@mott-the-hoople said
your 'legal source" is wrong. But there isnt one is thgere, you are making things up.
lets go straight to the source...
[b]"The key to state active service is that Federal Law provides the Governor with the ability
to place a soldier in a full-time duty status under the command and control of the State
but directly funded with Federal dollars. Even though th ...[text shortened]... //www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/Army-National-Guard/Resources/News/ARNG-Media/FileId/137011/
Nothing there contradicts what I said; just because the Feds are paying for something doesn't make it "federalized" - the Federal government routinely funds many programs which are under State control. From your quote:
"the chain of command rests within the State. "
I'm puzzled; I already give you the cite for my legal source -(https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42659.html)
how am I "making it up"? Here's another from the Military Times:
" it is well established that the Posse Comitatus Act (Section 1385 of Title 18, United States Code) prohibits federal forces from domestic law enforcement activities unless the president has directed operations under the Insurrection Act or related provisions under U.S. Code Title 10, which covers use of the armed forces. Yet, the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to members of the National Guard in a
state status authorized by U.S. Code Title 32 and under the command and control of their respective state or territorial governor exercised through an adjutant general."
https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2021/03/18/the-national-guard-can-do-it-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-a-good-idea/