Lake Monroe carry

[Indy_Guy_77]

So... You care a little bit?

 

[SteveM4A1]

I could care less... carry deep concealed if you wanna carry. My 2 cents.

Gunner

You don't care about the government taking away your right when you cross an invisible line? What were we discussing in the Post Office thread?

 

[GunnerDan]

You don't care about the government taking away your right when you cross an invisible line? What were we discussing in the Post Office thread?

I care much, but what I dont care about is some "line in the sand" I will do what I want when I want and to hell with the pieces of crap in the tyrannical government.

Gunner

 

[The Bubba Effect]

You don't care about the government taking away your right when you cross an invisible line? What were we discussing in the Post Office thread?

+ .gov is not really "taking away" our rights by restricting carry in certain places. We still have the right to bear arms, it's an unalienable right, not given but recognized. Heck, it's even codified right at the beginning of the one legal document we have that trumps all other legal documents.

.gov is just ignoring those rights and the law by threatening to punish us if they catch us carrying where they prohibit.


It might seem like I'm playing semantics or picking nits, but I think there is an important distinction and we should always be aware of that distinction lest we become confused and forget who's in charge.

 

[SteveM4A1]

They are taking away your right to bear arms in certain places. You can use the term restrict all you want, but they do not allow it in those cases.

 

[addictedhealer]

Yes. Just as, from my understanding, I can't carry on the Ohio River (while locking through). But whatever.

BTW, if the woods are owned by ACoE, then no-no.

Page 10 I believe

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf

It all depends on who owns the "woods". ACoE will typically own up to a certain elevation surrounding the reservoir - kind of like a highest-of-the-high flood stage. In low-lying areas, this can be a lot of real estate between private property and ACoE zones.

In steep terrain - it may be a relatively thin strip.

Hmm.. I hike out there all the time and sometimes wind up at the water. Seems like total bs that I have to disarm when I see the waters edge. I'll keep carrying and hope for the best.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Hmm.. I hike out there all the time and sometimes wide up at the water. Seems like total bs that I have to disarm when I see the waters edge. I'll keep carrying and hope for the best.

Sssshhh, dont tell them

 

[saberstar]

Years ago I was fishing down at the spillway. It was about 2am or so. A cop pulls up and flashes the light on me. He requests that I come over and checks me out. Then asks if I had seen anyone in the area that looked like these people(shows me 2 mug shots). From my understanding they were inmates who had escaped.

Told my wife about it (which I shouldn't have done) and from then on if I were alone fishing I had my gun or buddies with me.

 

[88GT]

So this injunction makes it legal for us to? I would think the feds would say, "hey, these dams are sensitive places." I fish ACoE properties a lot and would love to be allowed to carry while doing so.

Lawyers what say ye?

That is a question for the lawyers. Typically, these cases are limited to the geographical boundaries that divide the different courts. Like a ruling in Wyoming Supreme Court only affects Wyoming. A ruling in an appellate court generally only affects those states within that court's jurisdiction. There was a discussion in the comments about whether or not that standard is applicable here because the defendant in this case is ACoE and it involves a regulation that applies from sea to shining sea. I don't know the answer. Logically, I don't see how it can be arbitrarily okay to enforce here, but not there. But then we know nothing about our laws and courts is all that logical.

So... You care a little bit?

He did say he could care less, which implies some level of care does exist.

 

[SteveM4A1]

That is a question for the lawyers. Typically, these cases are limited to the geographical boundaries that divide the different courts. Like a ruling in Wyoming Supreme Court only affects Wyoming. A ruling in an appellate court generally only affects those states within that court's jurisdiction. There was a discussion in the comments about whether or not that standard is applicable here because the defendant in this case is ACoE and it involves a regulation that applies from sea to shining sea. I don't know the answer. Logically, I don't see how it can be arbitrarily okay to enforce here, but not there. But then we know nothing about our laws and courts is all that logical.



He did say he could care less, which implies some level of care does exist.

That was my understanding of it as well. I believe one of the commenters used the Bonidy case as an example.

 

[KW730]

Typically, these cases are limited to the geographical boundaries that divide the different courts.

My understanding was that since it is a ruling against a specific agency, it affects the entire agency, regardless of what geographical region they are operating in.

 

[88GT]

My understanding was that since it is a ruling against a specific agency, it affects the entire agency, regardless of what geographical region they are operating in.

Yes, that is part of the debate.

 

[firecadet613]

Any updates on this?

 

[SteveM4A1]

Any updates on this?

I'd listen to the lawyers...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-carry-corp-engineers-property-now-legal.html

 

[CathyInBlue]

Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

On January 7, 2014, the district court held a hearing regarding the motion to dismiss and for a preliminary injunction. On January 10, 2014, the district court issued a memorandum decision and order denying the motion to dismiss and granting the motion for a preliminary nationwide injunction.

"preliminary nationwide injunction"
Seems to be a nationwide injunction ATM, unless that page does not have all the current info.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

"preliminary nationwide injunction"
Seems to be a nationwide injunction ATM, unless that page does not have all the current info.

Good stuff

 

[sporter]

Who enforces federal law/code on ACOE property? (like Lake Monroe)

 

[Principal Skinr]

Who enforces federal law/code on ACOE property? (like Lake Monroe)

I've seen Army Corps of Engineers police on the lake. When I saw them, three words appeared in my head....WTF???? Ok, now you've got DNR, Monroe Co. Sheriff, and ACOE all patrolling the same waters. They are out there trolling.....for revenue!

I don't mind the DNR, and maybe the Sheriff's Dept., but ACOE? That's a bit ridiculous.

Here's something even more ridiculous. So, if i go to Lake Monroe, or another ACOE lake, I have to leave my handgun in the vehicle, where it is vulnerable to theft. Ugghhh.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

"preliminary nationwide injunction"
Seems to be a nationwide injunction ATM, unless that page does not have all the current info.

Ok I read the court order, and saw nothing stating a nationwide injunction..it simply stated that the ACoE cannot enforce 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 on their properties, for law-abiding carriers. Come in Kirk, over.

 

[AndersonIN]

Tagged cause I don't carry a little bit on ACOE!