• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Morris vs Army Corps of Engineers

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
This sort of thing just has to drive the gun banners crazy. And that's a good thing. Thanks for posting it.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Since this is a CASE heard in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho I don't think it applies as a NATIONWIDE injunction blocking the enforcement of this ONEROUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Law, but only in IDAHO....

I would be VERY GLAD to be wrong!
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
The guberment's argument to favor dismissal:

1st argument:
Lots of people are there

2nd argument:
Lots of generators are there

3rd argument:
The Corps can extremely limit 2nd amendment rights because there is no law requiring them to make sites available to the public


Retarded thought processes hoping for a judge with will ignore RKBA ... did not prevail this time
 

homestar

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
79
Location
Ashburn, Va
Since this is a CASE heard in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho I don't think it applies as a NATIONWIDE injunction blocking the enforcement of this ONEROUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Law, but only in IDAHO....

I would be VERY GLAD to be wrong!
Curious about that as well.
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
By Eugene Volokh on January 11, 2014 12:00 am in Guns "Today’s Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Idaho Jan. 10, 2014) strikes down an Army Corps of Engineers regulation barring possession of loaded guns in recreation areas surrounding Corps dams. The court holds that tents are akin to homes, where Second Amendment rights are protected. The court also holds that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns as well as to possess them at homes, so that the regulation is unconstitutional even as to carrying outside tents. And the court rejects the argument that the government may restrict such gun possession and carrying on the grounds that the government owns the property, and has no obligation to open the property to the public in the first place."

http://ia800902.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.idd.32180/gov.uscourts.idd.32180.42.0.pdf



http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/11/ri...l-recreation-areas-right-possess-tents-areas/

Hmm, don't we know that name, Charles Nichols, from around here? Ahh, yes, Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry and user "California Right To Carry."

ETA: And having read the nicely argued decision, I wonder at the dealings that relegated the OP to the Idaho sub-forum. The decision enjoins the CoE from enforcing a regulation of national scope.
Great research and post.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
If this goes higher it could affect firearm restrictions on any federal property. This could include DC.

Let's hope it gets to SCOTUS before Obama or Hillary can alter the court.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,075
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
Since this is a CASE heard in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho I don't think it applies as a NATIONWIDE injunction blocking the enforcement of this ONEROUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Law, but only in IDAHO....

I would be VERY GLAD to be wrong!
According to my lawyer friend, the way it is written it applies to the Army Corps of Engineers on ALL of the properties it manages, nation wide. However, it is a preliminary injunction and only applies until the case gets a final ruling at trial.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
According to my lawyer friend, the way it is written it applies to the Army Corps of Engineers on ALL of the properties it manages, nation wide. However, it is a preliminary injunction and only applies until the case gets a final ruling at trial.
It's a civil suit against THE Army Corps of Engineers, not the Idaho Army Corps of Engineers.
Like suing WallyWorld, it will have far ranging consequences.

[Edit] And apparently I'm wrong once again as the Court ruled that the injunction applies only to Idaho due to the manner in which the suit was brought. (October 2014)
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
It's a civil suit against THE Army Corps of Engineers, not the Idaho Army Corps of Engineers.
Like suing WallyWorld, it will have far ranging consequences.
IMO the ruling down the road should affect all federal jurisdictions. Making carry in DC finally legal. That is if it makes it to SCOTUS before Scalia steps down.
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
IMO the ruling down the road should affect all federal jurisdictions. Making carry in DC finally legal. That is if it makes it to SCOTUS before Scalia steps down.
Interesting. Can you take a few minutes to explain how a ruling against the enforcement of a ban on firearms on Corps of Engineers property would make carry in DC legal?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Interesting. Can you take a few minutes to explain how a ruling against the enforcement of a ban on firearms on Corps of Engineers property would make carry in DC legal?
Corps of Engineers is federal property, why would a citizen have less rights in DC than on other federal property or jurisdictions?
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Corps of Engineers is federal property, why would a citizen have less rights in DC than on other federal property or jurisdictions?
You seemed to imply that if this ruling is affirmed by higher courts that it would make carrying in DC legal, generally. Seems to me that if it is affirmed that it would apply only the dis-allowing of the enforcement of the CoE ban against firearms on CoE property.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,754
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
You seemed to imply that if this ruling is affirmed by higher courts that it would make carrying in DC legal, generally. Seems to me that if it is affirmed that it would apply only the dis-allowing of the enforcement of the CoE ban against firearms on CoE property.
Since the District of Columbia is under the Congress of the United States, even though it has locally-elected officials, it may be considered Federal property, much as the CoE property is federal property. At least that is the way I am understanding the reasoning.

Which brings up another interesting point: If that ruling is applied to all federal property, would it then invalidate the carry ban on military installations?

It would seem to me that a court ruling which applies to one set of federal properties would apply to all federal properties.

That said, I'm not a lawyer and some of the sharp legal eagles on here may have a much better understanding than I do.
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Since the District of Columbia is under the Congress of the United States, even though it has locally-elected officials, it may be considered Federal property, much as the CoE property is federal property. At least that is the way I am understanding the reasoning.

Which brings up another interesting point: If that ruling is applied to all federal property, would it then invalidate the carry ban on military installations?

It would seem to me that a court ruling which applies to one set of federal properties would apply to all federal properties.

That said, I'm not a lawyer and some of the sharp legal eagles on here may have a much better understanding than I do.
In my opinion, courts tend to rule very narrowly and since this case only involves a specific CoE ban on firearms carry while on CoE property, any higher court opinion could not extend that injunction to federal property in general. I guess stranger things have happened (such as Roberts deciding that the Obamacare premium was a tax), but I really doubt that if this temporary injunction is upheld and made permanent that it would in any way apply to all federal property.

Besides, DC is not "federal property." It is a legally constituted city administered under Home Rule. While many parts of DC are "Federal Property," DC has its own government and set of laws... Or am I wrong about that?
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
...would it then invalidate the carry ban on military installations?...
I doubt it.

Military installations are not open to the public, as are CoE-administered lands around their dams. For example, you would not be able to carry on the property of the dam itself because of this injunction, not that I can see.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Corps of Engineers is federal property, why would a citizen have less rights in DC than on other federal property or jurisdictions?
Corps of Engineers isn't federal property, it is a branch of the Federal Government/US Army that manages federal property. It is empowered by Congress to enact and regulatory measures consistent with their assigned mission.

I doubt it.
Military installations are not open to the public, as are CoE-administered lands around their dams. For example, you would not be able to carry on the property of the dam itself because of this injunction, not that I can see.
It shouldn't apply to carrying across a dam, and I don't think it does now under the 'safe passage' doctrine. Or, at least I hope 'safe passage' applies as I cross Buford Dam on Lake Lanier on a regular basis.


Hey, I can see my house from there!
 
Last edited:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
According to my lawyer friend, the way it is written it applies to the Army Corps of Engineers on ALL of the properties it manages, nation wide. However, it is a preliminary injunction and only applies until the case gets a final ruling at trial.
I recognize that the way it is written it applies NATIONWIDE but, my question on this is: IS the Idaho District Federal Court ALLOWED to make a nationwide ORDER and enforce it NATIONWIDE not just in the Idaho District? And this is what I based my suggestion that it MAY only apply to IDAHO.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
From what I've learned, a District Court handles cases and answers questions on Federal Laws. In this case the suit is against an agency of the federal government and there's only one fed gov in the USA. If the injunction is against THE CoE then I don't see why it wouldn't apply nationwide as would the court's decision.

I can only imagine the daunting prospect before a defendant who might be forced to defend themselves in 94 different district courts and then perhaps appeal any decision to one of the 12 Circuit courts.

Then again, I could be smoking crawdads......it's happened before.
 
Top