TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... eers-land/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds positive, but it's just a Idaho district court, not federal court, so sounds to me like good news for Idahoians? Idhadoites? Idahogons? Whatever they're called. But not much in the way of Texans being allowed to carry on COE land?

Texsquatch wrote:Sounds positive, but it's just a Idaho district court, not federal court, so sounds to me like good news for Idahoians? Idhadoites? Idahogons? Whatever they're called. But not much in the way of Texans being allowed to carry on COE land?

Actually, it was a decision of the United States Federal Court for the District of Idaho.

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/news ... tSztcu9KK0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actually, it was a decision of the United States Federal Court for the District of Idaho.

I think that makes it binding nationwide. We need Mr. Cotton to chime in and/or some of the instructors.

Note, it's temporary - it's an injunction until it's further worked out.

Cool. A small win is still a win. Hopefully it holds.

Yeah, I hope this holds too. There are plenty of lakes and other recreational areas I would like to visit!

IANAL , but reading the courts decision I would interpret the injunction to mean the COE is enjoined from enforcing it's regulation prohibiting guns for self defense on ALL land administered by them, not just land in Idaho.

puma guy wrote:IANAL , but reading the courts decision I would interpret the injunction to mean the COE is enjoined from enforcing it's regulation prohibiting guns for self defense on ALL land administered by them, not just land in Idaho.

That's the way I read it too!

In addition to the opinions already stated, my reading suggests the court understands the need to regulate firearms in sensitive locations but views ACoE's regulation as being too broad. That, in turn would bode well for a permanent change.

Or am I reading the order with my own prejudices?

My question, since this is in Federal Court, that means the injunction applies nation wide, right?

How long would it take for the order to filter down to the individual ACoE offices?

112

Paddler112 wrote:In addition to the opinions already stated, my reading suggests the court understands the need to regulate firearms in sensitive locations but views ACoE's regulation as being too broad. That, in turn would bode well for a permanent change.

Or am I reading the order with my own prejudices?

My question, since this is in Federal Court, that means the injunction applies nation wide, right?

How long would it take for the order to filter down to the individual ACoE offices?

112

I would like to think that you're right:

1. Federal is federal and USACE lands are federal,
2. Hunting is allowed (in season) on USACE lands; and,
2. There is precedent with the NP park (federal lands) ruling on CC.

Now, we wait and see what we see, eh?

Oldgringo wrote:

Paddler112 wrote:In addition to the opinions already stated, my reading suggests the court understands the need to regulate firearms in sensitive locations but views ACoE's regulation as being too broad. That, in turn would bode well for a permanent change.

Or am I reading the order with my own prejudices?

My question, since this is in Federal Court, that means the injunction applies nation wide, right?

How long would it take for the order to filter down to the individual ACoE offices?

112

I would like to think that you're right:

1. Federal is federal and USACE lands are federal,
2. Hunting is allowed (in season) on USACE lands; and,
2. There is precedent with the NP park (federal lands) ruling on CC.
Now, we wait and see what we see, eh?

When I read about this ruling, I smiled a little, thinking about the possibility of us using USACE campgrounds again with our RV. Or my being able to go to my local marina and park so that I could crew on a sailboat and my not having to leave my gun at home to do that.

In truth, assuming it stands, this ruling simply allows law abiding citizens to operate a bit more freely. I'm unaware of any enforcement activity in USACE regarding firearms. I doubt that one half of one percent of the Texas public is remotely aware of the Federal restrictions on firearms on Corp property because most of them don't understand exactly what Corp property is. I'll bet, for example, that a significant percentage of cars parked at Scott's Landing Marina on Lake Grapevine have guns stored in them today. The Corps also has a prohibition against glass bottles that is flagrantly violated so I cannot imagine that anyone carrying a gun under MPA in Texas is paying enough attention or cares enough to worry about the firearms restriction. It would take some extraordinary situation which brought a firearm to light. I'd bet that a person would have a better chance of getting hit by lightning.

Personally, I don't take that chance. I've just quit going to Corp property like I quit going to the bricks and mortar Post Office. My personal protest is of no consequence to anyone but me. I smiled a little as I carried at Devil's Tower (National Park) last summer. I was thinking about how much of an upstanding citizen I was there with a gun on my hip and what a criminal I would be if I walked the shore of Joe Pool lake with the same handgun and for no valid reason. Such is our Federal government.

chasfm11 wrote: {snip}
I smiled a little as I carried at Devil's Tower (National Park) last summer. I was thinking about how much of an upstanding citizen I was there with a gun on my hip and what a criminal I would be if I walked the shore of Joe Pool lake with the same handgun and for no valid reason. Such is our Federal government.

If you were at Devils Tower you were close to Little Big Horn Battlefield. Quite by accident, we got there in time to hear this particular Ranger's outstanding presentation of events leading up to and the battle itself. A presentation that kept some four dozen adults spellbound for 45 minutes prior to touring the site. Custer was diddled from the start.

Yes we carried on our persons in the park but NOT in the building...to get back on the topic.