USACE Don't Ask Don't Tell

[seamusTX]

I would think that this issue is common to many other states...not only Texas.

Probably there is no state where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have a footprint (maybe Utah). All the coastal states and all states touched by the Mississippi and Missouri rivers do.

However, Texas, because of its size and coastal geography, has an unusually large presence. Nearly all of our state borders are navigable rivers.

Senators are supposed to represent their states. It's helpful to have a local tie-in.

- Jim

[RPB]

time is of the essence ...

I used your letter, made it generic to "our state and other states" "State/city/county Parks on property owned by and leased from USACE" etc etc etc and posted a couple National Forums too so perhaps other States' Senators may be receptive if their constituants write to their Senators too.

Feel free to do the same

(I actually tried to contact every Senator in every State myself before and the typical response was "You don't live here, I'm tossing out your E-mail")

[Oldgringo]

http://hutchison.senate.gov/contact.html
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dear Senator,

A bill currently in debate in the Senate would change the Department of Defense's "don't ask don't tell" policy.

Persons who are otherwise legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon for self defense are prohibited from doing so on land and water controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [36 C.F.R. § 327.13(a)]. This regulation creates a patchwork of areas in Texas and on the state borders where a person can be accused of violating the law without prior notice and for no good reason.

It would be appropriate to amend this bill to remove the prohibition on carrying concealed weapons in areas controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers, as the recently passed credit-card act did for national parks.

Respectfully, etc.



- Jim

[A-R]

Focus. One thing at a time.

The irony of extending "don't ask don't tell" to all military property and all legal practices is priceless.

Senator Hutchison is the Ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This committee has jurisdiction over a broad range of legislative subjects, including ... coastal zone management, interstate commerce, marine navigation and safety,...

The post office is partially privatized. Legislation that affects it has to open up an entirely different section of the United States Code, which involves different congressional committees than legislation that affects the DoD.

Legalizing carry in federal buildings, as opposed to open lands and waters, would also bring down the proverbial smelly brown showers.

- Jim

Fully understand your point, but how did the National Parks carry amendment get tacked onto a credit card regulation bill? It can be done.

[seamusTX]

I am not a lobbyist and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it depends very much on which committee the bill originates in. Also keep in mind that every bill has to pass both the House and the Senate.

Bills are killed by referring them to a committee where the chairman is known to be hostile to the bill. It happens all the time. It's much more common than defeating a bill by a vote of the entire House or Senate.

In my personal life, I would rather do one thing well than two things poorly.

- Jim

[Right2Carry]

Sent emails to both Senators.

[couzin]

... since it affects ARMY regulations etc. ... why not attach language ... something permitting States to control whether we carry or not on USACE recreational property/parks/lakes?

Can't be done - while the 1993 Congressional law affects the Army, it affects only the military side ('green suit') of the house, not the civil works side of the house where USACE (Corps of Engineers) has its shop. Even though USACE is a MACOM (Major Army Command) of the US Army, and it does comply with the majority of the Army Regulations (ARs) (except where the AR specifically states it does not apply to the civil works responsibilities of USACE), it (USACE) has most of its own Engineer Regulations (ERs) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) regarding civil works and water projects. Most legislation (just as in the ARs) state the legislation does not apply to civil works responsibilities, especially so if there is a chance of comingling military funds and civil works funds or create overlapping military responsibilities and civil authority responsibilities.

Civil works funds are totally separate from the green suit military side of the house. Project funds for USACE come from project proponents like the State and local entities with (usually) a portion provided by the Government in the recurring legislation, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which authorizes infrastructure projects and participation from the Army Corps of Engineers. WRDA also authorizes some infrastucture projects at operating lakes and reservoirs. Most of the operating funds for the lakes, reservoirs, etc., is Government reimburseable (e.g. the Government sends down funds annually, but then all revenue funds generated at the lakes from permits, camping, sales of resources, etc., goes back to the treasury for redistribution in the next funding year).

Just to make it even more confusing for ya - USACE also is the military construction goto group (generally), for the US Army and the Air Force (they occasionally will do other military branches and other Federal agency's work as well). However, if a particular Army MACOM, MSC (Major Subordinate Command), or the individual installation decides to use a private contractor, then USACE does not get the work. USACE operates just like a big environmental and construction firm - they bid on projects just like any business. AND - they have been 'fired' during projects.

Nope - the ONLY way to change the USACE prohibition is through a CFR (36 CFR 327) revision like the Department of Interior (DOI) changes and then, if needed because of environmental legal challenges or whatever (like what happened to the DOI rule change), a bit of specific legislation included somewhere to authorize it without further review.

[cougartex]

Emails sent.

[couzin]

... since it affects ARMY regulations etc. ... why not attach language ... something permitting States to control whether we carry or not on USACE recreational property/parks/lakes?

Think I read this wrong. Simply - in this case (giving the States authority to authorize their laws on Federal property) - it will not happen. There can be a regulation change or legislation directing an agency to recognize the State law and permit its enforcement, but give the State authority over Federal lands and infrastructure?!

[RPB]

... since it affects ARMY regulations etc. ... why not attach language ... something permitting States to control whether we carry or not on USACE recreational property/parks/lakes?

Think I read this wrong. Simply - in this case (giving the States authority to authorize their laws on Federal property) - it will not happen. There can be a regulation change or legislation directing an agency to recognize the State law and permit its enforcement, but give the State authority over Federal lands and infrastructure?!

Like this?
(Yet, they still state in the latest memo, that they will not honor State licenses nor State laws concerning firearms..... regarless of contrary Sate law) ... it just needs fixing.

http://corpslakes.usace.army.mil/employ ... itle36.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

327.26 State and local laws.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this part or by Federal law or regulation, state and local laws and ordinances shall apply on project lands and waters. This includes, but is not limited to, state and local laws and ordinances governing:
(1) Operation and use of motor vehicles, vessels, and aircraft;
(2) Hunting, fishing and trapping;
(3) Use or possession of firearms or other weapons;
(4) Civil disobedience and criminal acts;
(5) Littering, sanitation and pollution; and
(6) Alcohol or other controlled substances.
(b) These state and local laws and ordinances are enforced by those state and local enforcement agencies established and authorized for that purpose.

[seamusTX]

My little rant is outside the scope of this discussion, but this patchwork of jurisdictions is beyond reason.

Half of Galveston Island is owned or controlled by government entities. They include the city, GISD, the community college district, the county, TXDOT, TPWD, the University of Texas, USACE, and the Coast Guard. I cross these boundaries all the time. They are not marked by bright orange lines on the ground. It is impossible to know where you are or what the controlling law is.

- Jim

[couzin]

327.26 State and local laws.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this part or by Federal law or regulation,

There you go - Bob's your uncle. "Except as otherwise provided"!! In Federalese - this is their out.

[seamusTX]

I received a response from Sen. Hutchison today. It was a canned response about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

It made no reference to removing the ban on loaded weapons on USACE property.

- Jim

[RPB]

I received a response from Sen. Hutchison today. It was a canned response about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

It made no reference to removing the ban on loaded weapons on USACE property.

- Jim

Me too ..... That occured to me before on a Senate matter ..... that's why (one reason) she didn't get my vote for her to run for gubinator

[seamusTX]

Congressmen or women really can't take e-mail seriously. They get thousands of message from kooks complaining that the CIA is beaming messages into the fillings in their teeth or whatever.

Maybe your idea planted a seed that will sprout somewhere.

- Jim