Army Corps of Engineers.

[Deadly Z Driver]

I never realized how big the list was of properties where we can't legally carry.

http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/bvl/

Middle Wabash Project Office

Upper Wabash Project Office

Brookville Lake

Cagles Mill Lake

Cecil M. Harden Lake

J. Edward Roush Lake

Mississinewa Lake

Monroe Lake

Patoka Lake

Salamonie Lake

 

[kjf40]

me neither....sheesh.

Thanks for posting the info!

 

[eldirector]

Yep. If it is water, or near the water, at any of those properties it is is no-go. Check the property maps buried in each of those links, and find both the "operations area" and "project boundary". Inside those is ACoE, and outside is DNR.

Annoying....

 

[Bunnykid68]

Really? One cannot carry at Patoka Lake?

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

Yep. If it is water, or near the water, at any of those properties it is is no-go. Check the property maps buried in each of those links, and find both the "operations area" and "project boundary". Inside those is ACoE, and outside is DNR.

Annoying....

I am having trouble finding these maps...

 

[eldirector]

Really? One cannot carry at Patoka Lake?

Correct.

Here is that map:
http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/patl/article.asp?id=187&MyCategory=176

If it is labeled as Operations, or inside the Project Boundary, you cannot carry by ACoE regulations. I believe the penalty is a fine.

 

[eldirector]

I am having trouble finding these maps...

Click on the link in this thread for the property, click on Maps (on the right-hand menu), scroll down and find the Lake Map link.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Also don't forget Falls of the Ohio State Park...

-J-

 

[Grump01]

Wondering why ACOE properties should be any different than National Parks where we're allowed to carry??????

 

[Scutter01]

Wondering why ACOE properties should be any different than National Parks where we're allowed to carry??????

Because money.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Wondering why ACOE properties should be any different than National Parks where we're allowed to carry??????

Different title means a completely different part of the law that disignates those areas. Try finding the difference between a National Park and a National Recreation area... Think Land Between the Lakes in KY/TN.

 

[eldirector]

Wondering why ACOE properties should be any different than National Parks where we're allowed to carry??????

Managed by a completely different branch of your Federal Government, with their own rules.

I believe there is a bill working its way through Congress to "fix" this, but I don't know the status. You can also contact the District Commander for written permission:
Col. Luke T. Leonard
US Army Engineer District, Louisville
Mazzoli Federal Building, 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Pl, Louisville, KY 40202
502-315-6766

Here are the rules:
http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/opto/article.asp?id=77

§ 327.13 Explosives, firearms, other weapons and fireworks.
(a) The possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other
weapons is prohibited unless:
(1) In the possession of a Federal, state or local law enforcement officer;
(2) Being used for hunting or fishing as permitted under §327.8, with devices being unloaded when transported to, from or
between hunting and fishing sites;
(3) Being used at authorized shooting ranges; or
(4) Written permission has been received from the District Commander.
(b) Possession of explosives or explosive devices of any kind, including fireworks or other pyrotechnics, is prohibited unless
written permission has been received from the District Commander.
[65 FR 6901, Feb. 11, 2000]

 

[Captain Bligh]

Wondering why ACOE properties should be any different than National Parks where we're allowed to carry??????

Army Corps of Engineers properties aren't recreational areas per se. They serve a functional purpose and have recreation areas built around them. For example Salamonie, Roush, and Mississenawa are flood control reservoirs. Perhaps that gives the Corps of Engineers more latitude about weapons as a precaution against domestic terrorism to flood the towns downstream?

 

[sonofagun]

Managed by a completely different branch of your Federal Government, with their own rules.

I believe there is a bill working its way through Congress to "fix" this, but I don't know the status.

H.R. 1865: Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act of 2011 - GovTrack.us

Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.1865 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Doesn't look like it is working its way very well. Introduced May 2011 and has not moved since.

 

[HICKMAN]

I pay for a DNR property pass to get on Lake Monroe as well as a DNR issued boat permit... think I may pose this question to DNR.

 

[HICKMAN]

from the DNR FB page:

Indiana DNR Law Enforcement
JT....several years ago, the DNR Director accepted the carrying of a handgun by a licensed person onto our "state" properties, which was a property rule violation prior to that. The reservoir properties are different because they are leased by the state from the Army Corps of Engineers (federal property). The property rules on federal properties still restricts the carrying of firearms under certain conditions. The DNR manages the reservoir property as an agreement, therefore state property rules apply, but in no way supercede the federal laws, which also apply.


(clear as mud to me)

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

from the DNR FB page:

Indiana DNR Law Enforcement
JT....several years ago, the DNR Director accepted the carrying of a handgun by a licensed person onto our "state" properties, which was a property rule violation prior to that. The reservoir properties are different because they are leased by the state from the Army Corps of Engineers (federal property). The property rules on federal properties still restricts the carrying of firearms under certain conditions. The DNR manages the reservoir property as an agreement, therefore state property rules apply, but in no way supercede the federal laws, which also apply.


(clear as mud to me)

IN DNR: OK with us...but the Feds say, generally, NO.

 

[bwframe]

Kinda like the Post Office. Might be a worthwhile cause to be the test case.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Kinda like the Post Office. Might be a worthwhile cause to be the test case.

I personally think that a "test case" individual should be of sufficient age that, should the case go against them, that they'd not have all that long left on earth to be "gunless".

5 years not being able to own or touch guns...

vs 50 years not being able...

I honestly cant' tell if the above opinion needs purple text or not.

So...given your advanced age, Burl, I nominate you!

-J-

 

[Westside]

I personally think that a "test case" individual should be of sufficient age that, should the case go against them, that they'd not have all that long left on earth to be "gunless".

5 years not being able to own or touch guns...

vs 50 years not being able...

I honestly cant' tell if the above opinion needs purple text or not.

So...given your advanced age, Burl, I nominate you!

-J-