Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Army Corps of Engineers - concealed carry

  1. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    137 Post(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Without the signs my point was how many never even think about it , especially "out in the boonies".
    No doubt, I'm with you there. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I could see someone getting in serious trouble if accidentally caught.

  2. #17
    Senior Member Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,190
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    401 Post(s)
    Trump could simply keep his word "day one, no more GFZ, " and issue an executive order to stop the USCOE gun stupidity.

    Still waiting on that.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  3. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    137 Post(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Trump could simply keep his word "day one, no more GFZ, " and issue an executive order to stop the USCOE gun stupidity.

    Still waiting on that.
    Maybe so. But I'm not sure he can just EO those away. I would think Congress would have to do that via legislation. And if so, Trump may have found there is no urgency or will at all in Congress to do such a thing (too many RINOs). I don't know that, it is just speculation on my part.

    The best thing, IMO, would be for the USACE to change their policy once and for all.

  4. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    137 Post(s)

    In thinking about this further, the USACE is part of the Army, and Trump is the CIC, so I guess he could just order them to change their firearms policy.

  5. #20
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,203
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1144 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallsrider View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In thinking about this further, the USACE is part of the Army, and Trump is the CIC, so I guess he could just order them to change their firearms policy.
    Insofar as a "law" is part of the U.S. Code, that' stuff crafted by Congress. Other than minor procedural tweaks, or in the case of a law/code where Congress has expressly authorized limited authority to an agency (ie, BATFE or the Corps of Engrs.) to issue certain changes, I'd think it's Congress that is required to make such changes.

    And so, 18 U.S. Code 930, related to possession of arms in federal facilities, I can't imagine how just one person could issue an edict (Exec. Order) to alter or abolish Congress-crafted law.

    IANAL, but perhaps one of our attorney members could clarify, if that's not the case.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    137 Post(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Insofar as a "law" is part of the U.S. Code, that' stuff crafted by Congress. Other than minor procedural tweaks, or in the case of a law/code where Congress has expressly authorized limited authority to an agency (ie, BATFE or the Corps of Engrs.) to issue certain changes, I'd think it's Congress that is required to make such changes.

    And so, 18 U.S. Code 930, related to possession of arms in federal facilities, I can't imagine how just one person could issue an edict (Exec. Order) to alter or abolish Congress-crafted law.

    IANAL, but perhaps one of our attorney members could clarify, if that's not the case.
    You very well may be right. IANAL, either. I read an article online this morning that suggested he had the power to do that. And since I read it online, it has to be true, right?

    I also read that Congress has embedded into a couple of pieces of legislation a law to allow carry on USACE lands. And those potentially could come up for a vote this year. Time will tell.

    As you probably know, they allow carry on National Park Service land. Last October, my dad and I fished for 5 days on the beach at the Outer Banks of North Carolina. That is part of the NPS. It was really nice to be CCing the whole time we were there. It would be great to do the same on USACE land.

  7. #22
    Senior Member Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,190
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    401 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Insofar as a "law" is part of the U.S. Code, that' stuff crafted by Congress. Other than minor procedural tweaks, or in the case of a law/code where Congress has expressly authorized limited authority to an agency (ie, BATFE or the Corps of Engrs.) to issue certain changes, I'd think it's Congress that is required to make such changes.

    And so, 18 U.S. Code 930, related to possession of arms in federal facilities, I can't imagine how just one person could issue an edict (Exec. Order) to alter or abolish Congress-crafted law.

    IANAL, but perhaps one of our attorney members could clarify, if that's not the case.
    If that were the case then the NPS could not allow carry either.

    Trump as CIC, can simply order the USCOE to drop their ban same as he can order the lifting of the ban in military recruitment centers.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  8. #23
    Senior Member GRCarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    2,349
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    501 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If that were the case then the NPS could not allow carry either.

    Trump as CIC, can simply order the USCOE to drop their ban same as he can order the lifting of the ban in military recruitment centers.
    Now, that I'd like to see happen.

    Is it still up to commanders at a post whether weapons are allowed to be carried on base? I remember a discussion on this. That should be changed, if it isn't.
    TANSTAAFL - "Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
    OldVet, 30 March 2018: "But being the agreeable sort, I agree."

  9. #24
    Senior Member Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,190
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    401 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Insofar as a "law" is part of the U.S. Code, that' stuff crafted by Congress. Other than minor procedural tweaks, or in the case of a law/code where Congress has expressly authorized limited authority to an agency (ie, BATFE or the Corps of Engrs.) to issue certain changes, I'd think it's Congress that is required to make such changes.

    And so, 18 U.S. Code 930, related to possession of arms in federal facilities, I can't imagine how just one person could issue an edict (Exec. Order) to alter or abolish Congress-crafted law.

    IANAL, but perhaps one of our attorney members could clarify, if that's not the case.
    If that were the case then the NPS could not allow carry either.

    Trump as CIC, can simply order the USCOE to drop their ban same as he can order the lifting of the ban in military recruitment centers.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  10. #25
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,203
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1144 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If that were the case then the NPS could not allow carry either.
    As I recall, on the credit-card related legislation, Congress enacted that law ... which included allowing carry in forests and whatnot (minus 'facilities'). That was the modification of the related codes, but Congress did it. And so, the NPS must allow carry per the terms of the new law.

    Had, instead, such law been an Executive Order, that'd be simple enough for just the President to tweak or zap via another EO.


    But the question about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a little different, in that they're within the Dept. of Defense. Yet, it's not DoD policies or regulations driving what the USACoE does with allowing or disallowing arms by citizens, it's the Congress-enacted codes. Unclear, as to whether the military chain of command would trump Congress's role as the law-making entity in this country, in this case. I doubt it, since (so far as I know) the requirement has been specified by Congress, not delegated to the DoD for them to regulate.

    It'd be nice to hear from any of the attorney members who are familiar with the question (in this case of the USACoE), as to who can sidestep or countermand a Congress-directed law other than Congress.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  11. #26
    Senior Member Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,190
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    401 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As I recall, on the credit-card related legislation, Congress enacted that law ... which included allowing carry in forests and whatnot (minus 'facilities'). That was the modification of the related codes, but Congress did it. And so, the NPS must allow carry per the terms of the new law.

    Had, instead, such law been an Executive Order, that'd be simple enough for just the President to tweak or zap via another EO.


    But the question about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a little different, in that they're within the Dept. of Defense. Yet, it's not DoD policies or regulations driving what the USACoE does with allowing or disallowing arms by citizens, it's the Congress-enacted codes. Unclear, as to whether the military chain of command would trump Congress's role as the law-making entity in this country, in this case. I doubt it, since (so far as I know) the requirement has been specified by Congress, not delegated to the DoD for them to regulate.

    It'd be nice to hear from any of the attorney members who are familiar with the question (in this case of the USACoE), as to who can sidestep or countermand a Congress-directed law other than Congress.
    If that holds how can USCOE settle a SCOTUS case by all9wing two people to carry on USCOE land without breaking the law and how could SCOTUS allow it that breaking of fed law in their court?
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  12. #27
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,203
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1144 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If that holds how can USCOE settle a SCOTUS case by all9wing two people to carry on USCOE land without breaking the law and how could SCOTUS allow it that breaking of fed law in their court?
    Because court decisions become case law, I'd think. It's not just someone's opinion; rather, it's the interpretation of the law, becoming part of the law. It's what the courts' responsibility has been since inception.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  13. #28
    Senior Member high pockets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Still in GA
    Posts
    1,288
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    67 Post(s)
    Headway being made in GA.

    Path Cleared for Corps Decision to Be Vacated

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has cleared the way for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to vacate its earlier judgment against GCO in the case against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. GCO had brought the case to force the Corps to grant permission to GCO members to carry loaded firearms on Corps property. The district court ruled in favor of the Corps and against GCO. While an appeal was pending, the Corps began issuing permission, effectively mooting the case. The Court of Appeals issued an order to remand the case to the district court for the purpose of allowing the district court to vacate its ruling against GCO. Once the judgment is vacated, there will be no adverse ruling against GCO, and GCO will be free to reinstate the case if the Corps ever stops issuing permission to GWL holders. The court orders and other documents may be found here. (here is link if anyone really wants to pursue this http://www.georgiacarry.com/national/army_coe/ )
    GCO = GeorgiaCarry.Org
    GWL = Georgia Weapons License

    I know this only applies to GA, but it's an indicator the Corps of Engineers may be changing, albeit slowly. The bolding is mine
    Last edited by high pockets; July 12th, 2018 at 07:01 AM.
    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
    - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

  14. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    137 Post(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by high pockets View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Headway being made in GA.



    GCO = GeorgiaCarry.Org

    I know this only applies to GA, but it's an indicator the Corps of Engineers may be changing, albeit slowly. The bolding is mine
    That sounds like at least a little bit of good news. And I would think that this is definitely paving the way towards allowing carry nationwide on USACE properties. I would think at some point that they could no longer defend allowing carry by a select few groups of people, but not allowing everyone to do so.

  15. #30
    Senior Member Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,190
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    401 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Because court decisions become case law, I'd think. It's not just someone's opinion; rather, it's the interpretation of the law, becoming part of the law. It's what the courts' responsibility has been since inception.
    The core, as evidenced below did it on their own to get the case dropped. Not as a, result of a court opinion. There was no decision by the court to become"case law".

    If it were a law the Core could not selectively issue permission to individuals.
    Trump as CIC could change the USCOE policy with the stroke of a pen.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •