TexasCHLforum.com

Whether the total ban by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the possession of functional firearms for self-defense on Corps-managed lands violates the Second Amendment?


ETA: Thread title updated to reflect new name of lead plaintiff, which resulted in change of name of case.

Bout time.

AEA wrote:Bout time.

How about the bankrupt postal service next.

Anygunanywhere

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.

Still outstanding progress.

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?

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;

anygunanywhere wrote:

AEA wrote:Bout time.

How about the bankrupt postal service next.

Anygunanywhere

But I'd like to see this one turned into a permanent injunction first and the opportunity for the Corp to come up with some sort of a SD regulation not happen.

Personally, I can get around going the Federal controlled Post Office bricks and mortar places by using a local counter at my dry cleaner's place. The folks at the dry cleaner can do almost everything that the Federal employees can do and are a whole lot more friendly in the process.

We are denied access to the numerous Corp controlled lake areas and camping areas by the current ban. Our church group goes to a Corp campground twice each year and we don't join them because of the Corp practice.
Having this injunction in place would change that and I certainly welcome that change. Right now, I have only cautious optimism about a good and more permanent outcome on Morris. I read the Parker decision and don't see any relationship but then IANAL.

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!

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.

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.

Awesome!!

ELB wrote: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.

The way I read that, we are not suddenly granted the right to carry on Corps land in Texas. The odds are that the ban remaining in the rest of the states is a house of cards that will come down relatively quickly, but don't go do something foolish right now, and give the Corps a basis for arguing further to preserve the bans because "unruly citizens without a 'proper respect' for the prerogatives of bureaucracies" were impatient and got themselves a-rested....... And God help us if OCT screws this up for the rest of us.

Yes, there is something to celebrate — particularly if you live in Idaho — but this is still a time for caution.

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.

ELB wrote:This will take awhile.

I agree. It scares me to death that OCT (locally) and NAGR (nationally) might try to get into the mix. But as long as they stay out of it, I think this house of cards eventually collapses......particularly if dems lose big next month and in 2016.