TexasCHLforum.com

In checking in for the first time in a long time at texasguntalk, I came across a thread that will likely be of great interest to many here.

The following quote summarizes:

"Keep in mind that due to a Federal Court case of Nesbitt v USACE 2018, that the USACE lost and the federal court found current regulations unconstitutional, The USACE districts are REQUIRED to issue permission letters providing you have a LTC/CHL for the state their recreational properties are located, or a Reciprocity with that state."

The original poster indicated that policy changes are in the works to make things similar to what was done with national parks. I spend a lot of time on and around Lake Lewisville and Lake Texoma and do not care to wait however long that might be.

While it appears the request may be done electronically, I plan to send mine the old fashioned way today - certified mail/return receipt so that I will have hard copies.

Attn: District Commander, Fort Worth District 819 Taylor Street Fort Worth TX 76102

Attn: District Commander, Tulsa District 2488 E. 81st Street Tulsa OK 74137

Do they require a particular form? Or did you just draft a letter? Care to share the text of your letter? Would be interested to see how your request plays out.

Greybeard wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:42 amThe original poster indicated that policy changes are in the works to make things similar to what was done with national parks.

The proposed revision published 13 Apr 2020 was withdrawn 26 Apr 2021. The regulation is unchanged.

Can someone catch me up on what this is about? I spend a lot of time on ACOE land as a mountain biker.

couzin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:37 pm

Greybeard wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:42 amThe original poster indicated that policy changes are in the works to make things similar to what was done with national parks.

The proposed revision published 13 Apr 2020 was withdrawn 26 Apr 2021. The regulation is unchanged.

Yep, probably an anti gun democrat in charge now.

couzin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:37 pm

Greybeard wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:42 amThe original poster indicated that policy changes are in the works to make things similar to what was done with national parks.

The proposed revision published 13 Apr 2020 was withdrawn 26 Apr 2021. The regulation is unchanged.

This is my understanding, too. We are exactly where we are before Nesbitt

Rant on:
President Trump could have fixed this with no more effort than swatting a fly - by issuing an executive order that all of the COE had to comply with Nesbitt. It sticks in my craw that Federal Judges continue to issue rulings that apply to the whole country and yet Nesbitt was only applied to one District. To me, there is no more weak kneed argument than the COE rangers not being armed as the reason to deny the rest of us access to land within our State where we are licensed simply because the COE controls the waterflow on that land.

I drive over Grapevine dam several times a week. I'm officially breaking the law every time that I do while carrying. I get it that there is no enforcement but that further underscores the lunacy of the regulation. There is no way that the current lunacy in power is going to erase this lunacy.
Rant off:

Are there any ongoing legal challenges to the rescinding of the order?

Prior questions: "Do they require a particular form? Or did you just draft a letter? Care to share the text of your letter? Would be interested to see how your request plays out."

No particular form that I am aware of. I REALLY did it the old fashioned way; single page, hand written (printed). Without referencing Nesbitt, I simply addressed them to "District Commander" and requested the "permission letter" to carry on recreational properties. And referenced an attached a copy of my LTC. To keep it as non-confrontational as practical, I decided not to send certified. Yep, I will post here if/when I get a reply.

Thanks Greybeard. Will await your post regarding a reply. Couple of CoE properties near me and like you, need to routinely cross over their dams.

I received a 2-page "permission letter" today from Tulsa District Commander. Pretty quick turn-around. :-) Still waiting to see what happens out of Ft. Worth office.

Greybeard wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 4:59 pm I received a 2-page "permission letter" today from Tulsa District Commander. Pretty quick turn-around. :-) Still waiting to see what happens out of Ft. Worth office.

Care to share a redacted copy?

"Care to share a redacted copy?"

Nah, not much of a techie - and don't believe appropriate. My Sept. 2 post explains how simple it was to get the real thing.

couzin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:37 pm

Greybeard wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:42 amThe original poster indicated that policy changes are in the works to make things similar to what was done with national parks.

The proposed revision published 13 Apr 2020 was withdrawn 26 Apr 2021. The regulation is unchanged.

\

I watched this happening. I believed the ACE slow rolled implementation of the regulation in hopes that a Dem would become president. There was plenty of time after the comment period closed to publish the reg, but it just sat there.

ELB wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:37 pmI watched this happening. I believed the ACE slow rolled implementation of the regulation in hopes that a Dem would become president. There was plenty of time after the comment period closed to publish the reg, but it just sat there.

There was a bit of pushback from rank and file as well as senior recreation management. I seriously doubt it was held in anticipation of a potential democratic potus. The whole recreation/operations side of the Corps is kinda schizophrenic. The rangers and management have historically been an interpretive and recreation oriented group. Even the adoption of the Ranger uniform was a bit of a battle, assigning citation authority was even controversial. The Corps was doing all they could to avoid looking or acting like law enforcement. Times have changed. The Corps is hard core not wanting to authorize a contingent of Ranger law enforcement such as the NPS, BLM, USFS, FWS, has - simple because the Corps is not in that part of the business - but it may get forced on them. The job is tough enough being unarmed and dealing with poachers in the middle of the night, the occasional meth head, or the mess of a domestic dispute at a campsite, without the added weight of the possibility that everyone in the campground, or on a boat, is armed and the Ranger has nothing but verbal judo, some defensive moves, and pepper spray. I am not arguing good guys with guns here. The Corps is just trying to navigate some very murky waters and maintain the concept that Corps lands and waters are places to take your family and feel safe. They are great folks and will do the right thing, it just may take some time.

couzin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:38 pm
There was a bit of pushback from rank and file as well as senior recreation management. I seriously doubt it was held in anticipation of a potential democratic potus. The whole recreation/operations side of the Corps is kinda schizophrenic. The rangers and management have historically been an interpretive and recreation oriented group. Even the adoption of the Ranger uniform was a bit of a battle, assigning citation authority was even controversial. The Corps was doing all they could to avoid looking or acting like law enforcement. Times have changed. The Corps is hard core not wanting to authorize a contingent of Ranger law enforcement such as the NPS, BLM, USFS, FWS, has - simple because the Corps is not in that part of the business - but it may get forced on them. The job is tough enough being unarmed and dealing with poachers in the middle of the night, the occasional meth head, or the mess of a domestic dispute at a campsite, without the added weight of the possibility that everyone in the campground, or on a boat, is armed and the Ranger has nothing but verbal judo, some defensive moves, and pepper spray. I am not arguing good guys with guns here. The Corps is just trying to navigate some very murky waters and maintain the concept that Corps lands and waters are places to take your family and feel safe. They are great folks and will do the right thing, it just may take some time.

My problem is not with the rank and file staff of any of the Federal bureaucracy - it is with the management.

The statement "without the added weight of the possibility that everyone in the campground, or in a boat" personally rankles me. I'm both an RVer and a sailboater. Like the LTC community, both of those groups are historically more law abiding than than general public by a wide margin. I've literally been all over the country in both of those and never had problems with my fellow boaters or RVers. But both can be magnets for outsiders who want to prey on them. Whatever empathy I feel for the Corps rangers, I extend to the people I know personally who have been victimized - as I was - by roaming criminals. I have hundreds of nights camping and have yet to see a domestic dispute, I have personally experienced breakins and thefts and know of others who have suffered the same way.

Nesbitt was a long time ago and the slow roll is definitely happening. I have no hope at all that with the current leadership, anything will ever happen to restore the right of self-protection that the Corps management has stripped away. Perhaps I'm just overly sensitive but I'm tired of the Corps management extending the Democratic Party talking point that because criminals exist in the world, I cannot defend myself.

To be fair, my ire doesn't only extend to the Corps. I was to a funeral at the National Cemetery in Dallas this past week. Bigger than life on the gates to that facility is a "no guns" sign. That means that I'm disarmed on the way there and the way back. I can drive to Wyoming and carry my defensive pistol all over Yellowstone National Park but cannot even have it in the car in my own home State. This "stuff" just doesn't make any sense, at least to me.

P.S. As a recreational sailboater and leader of a local sailing club on Lake Grapevine, I got to deal with the predatory practices of monopoly management company of the marinas on Lake Grapevine. The Corp management liked that because they only had one vendor to deal with. When we complained to the Corps about the overt control that the vendor was placing on the use of the lake, the attorneys for the vendor sent letters to any complainer threatening legal action because of "tortous (tort law) interference in their contract with the Corpw". I personally went to the Ft. Worth District Commander's office. His response was "I'm in the flood control management business."