Well, Chunk is right in that CAP isn't military in the strict Geneva Convention sense (though there is some debate about that; somebody once pointed out that one of the Geneva categories seems to apply), but when it performs its Air Force-directed missions of SAR, Disaster Relief and Counterdrug Ops (and soon, Homeland Security ops), it does so as an instrumentality of the federal government, kinda like the Coast Guard (which I don't believe is military in the strict Geneva Convention sense, either).
To iceman21's point, CAP flight operations fall into three categories; most flights in the first two would be considered essential US government flight operations and would not be subject to the limitations of a TFR if mission requirements so dictate. During the nationwide ground stop on 9/11 and afterward, CAP operations were among the few non-military flights allowed (FEMA airlift, blood and live organ transport, mostly). In fact, CAP performed the first aerial damage assessment flight (part of our Disaster Relief mission) over the WTC site on 9/12. CAP can and has had TFRs established over areas where concentrated SAR operations are in progress. Obviously, stuff like training, proficiency flights and Cadet orientation flights isn't considered mission-critical.
Virtually all of CAP's SAR operations are coordinated by Eagle's counterparts at the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center at Langley AFB--CAP doesn't make a move until AFRCC issues a mission number. CAP's disaster relief activities are conducted under the direction of the Air Force National Security Emergency Preparedness (AFNSEP) office, which oversees all aspects of Air Force Military Support to Civilian Authorities (MSCA), Continuity of Operations for the Air Staff (COOP), is the principal USAF Point of Contact for Homeland Security and is the liaison with other federal agencies in all these areas. Finally, CAP's counterdrug activities are under the direction of US Customs and the DEA via an agreement with USAF.
And again, Chunk--your argument that CAP shouldn't be funded by taxpayer dollars is "pennywise and pound-foolish"--which doesn't surprise me in the least, given your support of similarly foolish budgetary choices by the Bush administration. SOMEBODY has to do what CAP does; that CAP members do it for no pay or benefits is one of the greatest bargains the US government enjoys today. Here's a simple comparison: to put up a single HH-60 for an hour costs about $800 solely in operating expenses and doesn't include the cost of the aircraft or the pay and benefits of the crew. To put up a single CAP aircraft for an hour costs about $90. In FY01, CAP flew 10,712 hours in support of SAR (saving 61 lives in the process, incidentally); at $90/hr, that's about $964,000 (less than $16,000 per save--not a bad deal at all). To fly the same number of hours in an HH-60 would have cost the taxpayers just over $8.5 million. Which tab would you rather pay? The taxpayers will always have to pay for SAR unless and until somebody decides the beneficiaries of such services should bear that burden exclusively. Can you say "mandatory SAR insurance"? I can only imagine the premiums.
Anyway, I'll look into what impact the new DC NOTAMs are having on CAP flight ops and let you know.