Authority Of The USCG Aux

dannc said:

Does that mean active LEO's cannot be and USCG auxiliary member?

Later,
Dan

Click to expand...

Only forbidden where conflict of interest such as VSC as an example. Any form of law enforcement that could conflict with the AUX mission might cause a problem. I am not specifically authorized to speak for the CGAUX, but there is a detailed written set of standards in the AUX manual. I can not answer the basic question but will inquire and may have a answer after Monday.

From the manual I posted a link to earlier....

Section Q. Weapons
Weapons, except those worn by certified law enforcement officers in accordance with
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and required by their agency policy, may
not be worn, carried, or held by any Auxiliarist or guest of the Auxiliary while attending
an approved Auxiliary function or participating in an authorized Auxiliary activity,
including regularly scheduled detachment, flotilla, or division meetings. This prohibition....

Unless the wine isn't doing its job properly...I read this to mean LEOS can be auxiliarist and carry their weapon IAW.....


Not sure how doing a VSC would constitute a conflict.

psneeld said:

I don't dispute the lawyers facts...but when I first read it it seemed to suggest the USCGAUX was a bit more than it is.

Unfortunately for every great auxiliarist there are 10 blowhards7 and for every great flotilla there's a few too many old boys clubs.

Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative, but my experience working with them has been anything but.

hmason said:

I had a voluntary safety inspection by the CGAUX. this was the 4th annual inspection on this boat. They picked up something I never knew and I'm wondering if others are aware of this requirement:

The documentation number which is permanently affixed in my engine room MUST be preceded by the designation "NO." And mine were not. The penalty for this "violation" is $10,000! Yes, you read that correctly $10K. And, ongoing daily fines until corrected. Needless to say I have ordered a new number board.

Interestingly this was never picked up in prior inspections.

Howard

Click to expand...

I believe it is on the documentation paper or "How to number" on the Documentation center FAQ page.

As I think many other have pointed out in other threads....my last inspection they never asked to even see them. If there was any doubt of ownership or scrutiny of your doc papers....it might be a big deal then.

My oh my...some things never change.

Cut the AUX some Slack.
Rather than my formerly long winded posts, here it is in a few nutshells:

1) Free labor, fuel cost only floating assets, people willing to risk it all to do the grunt work that most of the active and reserve don't want to do.
We used to have a couple of them that would drop by the station to lend a hand with maintenance issues of both fixed and floating asset. All for a hand shake and a thank you, and maybe an invitation to the next station party/picnic/cook out.

2) The uniforms are similar to the regular/reserve as are those worn by the USAF AUX, aka: CAP (senior and Junior Squadrons).

3) Many of these folks are retired professionals, successful business people, cops (yes cops), firefighters, teachers/professors, doctors, etc., who volunteer their otherwise FAMILY TIME and assets to assist the coast guard and total strangers, and bring to the table a ton of experience.

4) I'm sorry, but I don't see them as problems. We had the occasional overzealous types, but we had them in the Coast Guard as well.
Usually a conversation took care of the problem. No reason to lose your mind as the Chief apparently did.

5) Finally, both of these organizations have in the very distance past, been used in "homeland security" support missions, long before "Homeland Security" was ever "conceived" (a case for the morning after pill if I've ever seen one!).:lol:

Frankly, I'm pretty happy having them around.
Thanks for those that serve the safety of the maritime community, in any capacity.

I read the part about the Coast Guard personnel not being considered "real" LEOS, and about spewed my water

That's an issue that's been going on as long as I've been in/around law enforcement. The State looked down on the County, the County looked down on the City, Everybody joked about the University Cops, and everyone thought their willy was bigger than everyone elses

We used to say there was the State (Highway Patrol), the Sheriff's Office and Brand X (literally everyone else). We considered Game or Marine Patrol officer's "Grouper Troopers", and I actually heard a gym owner who gave local law enforcement a discount on gym fees, say to a trooper "I only give that to "real" cops!"

Looking back, I am embarrassed by the lack of respect and immature attitude everyone displayed. Thankfully, most of us grew up. I'd hate to think that we've de-evolved back to that period

The bottom line is, and we proved this vividly, or better said, had someone prove it to us,during 9-11! Everyone plays a role in law enforcement, and this debacle and abortion we call "Homeland Security."

We all have a job to do, and if we continue looking down our noses on other agencies, continue to withhold information and not communicate with other professionals, then we WILL see it again! And while some still believe otherwise, no one agency can do it all themselves!

Just like the military. While "SEALS" are the buzzword du jour, the fact is, there's a lot that goes into making any mission successful, and a lot of people and different agencies. From the Sea to the center of the country, no one group can do it all themselves!..least I digress...

In this case, I guess the "COP" status of Coast Guard personnel is debatable. I have a very good friend who used to constantly refer to himself as a "Federal Officer." In reality, he's a flight deck safety officer. An armed pilot. And while it's true that he undergoes a lot of the same proficiency training as an Air Marshall, is he really a "cop?" Does he go out every day and do what cops do (whatever that may be-LOL)? The answer of course is no. He's a professional pilot, and frankly, I'd rather have him proficient in that aspect while flying the plane.

To me, it's the same with the Coasties.
They have a Federal responsibility and do their best to fulfill it.
While in their respective lives yes, they are "cops."
Whether some local/state or other federal cop thinks otherwise is immaterial.

I'm sorry to read that some people don't consider them cops. I understand the mentality, but I don't agree with it.

Are they full time street or detective type cops? No.
Yet under federal law, they are still LEO's, as such, they are cops!

They carry firearms and have arrest authority.
They can stop you, search you/your vessel without a warrant (try that on a local level, and let me know how it works out for you?:lol, terminate your voyage, seize your vessel, and put your back side in Federal Prison. Sounds like cop work to me. And when you take down several tons of dope and a boat full of A-holes, then that sounds like cop work to me again!

The facts that most coast guard crews only do police work on a sporadic basis, and that most cops still view them as military personnel much the same as an MP, SP or other military police officer, probably has a something to do with the officers viewpoint. Military and civilian style law enforcement can vary drastically in its application.

And regardless of the training, they're still going to require a good bit of training to do daily, on the road or detective type, police work.

This is not to say they are any less "cop" than anyone else.
When I joined the USCG(r), I was a cop. I remained a cop throughout my tenure there. And while I and the rest of our boat crews generally had more law enforcement experience individually, than most of our active duty crews had collectively, I still had a LOT to learn about maritime/admiralty law enforcement and the way the Coast Guard does things. Some of the things they did made no sense. Some were downright dangerous! Others were squared away and made perfect sense. It just depends on who was in charge that year, and what local policies were in place. Sometimes this could be frustrating and confusing, thus the term Uncle Sam's Confused Group.

But I loved every minute of it, and miss it even today. I was fortunate that my local group (now sector) recognized our LEO's as an asset and utilized us on a district level to train active duty and reserve personnel in various law enforcement related topics, such as firearms, defensive tactics, search and seizure, and officer safety.

So, are they cops?
Yes, very much so. Punch one, and go to Federal Court for Assault on a Federal LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

Maybe, if there was more interaction between the Coast Guard and local law enforcement, there would be a better relationship? But for the most part, unless you're a local cop involved with maritime enforcement, your interaction with the CG is going to be relatively minimal.
I know we've had a few FTX's where all agencies involved in port security were involved, and I understand that they went well.

I still have several friends with kids in the CG, and as to the person that can carry his/her weapon anywhere in the US, I will be willing to bet that it's not so much because they're a "Federal Law Enforcement Officer." The Commandant or local command (IIRC) can shut that down at any time.

I would venture that's it's more likely they are covered under HR218 (LEOSA), as amended a few years back to include the Coast Guard, and other military personnel whose job description involved the enforcement of laws, apprehension of criminals and prosecution of cases. This even extended to SP's/MP's and MI personnel, and most would not consider MI personnel "cops" in the conventional term.
It still requires the commands approval if I recall correctly.

LEOSA allows active and honorably retired LEO's, the ability pursuant to proper qualification and annual requalification, to carry concealed firearms anywhere in the US within certain guidelines.

As for the law enforcement authority of the Coast Guard, they once used the term "Smokey's of the Sea."

As for me, I'll still consider them cops!
Semper Paratus baby!

I like to think of the USCGAUX as old men with yachts trying to help.

alormaria said:

I like to think of the USCGAUX as old men with yachts trying to help.

Click to expand...

Yep!!!

alormaria said:

I like to think of the USCGAUX as old men with yachts trying to help.

Click to expand...

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

Yep!!!

Click to expand...

I have to say besides I am amazed at some of the conclusions expressed here, absent any facts.

I would say that my flotilla, 0140503, was pretty much the same age curve as TF, BUT perhaps a bit younger. yes, younger.

the Aux attracts a lot of young people who want to help, but don't or can't go active duty. Some eventually do join the USN or USCG, many join the Aux after their tour in the military, all branches. We had teenagers, with the majority between 20 and 45 years old. The over 60 crowd, like myself, were in a definite minority.

Why, because they want to help.

At least in Sector NY, the gold side as we called the USCG appreciated our efforts and our patrols. With all the BS about terrorism, how many small patrol boats do you think the USCG has out at any given time? Far less than you can imagine. This basically means, that for the poor boater who runs of fuel, or some other mishap, that he/she needs help, the Aux will probably be there before anyone else.

There is even an aviation section that supports off shore patrols.

Lastly, Thank you OFF DUTY for trying to set the picture straight.

ksanders said:

Maybe not.

But on that stormy night, its going to be the United States Coast Guard standing between you and the darkest of times. When your voice comes in over the radio, afraid, and cold, with no hope at all, it will be the members of the United States Coast Guard that will risk their lives to save yours. It doesn't matter how stormy it is. It doesn't matter how dangerous it is. If they can hear you, they will come.

Click to expand...

This is generally true, although there are qualifications. For example, if an air station is called to send a helicopter because a Coast Guard boat can't reach the scene in a timely manner, and severe icing exists that is beyond the approved capability of the aircraft, the air station senior duty officer will not allow the crew to launch. Suicide missions are not part of the "code". Of course a fixed wing aircraft with icing protection might be sent, or a boat...but they're often hours from the incident. That said, helicopter crews often encounter unforecast and "challenging" meteorological conditions en route and keep going once launched. The same logic is applied in the boating community...some sort of asset will be dispatched, but what it is and from where, does have some logic and safety assessment associated with the decision to launch.

This management level oversight is what is often missing in the civilian helicopter "Life Flight" type rescue operations and is largely responsible for pointless accidents that kill the patient (and crew) while in the process of saving him/her.

Wxx3 said:

There is even an aviation section that supports off shore patrols.

Click to expand...

My father did that for a while. He and a buddy would fly around the Chesapeake Bay looking for polluters and such. I don't think the motivation was to "help" as much as an excuse to just go flying and (I think) have some of his flying expenses paid.

MrJim said:

My father did that for a while. He and a buddy would fly around the Chesapeake Bay looking for polluters and such. I don't think the motivation was to "help" as much as an excuse to just go flying and (I think) have some of his flying expenses paid.

Click to expand...

Hey, still got the job done, right?

IntervaleII said:

View attachment 38018
...Hand on the trigger of the gun. Safe to say I stayed clear!
Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum
Capt. Don

Click to expand...

If that's the case, then that in and of itself is a terrifying thought on several levels...

Wxx3 said:

...Lastly, Thank you OFF DUTY for trying to set the picture straight.

Click to expand...

Welcome. Thanks for your service to the boating community.
(even if it is unappreciated by some)

skidgear said:

This is generally true, although there are qualifications. For example, if an air station is called to send a helicopter because a Coast Guard boat can't reach the scene in a timely manner, and severe icing exists that is beyond the approved capability of the aircraft, the air station senior duty officer will not allow the crew to launch. Suicide missions are not part of the "code". Of course a fixed wing aircraft with icing protection might be sent, or a boat...but they're often hours from the incident. That said, helicopter crews often encounter unforecast and "challenging" meteorological conditions en route and keep going once launched. The same logic is applied in the boating community...some sort of asset will be dispatched, but what it is and from where, does have some logic and safety assessment associated with the decision to launch.

This management level oversight is what is often missing in the civilian helicopter "Life Flight" type rescue operations and is largely responsible for pointless accidents that kill the patient (and crew) while in the process of saving him/her.

Click to expand...

True in some situations, but every H-60 I worked on had an active blade de-ice system....

There's definitely misconceptions on all sides....as I said..depends where you are and when you observe Aux activities.


Overall a USCG asset...but all the way back to the original post....I think the takeaway from the article is less than accurate ...even though all those authorities and ties appear on paper.


Having been the active duty operations officer with oversight of quite a few flotillas ...and reviewing all the accolades and condemnations of those flotillas...and my personal experience with others around the nation...I will just say they can be a great asset when all goes well.

psneeld said:

There's definitely misconceptions on all sides....as I said..depends where you are and when you observe Aux activities.


Overall a USCG asset...but all the way back to the original post....I think the takeaway from the article is less than accurate ...even though all those authorities and ties appear on paper.


Having been the active duty operations officer with oversight of quite a few flotillas ...and reviewing all the accolades and condemnations of those flotillas...and my personal experience with others around the nation...I will just say they can be a great asset when all goes well.

Click to expand...

Amen and well said!

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

True in some situations, but every H-60 I worked on had an active blade de-ice system....

Click to expand...

The H-60 system provides a limited icing envelope. That envelope is one of the considerations in whether a crew is launched on a mission.

Neither of the helos I flew had anti/deicing...but almost impossible to fly one in the Northeast or Alaskan Maritime during the winter and not regularly pick up icing.

Ya just had to be really careful and either be experienced or pray a lot.

BUT absolutely correct that the old days motto of "you have to go out, but you don't have to come back" pretty much died out in the 90's.

One thing that hasn't been said is that the AUX has radios and probably a cell phone, and if it's bad enough or a danger to life and property, they are going to call it in. I know I have in the case of high speed drivers and in the case of an unsafe activity on the water that was a threat to me or someone else I would. They do not have the authority but they know how to get hold of someone who does.

Tom

Your Auxiliary sounds a good service. We have "Marine Rescue" here, it has some Govt. support, including financial ( really comes from us via an MR loading fee on registrations etc). They seem good guys, never called on them myself, I did hear from a friend whose sailboat they rescued at night offshore in bad conditions they were a little heavy seeking donations. Not that my friend would have been ungenerous, these MR guys are volunteers and deserve our support, like your Auxiliary.

BruceK said:

Your Auxiliary sounds a good service. We have "Marine Rescue" here, it has some Govt. support, including financial ( really comes from us via an MR loading fee on registrations etc). They seem good guys, never called on them myself, I did hear from a friend whose sailboat they rescued at night offshore in bad conditions they were a little heavy seeking donations. Not that my friend would have been ungenerous, these MR guys are volunteers and deserve our support, like your Auxiliary.

Click to expand...

I think volunteer rescue services i many countries are very different than the USCG Auxiliary....again not that they are bad....they are not really a rescue service as many know.

They do assist on rescue cases...but rarely to the extent seen elsewhere....when I was operational...they were never first call on anything but non emergency situations.

Not that many aren't good or brave enough...just not the protocol.

Definitely not 1st call, but I can remember many occasions in the 7th, where they were already in the area doing what they do, when the SAR call came in.

Usually beat us to the bodies by 1/2 hr or so, and pulled many a soul out of the drink

I guess we could this thing to death, but like psneeld said, it depends on what, when, and where you were around them.

My experience was strongly negative and a very near miss as two vessels recklessly surrounded my divers on a marked dive site and refused to answer repeated radio calls, even though I could hear my own voice over the water on their own radios. I will never support them again. Ever. The fact is, they insert themselves into situations they are not trained for. Not all of them, or even many of them, but there are not enough necessary controls in place to prevent them doing harm. If we need coast guard, let's invest in trained individuals, that's what I would be for. Never auxiliary without tight controls and training. The current program, and district 13 in particular needs to go away.

People have often told me, oh that was probably such and such and they retired, blah blah blah. The point is that there is nothing in the program other than luck and good intentions to avoid blowhards or dangerous elderly folk who get flustered and do something dangerous. The cga is simply not managed well enough and good intentions, volunteerism, etc. is no excuse. We should not allow poorly trained folks or those who can no longer meet qualifications to feel they are qualified for things they clearly are not. Those who would volunteer are likely already out on the water, so in reality they are not adding anything that would not already be present anyway if we abolish the cga.

Anyhow that's my opinion. I dont feel I should look past close calls that are programmatic in nature to the program itself. It's only a matter of time before circumstances will repeat.

ghost said:

My experience was strongly negative and a very near miss as two vessels recklessly surrounded my divers on a marked dive site and refused to answer repeated radio calls, even though I could hear my own voice over the water on their own radios. I will never support them again. Ever. The fact is, they insert themselves into situations they are not trained for. Not all of them, or even many of them, but there are not enough necessary controls in place to prevent them doing harm. If we need coast guard, let's invest in trained individuals, that's what I would be for. Never auxiliary without tight controls and training. The current program, and district 13 in particular needs to go away.

People have often told me, oh that was probably such and such and they retired, blah blah blah. The point is that there is nothing in the program other than luck and good intentions to avoid blowhards or dangerous elderly folk who get flustered and do something dangerous. The cga is simply not managed well enough and good intentions, volunteerism, etc. is no excuse. We should not allow poorly trained folks or those who can no longer meet qualifications to feel they are qualified for things they clearly are not. Those who would volunteer are likely already out on the water, so in reality they are not adding anything that would not already be present anyway if we abolish the cga.

Anyhow that's my opinion. I dont feel I should look past close calls that are programmatic in nature to the program itself. It's only a matter of time before circumstances will repeat.

Click to expand...

I personally investigated many a USCGAUX incident and removed the coxswain credentials from one individual in my tenure...while the system is less than perfect...it is what it is and not overall as bad as your posted experience..

.I will just say they can be a great asset when all goes well.

Sorta what George Washington said about FIRE in his departure speech.

I did get my inspection this weekend and passed, so they do provide a good service.

IntervaleII said:

View attachment 38018
Here is one who is making sure I don't get to close to the Navy submarine in the ICW.
Hand on the trigger of the gun. Safe to say I stayed clear!

Click to expand...

I can't tell from the resolution of that pic, but I can note that hand on firearm isn't the same as finger on trigger.

-Chris

ghost said:

If we need coast guard, let's invest in trained individuals, that's what I would be for.

Click to expand...

Realistically, difficult to see enough plus-up in the CG budget to replace what CGAux does...

(Or hardly any plus-up for CG's existing mission, for that matter...)

-Chris