The final say on state parks and COE lands...

[BoneDigger]

The TPWD legal division has been in contact with the COE and researched the issue of carrying concealed on a state park leased from the COE.

I have been informed by the legal division at TPWD that the letter by Mr. Carter Smith was in error and that it is indeed illegal to carry a firearm in a state park leased by TPWD from the COE, as per federal laws. State parks NOT on COE properties are legal for concealed carry. So, if you visit a park, you should verify first if it is COE lands and if it is, carrying on the park will be illegal. This also apparently goes for keeping a firearm in your vehicle. Although keeping a firearm in your vehicle is legal under state laws, the Federal law prevails.

Understand, a federal law would have to be enforced by federal law enforcement officers. So, it is not likely that you would get a ticket for carrying on COE lands. But, if you have to use the firearm for defensive purposes you would be subject to federal law and I would presume open yourself up to civil lawsuits as a result.

I am not giving legal advice nor am I recommending carrying illegally. I am only laying out the law as it has been explained to me.

Just an FYI.

Todd

[jmra]

Let's see...civil lawsuit for defending yourself or death. That's a hard one.

[BoneDigger]

Let's see...civil lawsuit for defending yourself or death. That's a hard one.

The law is the law. If you choose to BREAK the law for your defense, that is your call and not something I would debate. But if you use this argument, you also will not obey the 30-06 signs or any other CHL laws.

Todd

[TexasGal]

Well, I'm glad that has finally been clarified. I read all the posts and my head was spinning. Now, when can we get this problem before the legislature and get COE lands added into State and Nat'l Parks? It seems a ridiculous hardship.

[jmra]

Let's see...civil lawsuit for defending yourself or death. That's a hard one.

The law is the law. If you choose to BREAK the law for your defense, that is your call and not something I would debate. But if you use this argument, you also will not obey the 30-06 signs or any other CHL laws.

Todd

I disagree. There is a lot of difference in cc in a posted mall and cc in a state park. I for one would not visit a state park where I could not cc, but in your post you stated that if you had to use your weapon for self defense you could face civil lawsuits. What I was implying is if you chose not to cc what are you going to use to defend yourself?

I do not plan on putting myself in a situtation where I can not legally defend myself however if it comes down to defending myself illegally or death, I don't know too many people who are going to choose death.

[BoneDigger]

Let's see...civil lawsuit for defending yourself or death. That's a hard one.

The law is the law. If you choose to BREAK the law for your defense, that is your call and not something I would debate. But if you use this argument, you also will not obey the 30-06 signs or any other CHL laws.

Todd

I disagree. There is a lot of difference in cc in a posted mall and cc in a state park. I for one would not visit a state park where I could not cc, but in your post you stated that if you had to use your weapon for self defense you could face civil lawsuits. What I was implying is if you chose not to cc what are you going to use to defend yourself?

I do not plan on putting myself in a situtation where I can not legally defend myself however if it comes down to defending myself illegally or death, I don't know too many people who are going to choose death.

That could be argued in any situation where you are not allowed to carry. So, I'm not sure what your point is? Aren't you just as dead in the mall you spoke of because you did not carry because of the 30.06 sign? My mention of the civil aspect was an afterthought. I was only making the point that it is against Federal law to carry on a COE park. End of story. If you want to go ahead and carry, that's something you'll have to do with the knowledge that you have been warned.

Todd

[Mastodon]

Well, I'm glad that has finally been clarified. I read all the posts and my head was spinning. Now, when can we get this problem before the legislature and get COE lands added into State and Nat'l Parks? It seems a ridiculous hardship.

Considering much of the land surrounding our lakes and reservoirs (atleast in the central third of TX) is COE, it would be very convenient to get them added to the legal CC.

[Rex B]

Flare guns are legal everywhere, especially lake areas.

[Mastodon]

Flare guns are legal everywhere, especially lake areas.

Ah yes, another BUG option..

[couzin]

Well, I'm glad that has finally been clarified. I read all the posts and my head was spinning. Now, when can we get this problem before the legislature and get COE lands added into State and Nat'l Parks? It seems a ridiculous hardship.

Considering much of the land surrounding our lakes and reservoirs (atleast in the central third of TX) is COE, it would be very convenient to get them added to the legal CC.

Unfortunately - that is not the case. The CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) regarding USACE (COE) lands is wholly separate from the Department of the Interior and NPS regulations. Although the section (36 CFR 327 Rules and Regulations Governing Public Use of Water Development Projects Administered By The Chief of Engineers) is under Title 36 (Parks, Forests, and Public Property), it is a separate agency entirely (US Army) thus no applicability. In order to change the CFR for the USACE lands and waters, the entire section (327) has to be treated the same way as the regulation changes for the DOI rule changes. And if you think the DOI rule change took some time, wait until you see how slow the US Army moves on changing its rule (and that would assume they would even consider a change). I think the last major review and revisions to 36 CFR 327 was in 1986. There have been word changes here and there but not something that would require Federal review, public comment, probably an environmental document, etc. etc..

Thanks Todd for your efforts to clarify.

[PUCKER]

Regarding flare guns, I've wondered about the effectiveness of one for defense....you might stop a bad guy just by the "intimidation factor" alone but I'm seriously doubtful of the stopping capacity of a flare gun. I watched a video of a russian soldier who was playing around with a large caliber flare gun aimed point blank at his own head, he pulled the trigger, he appeared to be dazed more than anything.

[Fangs]

How about a semi-auto flare gun with an extended magazine? Shock and awe the BG long enough to run up with your baseball bat?

(I don't even know if they make those in anything other than single shot, but I'm sure it's possible)

[Rex B]

I've read several novels where flare guns were used to good effect
I for one would not want a lap - or face - full of burning magnesium.

But, another thought: There are adapters to use 12-gauge shotshells in a flaregun.
They are intended for flares made in the 12-gage size. I suspect just having them in proximity with a flare pistol and shotgun shells would make you eligible for a Class 3 extended vacation.
Still, the adapters are unmarked cylinders with a lip on them. They could be almost anything - boat parts, for example. <shrug>

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=504819" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[couzin]

Yes - and getting off topic - but would use of a flare gun or a flare gun equipped to fire 12ga shells be a legal use of force or even deadly force? I recognize (for example) the scenario of being backed into a corner by an attacker and the flare gun (baseball bat, whatever) was just at hand and therefore useable. But if you carried a flare gun (or other instrument) around with you in anticipation of a confrontation - might there not be a legal problem? Maybe Mr. Cotton could answer or at least make an opinion?

[BoneDigger]

Thanks Couzin! I hope all is well with you these days.

Not sure a flare gun would make for a good defensive weapon and not sure how a court would view it. How about just a big old knife?

Todd