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

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

RPB
Banned
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:17 pm

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

Post by RPB »

phrogg wrote:So this question really intrigues me. There are two places that I frequent that would be illegal not only to carry but to have with you in the car. The first one is American Shooting Center where I took my CHL class! It is on land leased from the County as part of the Park. But its actually sitting on top of COE land. So...how are you supposed to get to the shooting range that is within the park much less shoot there! Do we have to worry about a big bust happening some day where they nab everyone that comes to the range? That might be a great way for the gov't to get a lot of guns out of circulation quickly.

Second one is when you drive down Highway 6 near I-10 in Houston. You are driving across COE land between I-10 and almost Clay Rd to the north. Technically, that land should be off limits while you are driving according to the CFR. Even Bear Creek Golf World along that stretch of Hwy 6 would actually be sitting on top of COE land.

The whole COE thing needs to change.
A simple addition to the CFR like the one in the Postal CFR (39CFR232.1 (p)(2)) which says
[...]. Nothing contained in
these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other
Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations
applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

would help the situation.

You sum it up well.
I can't even legally park with my concealed handgun in the car, under the Texas Motorist Protection act, at the City Park in Georgetown and fish there. ... I have to find parking off the COE property, and leave my gun in the car, and walk even farther, (not easy for elderly disabled persons) to go fishing.
I'm no lawyer

"Never show your hole card" "Always have something in reserve"
User avatar
phrogg
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:31 pm

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

Post by phrogg »

Well to make it even more complicated, people don't even realize its COE property. You have to work sometimes to figure out where the property ends. Someone said that a little earlier up the thread here but would people know that a particular park was actually COE? Where does the COE ownership end. The same parks all around my house near where the American Shooting Center are could potentially be COE and I don't know it. Just like the golf course or the soccer fields or all the jogging trails throughout this area.
----
Welcome to Texas. If you ain't packin, you are slackin!
User avatar
SQLGeek
Senior Member
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:48 am
Location: Richmond, TX

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

Post by SQLGeek »

Good point. I was thinking of the Addicks Reservoir park myself. I believe there are some trail entrances where it is not posted that the land is leased to the city from the COE.
Psalm 91:2
User avatar
Fangs
Senior Member
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:18 pm
Location: San Marcos, TX

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

Post by Fangs »

davidtx wrote:
Fangs wrote:]
davidtx wrote:Heck, I saw Chance blow up a big ore moving truck on Hard Target tonight.
It's Human Target, and, in his defense, he shot at an already leaking fuel filter. :fire
Oops, I must have been tired last night. Or maybe I confused it with the Jean-Claude movie Hard Target where the lead character was also named Chance. :mrgreen:
Well played, Sir. :tiphat: My bad. :oops:
"When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden. The one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream." - speedsix
User avatar
jmra
Senior Member
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

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

Post by jmra »

BoneDigger wrote:
This is my final word on this to you, and then I'll simply tell you good day and you can move on. If you are sincerely scared of a mountain lion or Bobcat on one of the state parks, you probably don't spend much time outside. A mountain lion MAYBE if you were at Big Bend (which is not a COE park and thus legal for carry anyway). But, a BOBCAT??? Are you serious? I would be MUCH more concerned about the two legged creatures at that mall than any four legged creature on one of the state parks.

What I have posted here is the final say from the legal division at Texas Parks and Wildlife. If you choose to carry a concealed weapon on COE lands (even if leased from the state) then you are breaking the law. That is a decision only you can make. And THAT, my friend, is the end of the story.

Good day.

Todd[/quote]

My final word is this - if you don't think bobcats are a serious problem in N. Texas then you don't know much about N. Texas. Bobcats are known to take down full size deer and if you ever come face to face with one that thinks you are in its way you are going to wish you had something strapped to your hip.

As for your claim that this is the "final say" from the legal division at Texas Parks and Wildlife, I'll believe that when you produce documentation from Texas Parks and Wildlife. Until then you probably don't want to enter anywhere that has a gun buster sign because someone on another thread said they were told by dps legal divison that a sign did not have to meet 30.06 in order to legally prevent cc. Oh, and go ahead and speed as much as you want because LEO's don't give speeding tickets to CHL's.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
RPB
Banned
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:17 pm

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

Post by RPB »

Here is an email that went out to USACE ranger personnel very recently, from a head USACE

ranger guy to inform them of this fact.

Quote:
Subject: New Federal Law Pertaining To Firearms on National Park/National
Wildlife Service Lands Is Not Applicable at USACE Projects and Facilities

All -- a new law regarding firearms on some specific federal properties takes effect next
week. This is not new information for us, and we have been reviewing it for quite a while.
Counsel has been fully engaged. We offer the following guidance:

1. Section 512 of the Credit Card Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-024) pertains
to possession of firearms and allows an individual to possess an assembled or
functional firearm in any unit of the National Park Service or National
Wildlife Refuge System provided that the individual is not otherwise
prohibited by law from possessing the firearm and the possession is in
compliance with the law of the State in which the National Park/Refuge is
located. This law becomes effective on 22 February 2010 on property under
the jurisdiction of the National Park Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

2. Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects or facilities. The
passage of this new law does not affect application of Title 36 regulations
(36 C.F.R., Chapter III, Part 327, Rules and Regulations Governing Public Use
of COE Water Resources Development Projects). 36 C.F.R. § 327.13(a)
prohibits the possession of loaded firearms or ammunition on lands and waters administered
by the Corps unless one of the exceptions in 36 C.F.R. §327.13(a)(1)-(4) applies. The full text of 36 C.F.R. can be viewed on the NRM Gateway at: http://corpslakes.usace.army.mil/emp...fs/title36.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.


**************
3. 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 remains in full force and effect. It will continue to
prohibit loaded concealed weapons on Corps properties regardless of the new
law and notwithstanding any contrary provisions of State law.
It remains
Corps policy that we will not honor State-issued concealed weapon permits on our facilities
and that District Commanders do not have discretion under 36 C.F.R. § 327.13(a)(4) to
create blanket exceptions to this policy.
A change of this nature to Corps regulations in
36 C.F.R. Part 327 would require formal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act (5
U.S.C. §§ 551-706).
****************

4. It is incumbent upon us to communicate and reinforce our firearms
regulation with our visitors and partners, which may include posting park
entrances with "No Firearms" signs IAW the Corps sign manual (EP 310-1-6a and EP 310-1-6b)
and taking other actions deemed necessary by Operations Project Managers as coordinated
appropriately with other Corps elements. Information related to this matter will also be
posted for public awareness on the NRM Gateway.

5. HQUSACE POCs for this matter are Stephen Austin, Natural Resources
Manager, Operations (for Visitor Assistance policy and program administration
information), 202-761-4489, stephen.b.austin@usace.army.mil; and Milt Boyd, Assistant Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel (for regulatory questions on federal lands) at 202-761-8546, Milton.W.Boyd@usace.army.mil.

Provided for your attention and appropriate action.

Mike

Michael G. Ensch, SES
Chief, Operations & Regulatory CoP
and Lakes & Rivers Division RIT
HQUSACE, CECW-LRD
441 G St, NW Rm 3E92
Washington, DC 20314

Work (202) 761-1983
Cell (703) 386-6102
I'm no lawyer

"Never show your hole card" "Always have something in reserve"
KD5NRH
Senior Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:25 am
Location: Stephenville TX

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

Post by KD5NRH »

I'd like to point out that there's a war on the other side of the planet. Any portion of the Army that has time to dabble in park management right now should be disbanded to redirect resources to the parts that are doing their real job.
User avatar
marksiwel
Banned
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:35 pm
Location: Cedar Park/Austin

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

Post by marksiwel »

KD5NRH wrote:I'd like to point out that there's a war on the other side of the planet. Any portion of the Army that has time to dabble in park management right now should be disbanded to redirect resources to the parts that are doing their real job.
:cheers2:
In Capitalism, Man exploits Man. In Communism, it's just the reverse
BoneDigger
Senior Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:19 am
Location: Tyler

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

Post by BoneDigger »

To clarify any misconception on this... I am not repeating something that I heard somebody say and I am not repeating something that came second hand. I sat in the office with the legal division representative (lawyer) in charge of this issue. He told me face-to-face about the TPWD ruling on the matter.

Todd
User avatar
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 26884
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

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

Post by The Annoyed Man »

PUCKER wrote: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.
Hey, if I shoot a guy in the head with a flare gun, and all I do is knock him out and set him on fire, I'm good with that. :smilelol5:
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar
marksiwel
Banned
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:35 pm
Location: Cedar Park/Austin

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

Post by marksiwel »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
PUCKER wrote: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.
Hey, if I shoot a guy in the head with a flare gun, and all I do is knock him out and set him on fire, I'm good with that. :smilelol5:
http://www.break.com/index/idiot_shoots ... e_gun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is this it?
In Capitalism, Man exploits Man. In Communism, it's just the reverse
casingpoint
Senior Member
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:53 pm

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

Post by casingpoint »

If you choose to carry a concealed weapon on COE lands (even if leased from the state) then you are breaking the law.
Reads like a complete ban on firearms. Some folks in Washington D.C. took exception to that recently...
User avatar
PUCKER
Senior Member
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:05 pm
Location: Grapevine, TX

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

Post by PUCKER »

That's not the russian soldier one, but same results.
marksiwel wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
PUCKER wrote: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.
Hey, if I shoot a guy in the head with a flare gun, and all I do is knock him out and set him on fire, I'm good with that. :smilelol5:
http://www.break.com/index/idiot_shoots ... e_gun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is this it?
RPB
Banned
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:17 pm

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

Post by RPB »

Here's a funny thought; it won't work, because of the "does not apply" section, but still a funny thought.:
After you watch this video, and see the "SPORTSMANS RIGHTS ACT" you'll get the funny thought I just had if I'm interrupted kayak fishing. :biggrinjester:

VIDEO: (RE: Sheriff's powers to arrest Federal Officers; and Sheriffs' Federal lawsuit against Clinton Administration etc..)
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/402649/152 ... merica.wmv" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sportsman's Rights Act
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#62.0125" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Texas Parks and Wildlife Code
Sec. 62.0125. HARASSMENT OF HUNTERS, TRAPPERS, AND FISHERMEN.
(a) This section may be cited as the Sportsman's Rights Act.


(b) In this section:

(1) "Wildlife" means all species of wild mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, or amphibians.
(2) "Process of hunting or catching" means any act directed at the lawful hunting or catching of wildlife, including camping or other acts preparatory to hunting or catching of wildlife that occur on land or water on which the affected person has the right or privilege of hunting or catching that wildlife.
(c) No person may intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.
(d) No person may intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife for the purpose of disrupting a person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.
(e) No person may enter or remain on public land or enter or remain on private land without the landowner's or his agent's consent if the person intends to disrupt another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.
(f) This section does not apply to a peace officer of this state, a law enforcement officer of the United States, a member of the armed forces of the United States or of this state, or employees of the department or other state or federal agencies having statutory responsibility to manage wildlife or land during the time that the officer, member, or employee is in the actual discharge of official duties.
(g) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
(h) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the defendant's conduct is protected by the right to freedom of speech under the constitution of this state or the United States.

Sec. 62.013. PENALTIES. (a) Except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person who violates a provision of this subchapter commits an offense that is a Class C Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.

(b) A person who violates Section 62.003, 62.004, 62.005, 62.0065, or 62.011(c), or a rule adopted under Section 62.0065 commits an offense that is a Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor, unless it is shown at the trial of the defendant for a violation of that section or rule, as appropriate, that the defendant has been convicted one or more times before the trial date of a violation of that section or rule, as appropriate, in which case the offense is a Parks and Wildlife Code state jail felony.

(b) A person who violates Section 62.003, 62.004, 62.005, 62.011(c), or 350.001 commits an offense that is a Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor, unless it is shown at the trial of the defendant for a violation of that section that the defendant has been convicted one or more times before the trial date of a violation of that section, in which case the offense is a Parks and Wildlife Code state jail felony.


Text of subsection as amended by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., Ch. 989, Sec. 3

(c) In addition to the punishments provided in Subsections (a) and (b), a person who violates Section 62.003, 62.004, 62.005, 62.0065, or 62.011(c), or a rule adopted under Section 62.0065 is punishable by the revocation or suspension under Section 12.5015 of hunting and fishing licenses and permits.

Text of subsection as amended by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1156, Sec. 1

(c) In addition to the punishments provided in Subsections (a) and (b), a person who violates Section 62.003, 62.004, 62.005, 62.011(c), or 350.001 is punishable by the revocation or suspension under Section 12.5015 of hunting and fishing licenses and permits.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that won't work, Texas Legislators allowed the Army/Feds an exemption .... back to brainstorming :mrgreen:
I'm no lawyer

"Never show your hole card" "Always have something in reserve"
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”