Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Lucky Peak Corp of Engineers Project

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    Lucky Peak Recreation area, is apparently a defense-free zone. It is either owned or run by the Army Corp of Engineers, and they sub-contract enforcement to the Ada County Sheriff's Office. My bro and I were open carrying as we were launching our families boat on saturday. Essentially what happened was two LEOs approached and told us we couldn't carry, but we could unload them and put them out of sight so we don't scare anyone... they claimed to have just looked up the law as they were initially unsure of how to "deal with you." Then the apparently senior officer took it upon himself to tell my bro to "Quit smiling." and "I can get you off the water if I want, so don't give me any attitude."

    I really don't care if there is or isn't a law, this LEO went too far... granted, he wasn't a class A $#$@$##%, but he had no right or duty to try to impose himself on my brother's legal (smiling is apparently now a threat to LEO) actions.

    OK. I've looked for quite some time... anybody know about this no-guns rule on Corp of Engineers Projects??? It's federal, so maybe there is a law?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Kaneohe Bay, HI USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Did the LEO cite the law that he claimed to be operating under? If not, the only thing I can think of is to call the county and ask for the code as a google search yielded nothing

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    They did not cite they law, though I could tell they were discussing or researching something... and I found some links off of google that said something along the lines of no firearms except shotguns in hunting season bla blah blah.... but that was for another state. They did say that they were unsure at first and "we just looked it up" or something like that. I wasn't going to push it, though I'm 99% sure there is no such law... I can't afford to be wrong. Interestingly though, they just told us to unload, and put em away... then after a few stares both ways... they walked away without "making" us do anything. Hm.

    BTW, Welcome aboard Saint! I'm also from Eagle. Your initials wouldn't happen to be D.S. would they?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Rupert, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    I've tried to find any relevent laws on this. The only thing I've found is that Lucky Peak RA is mostly BLM land with patches of State land. I haven't been able to track down which agency is actually managing the dang thing.

    I'm not done. A few more places to look at before I start using the phone. I'll report what I find, when I know anything definitive.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Kaneohe Bay, HI USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Lol.. thanks for the welcome. and no my initials are not D.S. they are M.P:Any bets I know where your brother lives? :Phehehe.. is D.S. on here yet?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Rupert, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Code:
    OK. Found it. It is as I feared, a rule that has been promulgated under a broad
    reading of certain Idaho Statutes. This is complicated, so bear with me please. 
    
    They are using IDAPA code 26.01.20 Rules Governing the Administration of Park
    and Recreation Areas and Facilities, which says: 
    
    600. PERSONAL SAFETY, FIREARMS. "No person may discharge firearms or any other
    projectile firing device, or otherwise purposefully or negligently endanger the
    life of any person or creature within any land administered by the department.
    All firearms brought onto lands administered by the department shall be unloaded
    at all times and either out of sight, or in a vehicle, except when used for
    legal hunting as authorized in Section 575 in this chapter, or for exhibition or
    at designated ranges as authorized by the Director. (3-7-03)"
    
    This sections authority is declared in 26.01.01:
    
    000. LEGAL AUTHORITY. "The Idaho Park and Recreation Board is authorized under
    Section 67-4223(a), Idaho Code, to adopt amend, or rescind rules as may be
    necessary for proper administration of the department and the use and protection
    of park and recreation areas subject to its jurisdiction. Prusuant to section
    67-5206(5), Idaho Code, the Park and Recreation Board adopts these rules of
    administrative procedure. (1-1-94)"
    
    The first referenced authority: 67-4223.  POWERS OF BOARD. The park and
    recreation board shall: (a)  Adopt, amend or rescind rules as may be necessary
    for the proper administration of the provisions of sections 67-4218, et seq.,
    Idaho Code, and the use and protection of park and recreational areas subject to
    its jurisdiction. A violation of any rule promulgated by the board pursuant to
    this provision which concerns the use and protection of park and recreation
    areas is an infraction.
    
    The second referenced authority: (5)  (a) After July 1, 1993, the rules
    promulgated by the attorney general under this section shall apply to all
    agencies that do not affirmatively promulgate alternative procedures after the
    promulgation of the rules by the attorney general. The rules promulgated by the
    attorney general shall supersede the procedural rules of any agency in effect on
    June 30, 1993, unless that agency promulgates its own procedures as provided in
    paragraph (b) of this subsection.
    
    (b)  After July 1, 1993, an agency that promulgates its own procedures shall
    include in the rule adopting its own procedures a finding that states the
    reasons why the relevant portion of the attorney general's rules were
    inapplicable to the agency under the circumstances.
    
    All of which says that they are using the broadest possible interpretation of
    the statute and it has not been tested per se, in court.
    
    It has however been ruled by the Idaho Supreme Court, In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597
    (1902): "While it is, undoubtedly, within the power of the legislature to
    prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a
    proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power
    to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guaranteed to the
    citizen both by our federal and state constitutions."
    
    In State v. Woodward, 58 Idaho 385 (1937), the Court reiterated: "Under the
    Constitution, the right to bear arms may not be denied by the Legislature.
    Section Il, art. 1; In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609, 101 Am.St.Rep. 215, 1
    Ann.Cas. 55. The Legislature only has the power to "regulate the exercise of
    this right"; that is, among other things, it may prohibit carrying concealed
    weapons, or prescribe the kind or character of arms that may or may not be kept,
    carried, or used, and various other things of a regulatory character."
    
    It would therefore seem to me that in the State of Idaho, the Legislature may
    not grant authority to disarm its citizens as it does not have such
    Constitutional authority. Any rule or regulation stating or interpreted
    otherwise, can have no lawful effect. Since I'm not an attorney, you should
    check with one who is knowelegible on Idaho Gun Laws.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Kaneohe Bay, HI USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    ok so I read through the legal stuff there but am somewhat unsure of the end result due to the complexity of the text... does it appear the officers were incorrect in their assment of the situation or were they legally justified in asking for the removal of weapons?

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    If this was their justification, they are wrong. The parks and rec regs are just regs, they have no force of law, this has been clarified in court.
    Now it still remains to see if this is what they cited or not.

Posting Permissions

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