Carry on Corp of Engineers property now legal

[Hoosierman]

So I know the topic has been brought up before, but I was reading up on the Morris vs U.S Army Corp of Engineers, No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Morris V. Army Corps Of Engineers - Preliminary Injunction Issued and I can't seem to figure out if the injunction is valid nationwide, or only in Idaho. Can someone more knowledgeable in case law than I explain? I called the Corp of Engineers legal dept but I haven't gotten a call back. It's entirely possible that they don't know either.

 

[Glock19]

I was told that it was illegal in Indiana. But if you go to a campground its only illegal on the Dams that are run by the engineers and the waterways. Not the camping sites

 

[Hoosierman]

Yes, we know it's illegal, but what I would like is information on the injunction that was put in place to prevent the enforcement of the regulation that makes it illegal. The injunction is valid in Idaho, I know that much, but the question is obviously, is it valid in Indiana?

 

[SteveM4A1]

where art our legal experts?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

where art our legal experts?

Eating chicken tacos and reading INGO.

That is a District Court from Idaho ruling and carries little if any weight here in the 7th Circuit. Do not carry firearms on ACoE property.

*Note: not to a jerk and knock good news, and this certainly is good news, but does not help us here (immediately, could later)

 

[Hoosierman]

Thanks Kirk. I had suspected as much, but seeing as the ACoE is a national entity, I wanted confirmation.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I had thought that was the case.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I had suspected as much, but seeing as the ACoE is a national entity, I wanted confirmation

The government is taking this up to the Ninth Circuit. Everyone relax and stretch out.

 

[SteveM4A1]

The government is taking this up to the Ninth Circuit. Everyone relax and stretch out.

Not until you share those chicken tacos

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Not until you share those chicken tacos

FINE.

Come on up, order the fish tacos under sandwiches, but ask for them to substitute in chicken.

RedSeven Grill | Menu - Downtown Lafayette Indiana Restaurant and Bar, Lunch, Dinner, Drink Specials

 

[Jack Burton]

FINE.

Come on up, order the fish tacos under sandwiches, but ask for them to substitute in chicken.

RedSeven Grill | Menu - Downtown Lafayette Indiana Restaurant and Bar, Lunch, Dinner, Drink Specials

I walked into a deli in D.C. with a friend a few years back. He ordered a ham on rye. I told the young clerk I wanted the same thing but could she use roast beef instead of ham and whole wheat in place of the rye. She took the order down faithfully, including the substitutes.

 

[mrortega]

FINE.

Come on up, order the fish tacos under sandwiches, but ask for them to substitute in chicken.

RedSeven Grill | Menu - Downtown Lafayette Indiana Restaurant and Bar, Lunch, Dinner, Drink Specials

You people are grossing me out. Fish tacos sound as bad as a shake made in the "Bassomatic."

 

[LANShark42]

You people are grossing me out. Fish tacos sound as bad as a shake made in the "Bassomatic."

+1

 

[Alamo]

Exactly 9 months later, the final decision by the court (via Volokh Conspiracy):
Morris v. Army Corps Engineers (D. Idaho Oct. 10, 2014):
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.

So doesn't apply to Indiana (nor Texas). Too bad. But still progress.

 

[cosermann]

Thanks for the update.

 

[Redhorse]

where art our legal experts?

Eating chicken tacos and reading INGO.

That is a District Court from Idaho ruling and carries little if any weight here in the 7th Circuit. Do not carry firearms on ACoE property.

*Note: not to a jerk and knock good news, and this certainly is good news, but does not help us here (immediately, could later)

Are you strictly a firearms lawyer or do you have a different concentration?

 

[jedi]

Exactly 9 months later, the final decision by the court (via Volokh Conspiracy):
Morris v. Army Corps Engineers (D. Idaho Oct. 10, 2014):
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.

So doesn't apply to Indiana (nor Texas). Too bad. But still progress.

Not yet it does not apply.
However with one lower court saying this can it not be reasoned that if an Indiana resident also brings this up that the atty's can the say look that other district got it right?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Tagging for updates.

 

[Slawburger]

Somebody take one for the team and file suit.

It would be great to have the restriction removed in Indiana and Kentucky.

 

[Alamo]

On the almost one year anniversary of the final District Court decision and order, a little update is in...er...order:

The COE chose to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit.

Since then there has been a flurry of paperwork from both sides. The COE appears to have changed or added some lawyers and filed their appeal paperwork. The good guys have filed some answering documents, and other groups have weighed in as Amici Curiae: the NRA, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and GeorgiaCarry.org.

Also, the name of the case has changed: It is now Elizabeth E. Nesbitt et al v. US Army Corps of Engineers et al. Original plaintiff Elizabeth Morris is now known as Elizabeth E. Nesbitt. (There are two plaintiffs, the other being Alan Baker). So Nesbitt v. US Army COE for short.

I don't know when the 9th will actually take up the substance of the appeal. Possibly the 9th doesn't know either.

This seems a handy place to get a good overview of the legal paper barrage: Nesbitt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Formerly Morris v. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers) | Michel and Associates, P.C.