USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


jason812
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1534
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:41 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#16

Post by jason812 »

Commented and forwarded to my brother and cousin who also sent comments.
In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law to pursue a natural justice.
User avatar

4copas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:28 am
Location: Lake Dallas

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#17

Post by 4copas »

Commented. Thanks for the heads up!
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. John Wayne
NRA Life Member :patriot: :txflag:

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#18

Post by chasfm11 »

Commented. I also shared the link with another forum and asked for others to do the same.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#19

Post by ELB »

The current ACOE regulation pertaining to firearms, with affected parts highlighted:
§ 327.13 - Explosives, firearms, other weapons and fireworks.

(a) The possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other weapons is prohibited unless:

(1) In the possession of a Federal, state or local law enforcement officer;

(2) Being used for hunting or fishing as permitted under § 327.8, with devices being unloaded when transported to, from or between hunting and fishing sites;

(3) Being used at authorized shooting ranges; or

(4) Written permission has been received from the District Commander.


(b) Possession of explosives or explosive devices of any kind, including fireworks or other pyrotechnics, is prohibited unless written permission has been received from the District Commander.
[65 FR 6901, Feb. 11, 2000]
The proposed change, with the changes highlighted in blue.
§ 327.13 Explosives, firearms, other weapons and fireworks.

(a) An individual may possess or transport a weapon on any project provided that:

(1) The individual is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, state, or local law from possessing or transporting such weapon; and

(2) The possession or transportation of such weapon is in compliance with applicable Federal, state, and local law.

(b) As used in this section, “weapon” includes any firearm as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A), bow and arrow, crossbow, or other projectile firing device.

(c) The District Commander may modify or revoke the permissions granted by this section when issuing a special event permit under § 327.21.


(d) Possession of explosives or explosive devices of any kind, including fireworks or other pyrotechnics, is prohibited unless written permission has been received from the District Commander.
Note that in the proposed version, the District Commander may modify or revoke your "permission" to possess or transport a firearm for a "special event" permitted under § 327.21.

§ 327.21 defines "special event" as
327.21 - Special events.

(a) Special events including, but not limited to, water carnivals, boat regattas, fishing tournaments, music festivals, dramatic presentations or other special recreation programs are prohibited unless written permission has been granted by the District Commander. Where appropriate, District Commanders can provide the state a blanket letter of permission to permit fishing tournaments while coordinating the scheduling and details of tournaments with individual projects. An appropriate fee may be charged under the authority of § 327.23.

(b) The public shall not be charged any fee by the sponsor of such event unless the District Commander has approved in writing (and the sponsor has properly posted) the proposed schedule of fees. The District Commander shall have authority to revoke permission, require removal of any equipment, and require restoration of an area to pre-event condition, upon failure of the sponsor to comply with terms and conditions of the permit/permission or the regulations in this part 327.
[65 FR 6902, Feb. 11, 2000]
Why does the DC get a veto over your right to carry because there's a bass tournament going on?

I will be making a comment about that.

For the rest of it, it seems like they are saying you have can have a "weapon" as long as you follow federal, state, and local laws, which seems redundant.

And still no fireworks.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
User avatar

Topic author
couzin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:12 pm
Location: Terrell, Texas

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#20

Post by couzin »

Keyword is "may". It is just a way to be able to make an event safe IF felt necessary. Probably never happen. Fireworks are generally not allowed because of the timber/grasslands on fee owned lands, and, the use of fireworks in campgrounds would generally tick off paying customers (have I said before that USACE funds are generated as reimbursible, that is, fees generated come back to the projects (lakes, parks) from the Treasury. USACE receives very little tax dollars for operating projects. This is a big step for USACE to step up and allow firearms - our Rangers are unarmed and are potentially in harms way.
“Only at the end do you realize the power of the Dark Side.”

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#21

Post by chasfm11 »

couzin wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 6:25 pm Keyword is "may". It is just a way to be able to make an event safe IF felt necessary. Probably never happen. Fireworks are generally not allowed because of the timber/grasslands on fee owned lands, and, the use of fireworks in campgrounds would generally tick off paying customers (have I said before that USACE funds are generated as reimbursible, that is, fees generated come back to the projects (lakes, parks) from the Treasury. USACE receives very little tax dollars for operating projects. This is a big step for USACE to step up and allow firearms - our Rangers are unarmed and are potentially in harms way.
I agree that this is a big step forward. But I see no way that Corps rangers are in harms more if LTCs in Texas are allowed to carry on Corps property than those rangers are in harms way today. Hopefully, we are past thinking that people with an LTC pose a threat just because they have a gun. I'm willing to bet that the parks around Lake Grapevine, for example, have people visiting them today who carry guns who do not have a license for them. I'm prevented from going to them with even a gun in my vehicle. The same is true, I believe, for the campgrounds run across the country by the Corps. RVers are known to carry firearms and not all of them have licenses for those firearms that are good in all of the States that they visit. Again, I'm prohibited from going to any of those campgrounds because I'm a law abiding citizen and refuse to go camping unarmed.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#22

Post by ELB »

couzin wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 6:25 pm Keyword is "may". It is just a way to be able to make an event safe IF felt necessary. Probably never happen. Fireworks are generally not allowed because of the timber/grasslands on fee owned lands, and, the use of fireworks in campgrounds would generally tick off paying customers (have I said before that USACE funds are generated as reimbursible, that is, fees generated come back to the projects (lakes, parks) from the Treasury. USACE receives very little tax dollars for operating projects. This is a big step for USACE to step up and allow firearms - our Rangers are unarmed and are potentially in harms way.
The key problem is “may.” What gives the DC the power or smarts to decide “if felt necessary?”

And the fact that Rangers are not armed is in no way mitigated by unconstitutionally disarming me. That risk that a Ranger runs by being unarmed in harm’s way is strictly a consequence of the ACOE’s decision.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
User avatar

oohrah
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: McLennan County

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#23

Post by oohrah »

We all know the Army would never write a regulation that would restrict or limit the authority of a Commander. This loosens restrictions on firearms on ACOE property, but doesn't take away the DC's final say if he wanted to exercise it.
USMC, Retired
Treating one variety of person as better or worse than others by accident of birth is morally indefensible.
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#24

Post by ELB »

So far 256 public comments registered, 255 pro, one against.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
User avatar

PriestTheRunner
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#25

Post by PriestTheRunner »

ELB wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:19 pm So far 256 public comments registered, 255 pro, one against.
How do you see the breakdown?
User avatar

Rafe
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1982
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:43 pm
Location: Htown

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#26

Post by Rafe »

PriestTheRunner wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:50 pm
ELB wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:19 pm So far 256 public comments registered, 255 pro, one against.
How do you see the breakdown?
I'm not sure how ELB got the count, but I pretty easily found the one against (an anonymous comment, of course) https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0008-0049:
While I realize the gun lobby and all the fanatical gun nuts will win this one, I just want to say it has always been nice to enter a Corps facility knowing guns were not allowed. Of course, the gun nuts would bring them anyway, but at least they would be less likely to brandish them.

Because of this change in regulations, some drunken idiot will no doubt pull out his gun when he is cut off at the boat launch and then some other drunken idiot will pull out his gun and then everyone can be happy with the result.

It is a shame this regulation change will no doubt happen.
:roll:

Oops. Here's another against: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0008-0089. This one is long, but here's a tidbit: "My fear isn't the criminals with guns, it's the hotheads with a concealed carry license or those who open carry. These people tend to think of themselves as 'The Law' and look for situations to prove themselves." And the person is a Texan (at least by residence) and lives near Canyon Lake, in Comal County.

Negative #3: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0008-0105

Now that I've glanced at the first line or two of all 256 comments, those are the only 3 "against" votes I found.
“Be ready; now is the beginning of happenings.”
― Robert E. Howard, Swords of Shahrazar

jason812
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1534
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:41 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#27

Post by jason812 »

Mine is one of the registered. Wonder if it will do any good?
In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law to pursue a natural justice.
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#28

Post by ELB »

PriestTheRunner wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:50 pm
ELB wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:19 pm So far 256 public comments registered, 255 pro, one against.
How do you see the breakdown?
The page that shows the registered comments also shows the number of them that have been posted. It was about 11 pages long when I looked at it and I read the first line of each comment looking for whether it appeared positive, or against. Looks like I missed a couple.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: USACE seeking comment on revision to 36CFR327.13

#29

Post by ELB »

Nearly 3,000 comments. I flipped through a few pages, vast majority are in support of amending the rules to permit carry. Actually I didn't see any against, but I only skimmed a few pages. Most of them are cut and paste comments, but still to the positive.

If you haven't weighed in, do so. Deadline is June 12, but the sooner the better.

You can view the proposed rule here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0008-0001

You can comment by sending an email with the docket number COE-2018-0008 in the subject line to Firearms@usace.army.mil

or

go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number (COE-2018-0008) in the search bar and hit enter, and then look for the "Comment Now!" button on the right side of the screen.


If you haven't commented already, get thee hence.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”