Morris vs Army Corps of Engineers

[WalkingWolf]

If you look at case law on any federal level you will find it littered with? Other case law sometimes not even in the same district. Other decisions on other cases spring off of previous cases. One case that was in our favor was the US V Black case which used Terry V Ohio. I have not researched a case yet where a favorable decision to 2A was made that the judges did not use a previous case as part of the decision.

This case could clearly affect carry on federal property, or federally maintained property. Most likely it would not affect brick and mortar as there are decisions giving gov the privilege to infringe on that particular case.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

A similar suit has now been filed against the Corps of Engineers in Georgia.
Main thread in the Georgia sub-forum so not as to disrupt this one.

Now all we need is a few more lawsuits in a few more districts against the CoE.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Morris wins

Memorandum Decision -- 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO​

Short version -
The temporary injunction is now a permanent summary judgement against the ACoE.
The ruling applies only in Idaho.

 

[buckfynn]

Thanks Fallschirmjäger for the update.

I am sad to say the local Western Idaho news media was mum on reporting any information on Morris vs. ACoE.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Thanks Fallschirmjäger for the update.

I am sad to say the local Western Idaho news media was mum on reporting any information on Morris vs. ACoE.

Maybe they merely need to be reminded? If you have the names of any of the reporters who filed reports about the initial suit, you might send them an email with the results (do their work for them and they'll more likely print it than if you merely send a link and make them do the work.)

 

[buckfynn]

Maybe they merely need to be reminded? If you have the names of any of the reporters who filed reports about the initial suit, you might send them an email with the results (do their work for them and they'll more likely print it than if you merely send a link and make them do the work.)

What you just said is all fine and dandy. But this was the first I had heard of Morris v ACoE was an Idaho issue. I must first hear about such news before I could pass it on.

Idaho has an abundance of hydro-electric damns under the control of the ACoE. Since I am an Idaho resident naturally I was interested in knowing more about the specifics and history of this case. And to my amazement so far I am the only one from Idaho posting in this thread. Below gives a bit more information about the story compliments of the Courthouse News Service.

The plaintiffs claimed Corps District Commander Lt. Col. Andrew Kelly can give permission to possess firearms on Corps-administered lands. Both wrote letters in 2013, requesting permission to carry weapons while camping at Dworshak Reservoir in northern Idaho and at Lucky Peak Reservoir near Boise, in addition to other locations throughout the state.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

I love Idaho!

I pray we get enough support in 2015 to Constitutionally Cary in the great state of Idaho!

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Link to Complete Text of Decision

I wonder if anyone is working on using this decision as precedent for a nation wide restoration of 2nd Amendment Rights on ACOE property and ultimately all federal property.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/15/ArmyCorpsRuling.pdf

 

[DeSchaine]

Hmm.... I'm sorry, but if you declare a law that covers hundreds of properties in most of the states of the US unconstitutional, then it applies to the entire country, not just the state of Idaho, no matter what district its in. The US Constitution does not change if you go from Idaho to Georgia. There are no provisions that say it applies in certain ways in certain states. This cannot be used as a precedent to restore in other areas, this IS, by definition of the two laws involved, a total nulification of the ACoE rules.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Hmm.... I'm sorry, but if you declare a law that covers hundreds of properties in most of the states of the US unconstitutional, then it applies to the entire country, not just the state of Idaho, no matter what district its in. The US Constitution does not change if you go from Idaho to Georgia. There are no provisions that say it applies in certain ways in certain states. This cannot be used as a precedent to restore in other areas, this IS, by definition of the two laws involved, a total nulification of the ACoE rules.

I see you did not read the full text. Please see Memorandum Decision -- 9 in the link I provided in post #30.

Applies to Idaho only and only to ACOE controlled properties. Not all federal property.

I do agree with your reasoning though. It seems disingenuous to restrict the ruling to one state and to a particularly controlled federal property.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

I would think the following language from the decision would set precedent for allowing the carrying of a firearm for self defense on all government property.

From the decision:

"The Court must ask first whether the Corps’ regulation burdens conduct protected
by the Second Amendment. It does. The Second Amendment protects the right to carry
a firearm for self-defense purposes. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628 (stating that “the inherent
right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). That right
extends outside the home. Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1166 (holding that “the right to bear arms
includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of
self-defense”)."

 

[DeSchaine]

I did read the whole thing. What I dont like is that one judge in one area can say "this law is unconstitutional" while another judge in another area can cay "not its not" and then you have two different ways of dealing with the same law. Yes, the judge in the Idaho case stated his ruling applied on there, and in that, I believe he's wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it applies in different ways depending on where you are in the US of A. IMO, since that judge has said the rule is wrong, then its wrong everywhere that the ACoE has property, and they dont have the right to enforce it anywhere until/unless SCOTUS overturns the lower court. I know thats not how the system works, but I view it as just another way that the system is screwed up.