Reservist Mobilization pistol purchase

[AregularGuy]

That would change his entitlements as well, goodbye current BAH rate, which for me would be a significant pay cut.

This alone would make it not worth the hassle. With BAH I'm making more than my regular job back home.

You've got a couple a different issues going on here:

1) As to your ability to purchase a handgun in Texas - Under federal law, you must be a resident of the state where you purchase a handgun. For purposes of federal law (but not California law), you're a resident of the states where your PCS orders place you. Simply being assigned in a state under some form of orders is insufficient. The orders must be "Permanent Change of Station" orders (refer to 18 USC 921(b)). When reservists are mobilized, the orders can take many different forms (Note: "Title 10" is not a form of mobilization order, it's the source of an authority to issue orders. If you're regular Army, any orders that you get will be issued under Title 10. The Title 10 distinction only applies to the National Guard where members can receive either state , or Title 10, orders).....

Well, well, what do you know? My leadership has given me incorrect information? Cannot be . Every time someone asks if we are qualified for this, or can we do that, their answer is "No, you are on Title 10 orders". Now I see, and have read that is of no consequence in my situation. Someone in my COC has some brushing up to do, and I have spread the FUD, lol!

[RickD427]

This alone would make it not worth the hassle. With BAH I'm making more than my regular job back home.




Well, well, what do you know? My leadership has given me incorrect information? Cannot be . Every time someone asks if we are qualified for this, or can we do that, their answer is "No, you are on Title 10 orders". Now I see, and have read that is of no consequence in my situation. Someone in my COC has some brushing up to do, and I have spread the FUD, lol!

It wouldn't be the first time. Instead of listening to other folks (myself included), why don't you just read the law for yourself? Here it is (quoted from 18 USC 921(b):

"For the purposes of this chapter, a member of the Armed Forces on active duty is a resident of the State in which his permanent duty station is located."

Please not there is no mention of state orders, or Title 10 (federal) orders. The only test is where your permanent duty station is located. The only form of military orders that produce a change in one's duty station are PCS (Permanent Change of Station) orders.

[Milsurp1]

[RickD427]

Nope, Here's another example of someone not paying attention to the law. The Posse Comitatus Act is another one that is often misquoted. Let's look at what the act actually says. It's an old law and one of very few words. Here it is (quoted from 18 USC 1385):

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Please note that there ain't anything in the act discussing what type of orders a military member is serving under, and further note that the act only applies to the Army and Air Force. It DOES NOT APPLY to the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.

But also note that even though the act does not apply to the Navy and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Defense has issued a directive that members of the those two services basically conduct themselves as if the act did apply to them.

But that's different than those services being covered by the act. The PCA came about during the reconstruction period and it's purpose was to impose criminal penalties on civil officials (primarily local sheriffs) who conscripted military units to perform local law enforcement duties. It's objective was not to put military members in the brig if they served as a posse, it was to put the local sheriff in prison. There's no "teeth" in the DoD directive that could possibly send a local sheriff to prison.

We've kinda lost sight of that purpose through the years, and the common military belief that PCA prohibits all military members from performing law enforcement duties is a good example.

[Milsurp1]

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf

[Milsurp1]

[tomk556]

That would change his entitlements as well, goodbye current BAH rate, which for me would be a significant pay cut.

THAT! El Paso BAH is probably trash relative to anything in CA.

[Milsurp1]

[Milsurp1]

The courts have most definitely found it critical to determine whether the National Guard was acting under state or federal authority (Title 32 or Title 10) in order to determine whether the PCA prohibition applied. See the authorities cited in footnote 419.

[RickD427]

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf

I'm well familiar with the CRS document that you've posted. It's an excellent reference and thank you for posting it.

The narrative that you've cited on page 61 does not support your view that application of the PCA is controlled by the type of orders a members is serving under. It goes directly back to the basics of whether the National Guard is a component of the Army (which would make it subject to the PCA) or not. The whole discussion about the type of orders is purely secondary to that question.

Please review pages 5-17 and page 59 of the document and you'll see that it reinforces the comments made in my prior posting.

My background is a little different, I'm a retired Coast Guard officer. I did a lot of study into the PCA while a student at the Naval War College and did have some brief experience in applying it while running a field command post during the L.A. riots while a member of the Sheriff's Department. During the riots, the PCA did not apply to the National Guard as they were a state agency and not acting as a component of the Army, although they were under orders that mimicked the PCA. The Marines were not under the PCA because they were not Army or Air Force, but were required to follow protocols that mimicked the PCA because of the DoD directive. I won't get into the part about why the National Guard (tied to) deploy with one bullet apiece on the first night of the riots, but I will observe that the Marines bought bullets when the arrived on the second night.

[Milsurp1]

[Milsurp1]

Autocorrect: nuisances should read nuances.

[RickD427]

The same substantive restrictions apply to the Navy and Marine Corps through subsequent legislative and regulatory actions, cited in footnotes 406 and 407 of the Congressional Research Service document I linked.

That's one of the major misconceptions about the PCA.

It is true that the DoD directive toward the Navy and Marine Corps was intended to cause both services to act as if the PCA applied to them. But that does not achieve the goals of the PCA with regard to the Navy and Marine Corps. Here's an example of how that works:

1) If, during the L.A. riots, I approached the leader of an Army unit and said, "I'm now deputizing you and ordering you under California Penal Code section 150 to arrest those rioters over there", I could go to federal prison for two years.

2) If I approach the leader of a Marine Corps unit and do the same thing, I'm free and clear.

The problem with most folk's view of the PCA is that they view it as limiting what the MILITARY units can do. And while it's true that the PCA does limit the Army and Air Force, that's not the purpose of the PCA. The purpose was to create criminal liability for civilian officials.

If you're going to argue that the PCA effectively applies to the Navy and Marine Corps, then please explain how I, as a Sheriff's Department official, could go to prison under example (2).

[RickD427]

No argument here. That's a good description of how the National Guard can be a component of the Army, or not.

[Milsurp1]