there, many times with great enthusiasm.

[JayT]

IF that happens, what I am saying is that CAP will no longer be serving as a part of the Air Force.  If we are not a part of the Air Force, we can be assigned law enforcement duties and missions.

Then... what will happen is that some terrorist will try to use a general aviation aircraft to spread ebola virus, or something.  CAP will then suddenly be tasked with GA security and enforcement.  I don't know if you recall "Operation Drop In," but such a role is not all that farfetched.

I realize you think the CAP is incapable of such missions, and you take particular delight in denigrating the organization.  But in this case, it does seem like there is a possibility that such missions may go forward, if the GAO comes to the conclusion that we are a cost-effective asset.

Agian, fourteen year fantasy old stuff. We can be 'assigned' law enforcement stuff all our assigners want. It doesn't mean we're capable of it, or that we can get people to show up for it. I realize that you, as an ex service guy, and ex cop, wouldn't have a problem. You have a training I don't have. I'm willing to be a good chunk of our guys are in the same boat as me.

I really am having trouble seeing how you can see CAP being tasked for 'GA security and enforcment.' If the bad guys start spreading Ebola Zaire via small planes.........are we suddenly gonna break out our stores of weapons and NBC suits and stand posts at Airports? Or are my counties extremely well trained, extremely well armed, and extremely, extremely well paid cops gonna do it?

Are we gonna start having our volunteers going through advance training now?

Again, a lot of this sounds like stuff I hear from young cadets who want medals.

I do recall reading of Operation Drop In, and I recall that it was bad for us. Members of the GA community didn't like it, and our members didn't like doing it.

You seem to have a problem with the PCA. I don't know why. The reason we have a military is to protect the people from outside threats, and the reason we have police is to protect the people from internal ones. When you use the military as police, the people end up being the threat.

And, Major, please have the maturity to resist the urge to label me as hating the organization because I don't agree with your view of it. CAP is what it is. We do somethings very well every where, and we do somethings very well only some places. I love the organization, if I didn't, I wouldn't invest as much time and money as I do in it. Just because I don't want to turn it into something it's not, doesn't mean I don't like it.

[Tubacap]

I'm going to throw my two cents in here.  The big issue that people throw around is the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) [PCA].  This Act prevents the use of federal troops to patrol, participate in search and seizure, and conduct law enforcment activities in a domestic capacity except as authorized by act of congress. 

Many people have complained at how we had to take our USAF Aux off the tails of our aircraft due to PCA concerns while doing law enforcement and the National Guard helicopters can keep U.S. Army on theirs during the same type operations.  The difference being, we are an asset under 10 USC 9442 which has no exemptions to PCA.  The National Guard under 32 USC 112 has this exemption and are therefore able to circumvent PCA as part of their state level mission.

H.R. 1333 does not change any laws or create any "holes."  However, it does open the door to the possibility of these exemptions and loopholes to be created.  Therefore, just has been said before, it grants us the ability to act on an AFAM status with the insurance benefits afforded that status.  Plus it does not violate any federal laws.

[FW]

^ The major obstacle for CAP to perform the bulk of current proposed DHS taskings is no longer the PCA, it is AF decision that these taskings do not coincide with the interests of the AF (my current understanding of recent discussions).  
When the study is complete and, if the study reccommends CAP's use, the SECAF's people will work out a solution with SECDHS's people and we can get back to business.  

[RiverAux]

This is the heart of what they're wanting to study using CAP for for DHS:

1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities for
border security;
`(2) providing capabilities for collective response to an act of terrorism,
natural disaster, or other man-made event, by assisting in damage assessment
and situational awareness, conducting search and rescue operations,
assisting in evacuations, transporting time-sensitive medical or
other materials;

# 2 is no different than what we've been doing for FEMA as AFAMs for decades.

#1 is absouletly no more law enforcement than what we've been doing on CD missions for 20 years.  So, doing that sort of work won't make us any more beholden to DHS than doing it now makes us beholden to the state police or the DEA. 

By the way, note that the new CAPabilities handbook that just came out (available through eservices) sort of opens the door for us doing more law enforcement support as corporate missions.  But, to do them as AFAMs (which is required when we support any federal agency), very well could require some PCA change or possibly someone could just come to their senses and realize that PCA shouldn't apply to us since we aren't members of the armed forces even if the AF were to assume liability for us on these missions. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

All of your guys have either missed the point I'm trying to make, or have intentionally mis-stated it to act as flamers.  Let me run the point by you again.

Right now:  Yes, we CAN fly missions for DHS.  The process, as mandated by current law, is that the DHS requests the use of CAP assets from the AF.  The DHS funds it, but we remain under USAF command as an auxiliary.  Being under USAF command means that we ARE subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act, no matter what is painted on the side of the airplane. 

HB-1333:  Is a proposed law to STUDY changing the current law.  The study by the GAO would focus on whether or not it would be a good idea to allow DHS to DIRECTLY task CAP assets, eliminating the need to go through the Air Force.  If we are directly tasked by DHS, we are then NOT acting as an element of the Air Force, and therefore NOT subject to PCA.

(Note:  I do not have any undefined "Problems" with the PCA, and don't understand where a certain poster gets the idea that I do,)

We would still be the Aux of the USAF anytime the AF called up our assets for an AF mission.  SAR, for example, would be unchanged.

Under present law, we are also the Aux of the AF anytime we are flying for ANY federal agency.  HB-1333 is studying if it is desirable to change that.

Since GAO is conducting the study, they will focus on total costs to the government.  IF some measure of direct law enforcement support is envisioned, CAP members would have to be trained up to the standards desired by the Feds.  That would have some cost involved, and I don't have a clue how much.  I suppose GAO has a clue, but I don't.

The rest of what I have posted is speculation, but fairly reasoned speculation.  Follow my thinking, and read slower if you have trouble keeping up.

IF HB-1333 passes into law...

and IF the GAO study concludes that CAP can be an effective DHS asset...

and IF Congress subsequently passes a law allowing DHS to directly task CAP with missions...

THEN the CAP would, when called into DHS service, become a military force exempt from the provisions of the PCA.   We would be in the same legal postion in the air that the CG is on the water.

The DHS could, assuming all those "If's" happen, task us with ANY law enforcement mission it wanted to.  I used GA airport security as an example, and mentioned Operation Drop In.  We did NOT like ODI, and neither did the GA community.  ODI was done at the request of DHS and as a courtesy.  If DHS can TASK us, the next ODI mission may not be in the form of a request.

If DHS intends for CAP to maintain some direct LE/HLS role, they would have to provide training.  As a volunteer organization, we cannot require people to participate in this training, but I'm sure some folk will.

I am not certain that any changes will happen, but I am indicating that certain changes are likely based on the proposed study to change our legal basis for existance.  If no operational changes were contemplated, why even study the implications of changing the laws governing our organization?

Be careful what you wish for.  The result could be a CAP that none of us will recognize.

[RRLE]

THEN the CAP would, when called into DHS service, become a military force exempt from the provisions of the PCA.   We would be in the same legal postion in the air that the CG is on the water.

As a former  USCG Auxie I have no idea what you mean by the above. The USCG Aux is defined by statute to be non-military. It is barred from all military and direct law enforcement functions. The closest the Aux gets to LE is in rare cases it can transport a USCG boarding team. And you wouldn't believe the rigamorole the boarding team must go thru on the boarded boat to explain the USCG Aux's role in the boarding (they are not allowed to board the other boat either).

The Aux's role on the water is 'observe and report'. Other then reporting, they can take no action against anyone no matter what they observe.

If you mean the last statement then CAP's legal position in the air is that of a civilian volunteer agency with no military or direct law enforcement power or authority - which is the CG Aux's position on the water.

[JohnKachenmeister]

OK.  Try this again.

I did NOT say that CAP's position would be the same as the CG Auxiliary.

Please READ what I wrote.

The CAP, if we end up reporting directly to DHS, would not be the "Auxiliary" of anything.

[RiverAux]

HB-1333:  Is a proposed law to STUDY changing the current law.  The study by the GAO would focus on whether or not it would be a good idea to allow DHS to DIRECTLY task CAP assets, eliminating the need to go through the Air Force.

John, there is no such language in the law that I see.  It doesn't say a darn thing about command and control. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

The whole issue is command and control.

The study is to determine if:

1.  It is feasable to allow DHS to directly task CAP without going through the USAF as is currently required, or...

2.  If CAP should remain an Air Force asset when performing missions for DHS or any other federal agency.

[JohnKachenmeister]

^ Well done.  CAP will remain the Air Force Auxiliary.  DHS will reimburse the Air Force for CAP's use.   That's how it will work.  "USAF Aux" is taken off aircraft because of PC conflicts;  that's the only reason.  We are now prohibited from flying some DHS missions because funding comes from our "grant".  If AF says no to mission, aircrews don't get govt. insurance protection.  IF DHS would fund these missions,  AF would say "great, go for it".  Aircrew is protected (DHS picks up insurance costs), mission has AFAM or DODAM status (doesn't matter which).  Life goes on.  No uniform changes, no procedure changes.  Maybe some extra training.  

I don't see any major differences in the way we will do business however, we may need to get more members to get this stuff acomplished.

You have correctly summarized current law.  If we are to conduct business as usual, why is GAO going to study the effect of new laws?

[RiverAux]

The whole issue is command and control.

The study is to determine if:

1.  It is feasable to allow DHS to directly task CAP without going through the USAF as is currently required, or...

2.  If CAP should remain an Air Force asset when performing missions for DHS or any other federal agency.

And again, I'll ask you to point out exactly where in the the proposed law it says anything at all about studying those issues.  They're supposed to be looking at how CAP might be used.  It doesn't follow that they're considering the drastic changes that you're talking about in current federal law, AF policy, and CAP regulations that would need to take place for DHS to bypass the AF. 

[RiverAux]

If we are to conduct business as usual, why is GAO going to study the effect of new laws?

Easy, because CAP convinced a Congressman to try to force DHS to use CAP more for disaster relief missions.  The congressman wrote a bill forcing DHS to sign an MOU with CAP to do just that.  Somehow enough opposition to that idea was found (presumably from DHS) that they watered it down to just a study. 

[Tubacap]

What is the precident for anything actually coming from a GAO study?

[RiverAux]

They do a billion of them a year, so just by the laws of chance something might happen.  But, if DHS was really interested in doing an MOU with CAP for this stuff, they would have said, "great, we like the law...pass it."  But, we have to assume that they didn't like it and don't want us (or at least don't want us forced on them like this). 

[FW]

^ Well done.  CAP will remain the Air Force Auxiliary.  DHS will reimburse the Air Force for CAP's use.   That's how it will work.  "USAF Aux" is taken off aircraft because of PC conflicts; that's the only reason.  We are now prohibited from flying some DHS missions because funding comes from our "grant".  If AF says no to mission, aircrews don't get govt. insurance protection.  IF DHS would fund these missions,  AF would say "great, go for it".  Aircrew is protected (DHS picks up insurance costs), mission has AFAM or DODAM status (doesn't matter which).  Life goes on.  No uniform changes, no procedure changes.  Maybe some extra training.  

I don't see any major differences in the way we will do business however, we may need to get more members to get this stuff accomplished.

You have correctly summarized current law.  If we are to conduct business as usual, why is GAO going to study the effect of new laws?

Good question Kach.  Our problem, IMHO, is not with the current statute, it's AF interpretation of our SOW and Cooperative Agreement.  I've had "conversations" with more than a few individuals and, let's just say a GAO study is welcome.  
I'm hoping that once the GAO comes through, we will be able to renegotiate a new SOW and CA allowing us to perform all govt. missions; not just the ones the AF allows.

[Tubacap]

^FW is it your understanding that we would perform this missions IAW current policy in regards to the Aux status with associated benefits, or as the corporation?

[FW]

As I understand the state of things, we will operate these missions under a new SOW and CA as the USAF Auxiliary.  The only difference would be the tasking agencies "paying" for our status as an "instrumentality" of the govt. as well as mission expenses.

[Tubacap]

That makes sense.  Here's another question, why is it the SOW and CA that govern our operations in this particular venue and not the 10 USC 9442?

[FW]

It is the SOW and CA which difine the way we may spend our "grant".   No money, no mission...

[Tubacap]

So the issue is really a request comes from a Federal Agency, which by law we would have to take as the USAF Aux coming out of the grant, and the AF doesn't want the money spent there.

So there needs to be a mechanism that allows DHS to pay for it, yet still act as the Aux for the benefits it provides?

[KyCAP]

I think that the problem is not the money.  I worked in the University environment for six years very closely with NIH in Bethesda and the National Center for Research Resources.  Moving the money between departments that are appropriated to spend from a budget like AF to DHS is probably not to complicated in my opinion.  It lurks elsewhere.    I also wouldn't characterize the funding as a "grant" those are usually "Competitive" in nature and don't have Statements of Work per se  I would think that this is really more closely worded as a sole-source Subcontractor between the USAF and a Congressional organized non-profit corporation -> Civil Air Patrol, Inc.  I think a lot of our folks tend to think that we more closely related to a Federal Agency like the Postal Service or other.

I am the first to admit, even in my mind, it's hard to grasp exactly the legal organization of our organization and the implications / ramifications of how it all works. 

[RiverAux]

Our funding from the AF comes under a grant.  Seen the grant announcements before -- they pop up in my news browser every now and again. 

[KyCAP]

In the industry papers it's referred to as a contract..  That's where my little pieces are coming from..

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-national-bargain-the-us-civil-air-patrol-02016/

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3380478/USA-CIVIL-AIR-PATROL-AWARDED.html

[RiverAux]

There are always contracts associated with grants.  Nobody just sends you a check without a contract saying what you're going to do.

[KyCAP]

Yes, but in the Federal spending world those are called Awards, not contracts.

The statement of work..

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_011504073611.pdf

The contract information from USAspending...  Although this site is ambiguous in how it is delineating Award / Contract data.  It's all lumped together...

http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?fiscal_year=2006&company_name=Civil+Air+Patrol&sortby=r&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&detail=4&submit=GO

There is such a thing called a non-competing grant award.  I worked on one for a while that was about the size of the Civil Air Patrol's annual budget.   However, those are typically multi-year from what I had seen and not something that would have been appropriated annually.

[JohnKachenmeister]

HB-1333:  Is a proposed law to STUDY changing the current law.  The study by the GAO would focus on whether or not it would be a good idea to allow DHS to DIRECTLY task CAP assets, eliminating the need to go through the Air Force.

John, there is no such language in the law that I see.  It doesn't say a darn thing about command and control. 

"In conducting this study the Comptroller General shall review the process by which use of the Civil Air Patrol may provide assistance to the Secretary of Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and States to support Homeland Security missions..."

and:

"... such other activities the Secretary as may be determined appropriate..."

The "Secretary" is NOT the Secretary of the Air Force.

What this means is simply that they are studying if placing us directly under DHS when performing DHS missions is or is not better than the current arrangement where DHS requests use of CAP from the Air Force, and CAP remains an Air Force asset supporting DHS.

You guys have been so busy not reading what I've written and flaming me that nobody has noticed that I have NOT said that this is a "Bad" thing.  I just don't know, but I am pretty sure that this may have some very far-reaching implications for CAP.

And, if this study results in changes to our legal status, it will NOT be business as usual.  We need to understand the implications of what is being considered.

[KyCAP]

My last post on the "vehicle" that funding gets to us because I am thoroughly confused.

On the CAP-USAF home page they call it a Cooperative Agreement and refer to a Program Office.   That along the right nomenclature for a "grant"...  but then... this....  (I call Uncle on this one and defer). 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/capusaf/fm.asp

Director, Financial Management (FM)
Welcome to the Financial Directorate of Headquarters (HQ) Civil Air Patrol (CAP)-United States Air Force (USAF). Under the director of Financial Management (FM) are a financial budget analyst (FMB) and a financial management analyst (FMA). Below are brief synopses of the functions/duties these financial personnel:

FM - The FM is the senior financial advisor to the CAP-USAF commander and leads the HQ CAP-USAF FM operations. FM oversees CAP and CAP-USAF financial operations from the HQ level. The FM is responsible for timely and accurate analysis of all planning, programming, and budget execution. FM provides day-to-day advice, liaison, and oversight of the Cooperative Agreement between the Air Force and CAP.

FMB - The FMB is responsible for monitoring and overseeing funds added to the Cooperative Agreement between CAP, Inc. and the Air Force. These funds are coordinated through the grants officers at Air University and Air Education and Training Command. The FMB is responsible for ensuring customer funds (other Department of Defense and federal agencies) are properly added to the Cooperative Agreement. The FMB is the financial "middle man" between CAP, Inc. and all federal agencies.

FMA - The FMA is the lead financial management analyst for CAP-USAF Operations and Maintenance funding and is responsible for monitoring the execution of funds for HQ and its eight liaison regions. The FMA manages the Government Travel Card Program, the Government Purchase Card Program, General Services Administration vehicle leases, and miscellaneous contracts.

[JohnKachenmeister]

As I understand the state of things, we will operate these missions under a new SOW and CA as the USAF Auxiliary.  The only difference would be the tasking agencies "paying" for our status as an "instrumentality" of the govt. as well as mission expenses.

I don't see it that way.

If we perform services for a federal agency now, we perform it as an asset of the USAF, specifically as the Auxiliary.

This bill will mandate a study to determine if it would be better to have CAP work directly for DHS, and NOT as the Aux of the AF.

We would remain the Aux. of the USAF when performing AF missions.  DHS support would no longer be an AF mission.

[KyCAP]

Honestly, I can see both interpretations that you all are making.   Congress definitely wrote it.  Guess we need to poll for a lobbyist in the crowd, make a trip to DC and ask GAO what THEY think they are doing.

[lordmonar]

It's amazing how far we can jump the gun on these sort of things.

It is a bill the authorises monies to be spent on a study to see if CAP can be used to help DHS.

That is all.

Once the study is done.....we might......MIGHT.....see some changes.  Anything other than that is just speculation or wishful thinking.

[FW]

^ I wouldn't call this wishful thinking.  Speculation may be appropriate however, opinions on where we may go with the results of the study is what makes this thread so entertaining.  I see nothing wrong with good clean discussion on the possible ways the GAO report may take CAP.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Definitely NOT wishful thinking.  Call me an old timer, but I tend to be resistive to changes.

Plus, taking us out from under the USAF umbrella takes us down a road into an unfamiliar forest, and we don't know who owns that gingerbread house.

But you are right, it IS speculation.  I never contended it wasn't. 

[ZigZag911]

Kach, I don't think we're being pulled out from under USAF umbrella....I think down the rode this all may lead to certain missions being authorized under Title 32 rather than Title 10, to gain the PCA exemption....then I could foresee surveillance type air missions, maybe some GA security oversight.

As for armed CAP members, while possible, I feel this is extremely unlikely.

If it should come to pass, it will probably be for a very limited group with clear mission-related needs, probably limited to those already qualified/or formerly qualified with weapons in the military or law enforcement (this would be the selection criterion -- further and current  qualification under federal standards would still be necessary).

[mikeylikey]

As for armed CAP members, while possible, I feel this is extremely unlikely.

You better believe that if I perform any HLS missions along the southern border, I will absolutely bring my personal sidearm.  Drug runners would be more than willing to kill the occupants of planes that may go down while tracking them.  It may mean a violation of CAP regs, but the CAP reg won't protect any one of us from the murdering pieces of crap from Mexico bringing human or drug cargo into the United States.

I also believe the original intention of the legislation was killed long ago, and this study from the GAO will be nothing more than "ya, use CAP if you want".  I was in the loop when the legislation was first being pitched.  What has resulted is far from what was originally discussed.   

[JohnKachenmeister]

Kach, I don't think we're being pulled out from under USAF umbrella....I think down the rode this all may lead to certain missions being authorized under Title 32 rather than Title 10, to gain the PCA exemption....then I could foresee surveillance type air missions, maybe some GA security oversight.

As for armed CAP members, while possible, I feel this is extremely unlikely.

If it should come to pass, it will probably be for a very limited group with clear mission-related needs, probably limited to those already qualified/or formerly qualified with weapons in the military or law enforcement (this would be the selection criterion -- further and current  qualification under federal standards would still be necessary).

Anytime I hear that politicians are involved, I tend to think of worst-case scenarios.  "Unintended consequences" is usually the norm.

The fact remains that DHS wants CAP to perform missions with zero Air Force connection, so that considerations about violations of the Posse Comitatus Act never have to enter their planning.  IF such a plan comes to fruition, it could be the first step down a dark road, or it could be the best way for CAP to be a real player in the War on Terror.  While we have to consider all possible outcomes, what will happen is anybody's guess.  My only warning is to be careful what you wish for.

[JohnKachenmeister]

As for armed CAP members, while possible, I feel this is extremely unlikely.

You better believe that if I perform any HLS missions along the southern border, I will absolutely bring my personal sidearm.  Drug runners would be more than willing to kill the occupants of planes that may go down while tracking them.  It may mean a violation of CAP regs, but the CAP reg won't protect any one of us from the murdering pieces of crap from Mexico bringing human or drug cargo into the United States.

I also believe the original intention of the legislation was killed long ago, and this study from the GAO will be nothing more than "ya, use CAP if you want".  I was in the loop when the legislation was first being pitched.  What has resulted is far from what was originally discussed.   

I was not in the room when this was discussed.  I try to stay as far away from politicians as possible.  I recall that this was all started back when The Nameless One was the National Commander, and I firmly believe that he intended CAP to emerge as a stand-alone branch of uniform service under DHS.  Now that he has been cast out and his name is never to be spoken in our lodges, I don't know what the final result of this study will end up being.

But as to the first paragraph of your post, I agree with you wholeheartedly.  The CAPR's will not protect you against Banditos or rattlesnakes.  An M-1911A1 will do a fine job on both, however.  And the latter can be a very tasty snack!

[RiverAux]

John, you are reading WAY too much into the language of the bill to be saying that they're studying bypassing the AF.  The statements you quote are nowhere near that.  The language is quite vague and certainly doesn't rule out what you're saying, but that doesn't mean you can read something as specific as you have into it.  You could just as easily say that they're studying putting CAP under the control of Stargate Command for these missions. 

No, the more likely thing is that they're going to study whether or not an MOU is necessary in order to accomplish these missions in the first place. 

But, its no skin off my nose if you want to interpret the language incorrectly.  We'll just have to wait and see (if the Senate even approves the bill in the first place).  So, I'll leave it lie. 

[KyCAP]

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080624security.html?WT.svl=FlashHP2

AOPA took notice.... This was on their home page..

[lordmonar]

I would agree with John...that it is possible that the report could.....I say again....could...recommend pulling us from under USAF oversight and placing us under the DHS.

I don't think this will happen...but let's look at the process.

The bill authorised money to be spend on a report.

The report is done...recommendations are made......but there is nothing mandating that any of these recommendations to take place.

Any changes would have to go back to congress to change the laws that govern us...It would take someone actually lobbying for the changes to be made to get any action.

Like I said before......we are still a long way away from any real changes.  We may loose our "USAF AUX" status.....but we may gain a new AUX status that is better for us in the long run.  Either way....we as CAP will have a big say in what happens as will the USAF and DHS.

[RiverAux]

I think some of you are missing something -- Assuming that it was DHS that had enough clout to turn this from a "you will sign an MOU with CAP" to "GAO will study..." bill, then it seems very unlikely that DHS would be looking to assume any sort of responsibility for CAP.  As of right now, if CAP does something for them, it is as an AFAM and the AF has all the responsibility if anything goes wrong -- even if DHS is paying the direct costs.  Thats a pretty good deal for them.  Why assume greater potential costs by taking on any additional responsibility for CAP?  Its not to their advantage at all.

Now, one good thing that might come out of this study is some independent analysis of the CAP-posse comitatus issue.  Perhaps GAO might say it is ok for CAP to do aerial recon LE missions for DHS, but only if they are done as corporate missions. 

Now, even if GAO said this was ok (or if they recommended federal law changes that ended up being made so that we could do them), DHS still has a very compelling interest in not using CAP for border patrol missions of that type --- their own intent in continuing to build up their paid staff associated with their homeland security air wings.   

[RRLE]

we are still a long way away from any real changes

And something else is being left out. In the best of all possible worlds, ie CAP 'wins' the study, Congress changes laws etc - then nothing happens unless Congress also funds CAP. And that is an entirely separate process then getting authorization laws passed.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think some of you are missing something -- Assuming that it was DHS that had enough clout to turn this from a "you will sign an MOU with CAP" to "GAO will study..." bill, then it seems very unlikely that DHS would be looking to assume any sort of responsibility for CAP.  As of right now, if CAP does something for them, it is as an AFAM and the AF has all the responsibility if anything goes wrong -- even if DHS is paying the direct costs.  Thats a pretty good deal for them.  Why assume greater potential costs by taking on any additional responsibility for CAP?  Its not to their advantage at all.

Now, one good thing that might come out of this study is some independent analysis of the CAP-posse comitatus issue.  Perhaps GAO might say it is ok for CAP to do aerial recon LE missions for DHS, but only if they are done as corporate missions. 

Now, even if GAO said this was ok (or if they recommended federal law changes that ended up being made so that we could do them), DHS still has a very compelling interest in not using CAP for border patrol missions of that type --- their own intent in continuing to build up their paid staff associated with their homeland security air wings.   

River:

Without realizing it, you have backed into the exact position that I have taken.

Right now, we CANNOT do a mission for DHS as a "Corporate" mission.  By law any support to the federal govt. is as an AFAM.  The purpose of the study is to determine the cost-benefit of changing the law to permit exactly what you recommend.  To allow us to perform a mission in our corporate status for DHS.  This would take us out of the AF for that mission, and therefore we would not be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.

I think we will always have some affiliation with the Air Force as long as the USAF retains its Congressionally-assigned mission of inland SAR.  We are the lead agency in the AF for inland SAR and that will change only if Congress assigns SAR to another federal agency or military branch.

[BillB]

IF HR1333 passes, and IF the study shows CAP would be cost effective, DHS, read that FEMA, would be fundings many CAP activities. (maybe) But at the same time, FEMA would require additional training of CAP mambers to take part in disaster or other activities. The few ICS courses that CAP members are supposed to complete currently will probably not meet FEMAs requirements.
Then comes up the CAP Corporate structure versus DHS requirements and needs being at cross purposes. Insurance for example. CAP has provided regulations to protect the Corporation from damages, or accidents involving corporate property. DHS/FEMA may have different regulations concerning injuries, damages operating polices that may conflict with CAP regulations.

[RiverAux]

Kach, the only thing we're agreeing on so far is that fed law is clear on the circumstances in which CAP can work with other federal agencies.  We're apparently very far apart on what we think might come from this study. 

I am quite confident that no matter what GAO recommends or what sort of MOU might come out of it that there will be no change in the status of CAP in regards to the AF.  There are MOUs with several federal agencies in regards to use of CAP and none of them have caused any change in CAP that I'm aware of. 

By the way, the other possible outcome of a GAO review of posse comitatus is that it doesn't apply to us under any circumstances because we remain civilians at all times and PCA language talks about members of the military.  Remember, that was the conclusion of what I recall was an opinion by a DoD office (as quoted in the minutes of the NEC, BoG, or NB - I forget which one).  If they came to that conclusion, then we could do border security type missions as AFAMs. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

You are correct, Bill.  And IF the GAO study established that, they may determine that it is not cost effective to have CAP operate directly for DHS, or they may propose legislative changes to place CAP under "Two masters,"
the AF and DHS, both federal agencies.

"Nobody's life, liberty, or property is safe when the legislature is in session."

[JohnKachenmeister]

Kach, the only thing we're agreeing on so far is that fed law is clear on the circumstances in which CAP can work with other federal agencies.  We're apparently very far apart on what we think might come from this study. 

I am quite confident that no matter what GAO recommends or what sort of MOU might come out of it that there will be no change in the status of CAP in regards to the AF.  There are MOUs with several federal agencies in regards to use of CAP and none of them have caused any change in CAP that I'm aware of. 

By the way, the other possible outcome of a GAO review of posse comitatus is that it doesn't apply to us under any circumstances because we remain civilians at all times and PCA language talks about members of the military.  Remember, that was the conclusion of what I recall was an opinion by a DoD office (as quoted in the minutes of the NEC, BoG, or NB - I forget which one).  If they came to that conclusion, then we could do border security type missions as AFAMs. 

There are actually two opinions.  The CAP General Counsel issued an opinion that CAP, since we are a "Civilian" auxiliary of the AF, is not covered under PCA.  There is also an Attorney General's memorandum that "Military auxiliaries" are covered under the PCA as elements of the military.  There is no definitive court decision on this.

Basically, what I am saying is not that I think certain results will follow this study, but that I do NOT know what will follow this study, and I am brainstorming several "Worst case" scenarios to try to decide if the changes envisioned by the study are good or bad for CAP.  I see three possible outcomes:

1.  NO CHANGE:  Maybe a modification of the MOU between the AF and the DHS with respect to CAP to allow for more direct notification/callup of assets, but that CAP, when called to assist any federal agency, will remain an Aux of the AF.

2.  USCG MODEL:  CAP will transfer from the Air Force to DHS, and serve like the USCG does under the Secy. of HS for most missions.  Just as the Navy can call up USCG assets, however, the USAF will retain the right to task CAP assets for AF missions.

3.  TWO MASTERS:  CAP remains the Aux of the Air Force, but that DHS has the right to directly task CAP assets, with CAP acting as an "Instrumentality of Government" regardless of whether called up by the AF or DHS.

Personally, I think plan #3 is the most likely.  #2 would suck, but cannot be ruled out at this time.

[RiverAux]

Nah, #1 is the most likely. 

#3 - I don't see any situation where DHS would directly "task" CAP.  We could end up in a situation where they could direclty "request" CAP help just like any state or local agency can request CAP help through the NOC.  But thats basically what they do now anyway.

#2 has no chance -- as I said before, if DHS doesn't want to be forced to sign an MOU with CAP, they're going to fight tooth and nail against having CAP being forced onto them, especially since they already have a civilian service auxiliary with light air capacity available to them. 

[DrJbdm]

As for armed CAP members, while possible, I feel this is extremely unlikely

  It's no longer unlikely, it has come to pass. The Texas Wing Commander has now authorized members who are Law Enforcement Officers to be armed while in CAP uniform, all the member has to do if fill out a short form, provide a copy of their Dept. ID and have a supervisor at their agency sign the form to attest that they are a LEO, that's it and now the member may be armed in CAP uniform.

  The Wing Commander will issue written authority for the member to be armed, it also further states that CAP can not disarm the member and that they may be armed at all times.

  This came along as many departments have a policy that requires that an officer be armed while off duty, CAP really had no choice, it was either allow police officers who are members to be armed or exclude membership to police officers....and trust me, that is the last thing CAP wants to do, cops make some of the best members.  it is important to understand that this is a Texas Wing policy, it has not been approved as a National CAP policy, and it only applies to current full time federal, state or local police officers, retired officers, reserve officers or those members with a CHL are not included.

  Over all it was an interesting development, it was something that should have been done a long time ago.

[Eclipse]

The above is nothing new, and applies to every wing where the Wing CC is so inclined to write the authorization, the allowance has been in place since at least 1986.

1. Firearms. Civil Air Patrol members will not carry, wear, or use firearms, including air guns (pellet or BB) while engaged in Civil Air Patrol activities. The carrying of firearms prohibition is subject to the following exceptions:

a. A member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the Wing Commander.
b. Firearms may be carried in survival gear in CAP aircraft when required by law. When firearms are so authorized, they will not be removed from the survival gear unless an emergency situation exists.
c. Firearms may be used under strict supervision as authorized in CAPM 50-16.

(emphasis mine)

This does not mean that CAP members, LEO or otherwise, are authorized to be wearing a weapon in full view of the public on a holster over their BDU's or service dress, it always allowed for LEO's to be armed discreetly (as they have done for years).

You will >never<, ever, never, ever, see any CAP members who do not have some authorization / requirement from another agency authorized to carry weapons.

Never, ever.

Never.

[RiverAux]

Actually, it is something new if it were in accordance with CAP regs (which it is not).  A LE agency policy IS NOT LAW.  It is no different than an internal policy of any employer and CAP is not required to honor it.  I don't see how a wing supplement is going to trump the clear language of 900-3. 

[Eclipse]

Actually, it is something new if it were in accordance with CAP regs (which it is not).  A LE agency policy IS NOT LAW.  It is no different than an internal policy of any employer and CAP is not required to honor it.  I don't see how a wing supplement is going to trump the clear language of 900-3. 

The requirement to carry a firearm is a part of the legal definition of an LEO in many states / jurisdictions, and is, in fact, supported by law.

[RiverAux]

If it is in a law yes.  But what was brought up here was "policy".  Thats a whole different issue, and this should probably go in a different thread...

[Major Carrales]

I just see this as an instrumentality that will allow for DHS to directly task CAP on certain missions.  I see this one day becoming, if passed, a similar thing as the Counter Drug program which will require some special training.  Thus, there will be a "core/corps" of CAP Officers specially trained to work with and for DHS.  The rest of CAP will continue on its merry path.

The radical changes mentioned here may not come to pass, however, my great respect for Kach warrants that I place a good degree of value on them and thus I will await the finding of the GAO with eyes open.

[DrJbdm]

While yes the issue of members being armed while in uniform has been on the books for a while, it was rarely ever authorized, in fact I don't remember a single member who was a police officer ever getting the Wing Commander or any other Commander to follow CAPR 900-3.

 State law allows police officers to carry a firearm off duty, however state law has never made a distinction of an officer being on or off duty, it is a safe bet that a police officer is never really considered to be off duty and as such they hold full legal authority to act as a peace officer regardless of their actual duty status and in some cases may even be required to act. Dept. policy is not something an officer can choose to follow or not follow, it is very much different then a corporate policy at a regular civilian company. Dept. policy is supported by state law and it effects an officer at all times. My dept even forbids officers to have a myspace account. Our off duty behavior is watched at all times, we are never really free to do the things that a normal person can do in the privacy of their own homes...like have a myspace page.

 As for openly carrying a weapon in uniform, the actual language of the paper does not address it, it simply states that a law enforcement officer may carry his/her weapon at all times. however, I would HIGHLY doubt you would see a member carrying his weapon out in the open unless he had no viable alternative. Most department policies dictate that the weapon be carried concealed. About the only times I wear a visable weapon while out of uniform is when I'm either working a plain clothes function like CID or a special event or when I'm in in-service training, but I typically wear the department polo shirt then.

[DrJbdm]

MODS, can you break this off to a separate thread? so that the conversation may continue without our drifting off the current topic. thanks

[MIKE]

Nah... it's done.