• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB 20: Emerg Serv & Disas Law; shall not be interpreted to prohibit carrying firearms

MSC 45ACP

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,840
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I hope that clarifies my previous post to your satisfaction.

Not exactly... this material is obviously dated before 9/11/01 (or shortly thereafter) when the Coast Guard was transferred from DOT to Homeland Security. They were one of the founding agencies of DHS.
(Not something I'm proud of, BTW...)
 

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
Not exactly... this material is obviously dated before 9/11/01 (or shortly thereafter) when the Coast Guard was transferred from DOT to Homeland Security. They were one of the founding agencies of DHS.
(Not something I'm proud of, BTW...)
Again, the part I was correcting you regarded the National Guard. I was trying to support and agree with you regarding the Coast Guard.

The National Guard is subject to Posse Comitatus when it is federalized, at least under current legal interpretations. The Coast Guard is not subject to Posse Comitatus, but can be made subject to the Navy's comparable regulatory directive for any personnel who might be transferred to be under Navy authority.
 
Top