Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Federal court strikes Army Corp of Engineers gun ban. Cites Peruta, Nordyke, GCDO

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    Federal court strikes Army Corp of Engineers gun ban. Cites Peruta, Nordyke, GCDO

    The regulation banning the use of handguns on Corps’ property by law-abiding citizens for self-defense purposes violates the Second Amendment…. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 violates the Second Amendment, and an injunction enjoining its enforcement in Idaho. The injunction is limited to Idaho because its scope is dictated by the allegations of the two named plaintiffs — Elizabeth Morris and Alan Baker.
    It will be interesting to see what the Ninth Circuit will do with the inevitable appeal. Thanks to Charles Nichols for the pointer. [EV][my emphasis]
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...vArmyCorps.pdf

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eers-property/
    Last edited by Nightmare; 10-17-2014 at 07:08 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    A good start lets see where it goes from here.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  3. #3
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Ruling just applies to Idaho, but under Peruta it definitely spells out Corps stomped on the 2A.
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    A good start lets see where it goes from here.
    Tyranny at it's finest! See the system is completely broken I tell ya!

    Back to reality glad we have another foothold achieved.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Tyranny at it's finest! See the system is completely broken I tell ya!

    Back to reality glad we have another foothold achieved.
    Again, it should have never got that far, and its not over.

    Interesting how they word the decisions, so as not to have "Shall not be infringed" fully enforceable.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    But I already granted permission...what, that's no good? Appears to be the same.


    The court limited it? What a ******.

  7. #7
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    It has pee'd me off to no end that I can't go on Philpott lake land. hopefully it will do something about this Jim Crowe like segregation
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The court limited it? What a ******.
    The plaintiffs limited it, not the court. They only sued to carry on CoE property in Idaho, not throughout the entire circuit.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    The judge's decision was short, sweet, and to the point. Let's hope it survives the notorious Ninth, and goes on to serve as precedent for removing the existing firearms ban on military bases.

    The article made a glaring error: "The Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes." True, but incomplete. Our Second Amendment's prohibition against any infringement on our right to keep and bear arms is absolute. Why people carry does not matter. What matters is that our Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is an unequivocal imperative, and absolute.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The judge's decision was short, sweet, and to the point. Let's hope it survives the notorious Ninth, and goes on to serve as precedent for removing the existing firearms ban on military bases.

    The article made a glaring error: "The Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes." True, but incomplete. Our Second Amendment's prohibition against any infringement on our right to keep and bear arms is absolute. Why people carry does not matter. What matters is that our Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is an unequivocal imperative, and absolute.
    I think that opinions should be limited to 5 pages max. If you cannot explain yourself in 5 pages then its likely that you are just shoveling horse manure at us.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think that opinions should be limited to 5 pages max. If you cannot explain yourself in 5 pages then its likely that you are just shoveling horse manure at us.
    I hear you... Unfortunately, dealing with myriads of state and federal laws, along with numerous prior judgements a.k.a. "precedent" often requires a thorough literary/semantic/legal analysis. Judge Black's decision on St. John vs. Alamogordo is one of the best I've ever studied, but it's still 16 pages, and quite necessarily so. If he hadn't been so thorough, another tricky liberal judge might have wormed his or her way out of a legitimate decision. As it is, it's well-written, solid, and has stood the test of time.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think that opinions should be limited to 5 pages max. If you cannot explain yourself in 5 pages then its likely that you are just shoveling horse manure at us.
    LOL How about five lines on a discussion forum, clear, concise, correct, grammatical and literate?

    It is clear that our correspondents do not understand that a single false premise, even among many, falsifies the conclusion.

    They have been overwhelmed by their professors' embrace of the narrative fallacy.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 10-21-2014 at 04:42 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    It will be interesting to see how anti-gun the CoE really is. Will they apply this to all states or roll with it on a state by state (or region by region) event. If they are as hardcore as the suit states, I could easily see them fight every area tooth/nail. But again, it will all depend on how hardcore they want to be. If they believe they can win behind the Nordyke case...then they may try a few more cases to set a precedent.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    KY Lake and surrounding is CoE and I would really like to see the NPS 2A rules cover CoE. Hopefully this will be expanded.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    KY Lake and surrounding is CoE and I would really like to see the NPS 2A rules cover CoE. Hopefully this will be expanded.
    KY Lake area is nice! Use to do some tournament fishing there and Lake Barkley years ago...really liked the LBL! We used to carry on those lakes all the time; not sure it was legal, but we did.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    KY Lake area is nice! Use to do some tournament fishing there and Lake Barkley years ago...really liked the LBL! We used to carry on those lakes all the time; not sure it was legal, but we did.
    You hit the issue... Not sure. Part of the area is KY state park, lots CoE some private. I don't OC in that area due to that. Lake itself is CoE I understand so never armed on water, but at least parts of water patrolled by KY State Police and KY DNR. Very confusing. CoE needs to come into line w NPS.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  17. #17
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    You hit the issue... Not sure. Part of the area is KY state park, lots CoE some private. I don't OC in that area due to that. Lake itself is CoE I understand so never armed on water, but at least parts of water patrolled by KY State Police and KY DNR. Very confusing. CoE needs to come into line w NPS.
    CoE, NPS, and any and all other Federal Letter groups, Heck, the Federal Government as a whole, as well as ANY State level or lower governmental agency need to come into line with US Supreme Court Decisions/Rulings finding the 2nd amendment means each and every one of us has the Constitutionally Protected right to "keep and bear arms" for self defense as a minimum. This applies outside and inside our homes, during our travels, entertainments, weekends, and weekdays!
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 10-28-2014 at 08:19 PM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    CoE, NPS, and any and all other Federal Letter groups, Heck, the Federal Government as a whole, as well as ANY State level or lower governmental agency need to come into line with US Supreme Court Decisions/Rulings finding the 2nd amendment means each and every one of us has the Constitutionally Protected right to "keep and bear arms" for self defense as a minimum. This applies outside and inside our homes, during our travels, entertainments, weekends, and weekdays!
    I agree. Despite a twenty year career in the military, during which I occasionally carried firearms between the armory and my aircraft, not to mention at various locations both stateside and around the world, somehow that's "too dangerous" a task when not on duty.

    I've carried firearms far more often, and for half a dozen years longer off duty than I did while on duty, yet I'm just as safe and effective with a firearm today as I've always been. Probably safer, as caution comes with experience.

    My point is this: Will this ruling apply to the carry of firearms on military bases?

    It should.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    My point is this: Will this ruling apply to the carry of firearms on military bases?
    It should.
    No, the ruling (or subsequent rulings such as the one GeorgiaCarry.Org has brought against the Army Corps of Engineers) won't affect carry on military bases unless those bases are prohibiting carry per 36 C.F.R. § 327.13.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    No, the ruling (or subsequent rulings such as the one GeorgiaCarry.Org has brought against the Army Corps of Engineers) won't affect carry on military bases unless those bases are prohibiting carry per 36 C.F.R. § 327.13.
    I don't think it matters why the DoD is prohibiting carry. I think what matters is why the COE wasn't allowed to prohibit carry.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I don't think it matters why the DoD is prohibiting carry. I think what matters is why the COE wasn't allowed to prohibit carry.
    A little confused about your post. I don't know if you meant it like it sounded.

    But I would think this would fall under No government entity paid for by taxes. Should be able to ban carry
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I don't think it matters why the DoD is prohibiting carry. I think what matters is why the COE wasn't allowed to prohibit carry.
    My answer is that it won't because that isn't a question that was brought before the court. The civil suit (because of how it was filed) only affects the Army Corps of Engineers and only affects the CoE in Idaho. The court said that the CFR was overreaching (I believe) and therefore blocked the Corps from enforcing it.

    Military posts prohibit members from carrying arms under a totally different set of rules, and those rules weren't a part of the civil lawsuit so the court did not address them.

    The court Only addressed the question before it, and that question was the enforcement of the CRF in Idaho. Had the lawsuit been filed to block the enforcement of the CRF in the entire district under the jurisdiction of the CoE, then the ruling would have affected more than just the one state. The civil suit could just as well have been filed asking for an injunction nationwide, which would have been Really nice, .... but it didn't.

    If someone were to bring a civil suit against the DoD for it's prohibition, then the court may or may not look at the civil case at hand. But, it's also possible that they could see it being two different entities, and two different circumstances, prohibiting the same thing for two different reasons.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-08-2014 at 04:13 PM.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    My answer is that it won't because that isn't a question that was brought before the court. The civil suit (because of how it was filed) only affects the Army Corps of Engineers and only affects the CoE in Idaho. The court said that the CFR was overreaching (I believe) and therefore blocked the Corps from enforcing it.

    Military posts prohibit members from carrying arms under a totally different set of rules, and those rules weren't a part of the civil lawsuit so the court did not address them.

    The court Only addressed the question before it, and that question was the enforcement of the CRF in Idaho. Had the lawsuit been filed to block the enforcement of the CRF in the entire district under the jurisdiction of the CoE, then the ruling would have affected more than just the one state. The civil suit could just as well have been filed asking for an injunction nationwide, which would have been Really nice, .... but it didn't.

    If someone were to bring a civil suit against the DoD for it's prohibition, then the court may or may not look at the civil case at hand. But, it's also possible that they could see it being two different entities, and two different circumstances, prohibiting the same thing for two different reasons.
    Well said, Fallschirmjäger! Thank you.

    Alas, even if someone did file suit against the DoD bans, I can think of several arguments which the courts might cite to justify turning a blind eye.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

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