TexasCHLforum.com

Did some more poking around the government sites for rule-making stuff. The Federal Register posts list of proposed rules, adopted rules, and notices that are published by the various agencies. For an adopted rule to become effective it must be published in the Federal Register 30 days prior to its adoption. The index for DoD rules (which the USACE falls under) still lists the subject rule as a proposed rule, not a (adopted or final) rule.

https://www.federalregister.gov/index/2 ... posed-rule

I called the COE point of contact listed in the docket for this rule, left a vm with my name and number asking the status of this rule. We'll see if anything comes of that.

FYI: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=COE-2018-0008

I tried awhile back and couldn't find anything either. I'm afraid some bureaucrat slow rolled the process hoping Trump would lose and they could ditch the changes. I'm very pessimistic these days.

Some weeks back I once again emailed MSLF and asked for a status of the mediation that was supposed to be going on regarding rollback of the COE's regulations forbidding functional firearms on COE property.

I have received no reply.

However, today I looked through the MSLF website to see if there were any changes. There is a announcement/press release dated 15 Dec 17.
https://www.mountainstateslegal.org/new ... nsw7-Ry6Uk

In summary it appears to say three things:

1. On November 20, 2017, the Corps granted Mrs. Nesbitt and Mr. Baker [the plaintiffs] written permission to carry loaded firearms on Corps-managed lands in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana, subject to certain restrictions and local laws regarding the carrying of concealed weapons.

2. The plaintiffs and the Army COE have jointly asked the Ninth Circuit to dismiss the Army COE's appeal of the federal district judge's permanent injunction against the COE's regulations against having functional firearms on COE land, and the Ninth has done so.

3. The federal district judge's permanent injunction against the COE is still in force "while the agency considers amending its regulation"...but it applies only to COE lands in Idaho.

So Nesbitt and Baker can carry pretty much anywhere they are likely to go on COE lands in a four state area, people in Idaho can carry on COE lands in Idaho, and the rest of us are still deprived by regulation of our 2A rights on COE land.

Absent pressure from the courts, I see no reason to expect the COE to make any serious effort to amend their regulations. If bothered by anyone enough to respond, my pessimistic assessment is they will say they need to wait to see how the national reciprocity bill pending in Congress turns out (recall it would allow carry on federal lands).

Not holding my breath.

I got curious last week about the status of this so I emailed the Mountain States Legal Foundation (who is representing Nesbitt and Baker) to ask. I got a polite email back from William Perry Pendley, who runs MSLF (and for all I know IS MSLF) and he basically said negotiations on the new policy are continuing.

locke_n_load wrote:

Any news on when? So we can stop having to research parks before going to them???

No, it's just an announcement. Looks like the DOJ just notified the judge on about 3/1 or 3/2 of their change in position. Since it is a federal regulation, I presume it will have to be drafted, then put out for comments for (I think) 120 days, then comments evaluated etc, before being finally published.

So months, not days. But not years either.

Via No lawyers - Only Guns and Money
a press release from the Mountain States Legal Foundation:

DENVER, CO. An Idaho woman who is barred from carrying a functional firearm for self-defense when she visits vast federal recreational facilities today learned of the Trump administration’s intention to codify her victory before an Idaho federal district court, which ruled the federal government agency’s ban on firearms violates the Second Amendment, at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Elizabeth E. Nesbitt of Nez Perce County is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, regularly carries a concealed weapon, and often seeks to recreate on lands managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because Corps of Engineers regulations ban functional firearms, even while camped in tents, Ms. Nesbitt is subject to criminal prosecution if she attempts to exercise her Second Amendment rights. Alan C. Baker, a firearms instructor and resident of Idaho’s Latah County, is a co-plaintiff in the suit, which was filed in August of 2013 in Idaho federal district court. The Corps of Engineers did not reply to requests from the attorney for Ms. Nesbitt and Mr. Baker, Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), seeking an exemption from its firearm ban, a ban that has not changed since the landmark Heller ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States.

“On the eve of oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit in Seattle, federal lawyers filed an emergency motion stating their clients’ intention to ‘reconsider[] the firearms policy,’ which the panel granted moments ago,” said William Perry Pendley of Mountain States Legal Foundation. “We are pleased the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will at last comply with the Constitution.”

...

There is more text to the press release, but it is background info on the USACE, the plaintiffs, and the MSLF

Full press release here.

This sounds like the Trump DOJ is going to have the USACE change their regulations to comply with the ruling of the federal district court. That would have effect nation wide.

Good news indeed!

It has been almost a year since the Federal District Court in Idaho tossed out the US Army Corps of Engineer's (henceforth "COE") regulation essentially banning firearms as unconstitutional because it provided no serious avenue for self-defense.

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).

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

This seems a handy place to get a good overview of the legal paper barrage: http://michellawyers.com/morris-v-u-s-a ... engineers/

I think the COE will appeal this to the 9th Circuit Court. But who knows, maybe not since the 9th has issued some 2A friendly opinions lately, maybe the COE won't want to take the chance it will lose and thus (I think) expand the decision to the entire 9th Circuit region.

This will take awhile.

Exactly 9 months later, the final decision by the court (via Volokh Conspiracy):

From 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.

srothstein wrote:I did not read it to find out how it applied, ...

After a quick read, here is how I understand Parker applies in Morris: A federal regulation that regulates firearms and allows for self-defense is constitutional.
In the Morris case, the court is saying that a federal regulation that completely ban of firearms is unconstitutional because it forecloses self-defense with a firearm. It cites Parker and Masciandro as cases where federal regulation of firearms was held to be constitutional because somehow self-defense was still an option.

WRT Parker, tho, this is not what I got out of it at all, so I am a bit baffled. Maybe I read the Morris case wrongly. (?)

In Parker, the Yosemite National Park had a regulation that said that violation of a state law was also a violation of federal park regulations. California has a state law that a handgun may not be carried in a vehicle unless it is in a locked case. Park rangers found Parker had a unloaded Makarov in a holster, with a magazine nearby, in the map pocket behind the seat of his pickup truck. (IIRC from my time in Cali, this would legally constitute a "loaded handgun" but that doesn't appear to have been an issue.) For this and other alleged violations Parker was charged and brought to trial in federal court. WRT gun charge, Parker argued that the charge violated the 2A. Marched thru some other cases (including Heller but not McDonald) in coming to its conclusion, but the result was the it decided the feds (and presumably the State of California) can regulate firearms anyway they want to. I did not see any reference to "self-defense," except that the court in Parker says Heller had nothing to say about the constitutionality of anything besides having handguns in the home for self-defense, and pretty much all the cases it cited in support of this say the same thing as far as I can tell.

I am not sure how having a handgun in a locked case (and separate from amm) in your car would constitute "self-defense" -- after all, California's law in this is specifically to prevent one from having access to a gun.

srothstein wrote:I did not read it to find out how it applied, but here is the Parker decision:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-c ... 0005-4.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just caught up with this, thank you very much!

After a very quick read of the decision, it seems to say that if the COE made some provision for carrying of guns for SD they could still regulate firearms, and references U.S. v Parker, 919 F.Supp.2d 1072 (E.D.Cal. Jan 22 2013), a case about an event that apparently took place in Yosemite?

But I cannot find the actual US vs Parker decision. Does anyone here have a link to it?

From Volokh Conspiracy: (my emphasis in bold/red)

Today’s Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Idaho Jan. 10, 2014) strikes down an Army Corps of Engineers regulation barring possession of loaded guns in recreation areas surrounding Corps dams. The court holds that tents are akin to homes, where Second Amendment rights are protected. The court also holds that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns as well as to possess them at homes, so that the regulation is unconstitutional even as to carrying outside tents. And the court rejects the argument that the government may restrict such gun possession and carrying on the grounds that the government owns the property, and has no obligation to open the property to the public in the first place.

Link to decision: Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Idaho Jan. 10, 2014)

This is a preliminary injunction, not a final decision by the district court, and it will certainly be appealed. But it is a step forward.