USACE-House votes to allow firearms on lands managed by Army

[74novaman]

While the tendency may be to bluster on about personal freedoms and 2A rights - just remember these folks are still out there in some really remote places, not just in the campsite areas, and it is still dangerous out there.

That seems like all the more reason to allow us to carry.

x2. It's not like allowing CHL holders to carry is going to endanger a COE officer any more than my carrying endangers my local police dept....

[couzin]

While the tendency may be to bluster on about personal freedoms and 2A rights - just remember these folks are still out there in some really remote places, not just in the campsite areas, and it is still dangerous out there.

That seems like all the more reason to allow us to carry.

x2. It's not like allowing CHL holders to carry is going to endanger a COE officer any more than my carrying endangers my local police dept....

It was never "you" we worried about - it was the amped up meth head cooking in the deep woods, the poacher that just bagged his 4th out of season deer, the felon with a gun, the pothunter that was looking at serious Federal time if caught, even getting between a couple during a domestic - these folks have nothing to lose and know full well they are being corraled by an unarmed Ranger with no pursuit, detain, or apprehension authority. It can go south in a heartbeat. It is like I said - the interpretation by the higher ups and their thought processes was that they can make it safe if the provision of 36CFR327.13 was enforced. You (talking at fellow CHL'ers) have got to know that those of us (Specialist / Rangers) that were deep in remote areas on atv or upriver in flat boats, sometimes in the middle of the night and usually alone, without contact (USACE decided that radio repeaters were too expensive and replaced our handhelds with cellphones that did not work in remote areas - go figure...); knew dang well what we getting in to - would you (the broad 'you' now) go unarmed?

[74novaman]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

I was in no way saying I'm glad rangers have to go unarmed. I wish they could carry. I also wish I could carry.

How does banning CHL on COE land help against methheads, breaking the law to cook up illegal drugs on land they don't own? Or a hunter, illegally poaching? Or any other example you can cook up of people breaking laws other than firearms laws?

Why you're providing these examples? Are you trying to say that the higher ups are so dumb, they think that a law against firearms will help when dealing with people breaking all these other laws? Or are you trying to equate me (a generic CHL holder) with a methhead?

To make my position clear:
I understand the COE rangers have a lot of dangers to deal with. I wish they were allowed to protect themselves. Allowing me to protect myself on COE land in no way endangers or threatens formerly mentioned Rangers, so their job and the dangers they face have absolutely zero impact on whether or not I should be able to carry, because I'm not a threat to them, just as I am not a threat to my local Temple PD officers as I carry on my daily business.

It sure would be nice if the fed govt and all its fun little subsidiaries would recognize that I have a right to protect myself, on land I as a tax payer help finance.

[tacticool]

How does banning CHL on COE land help against methheads, breaking the law to cook up illegal drugs on land they don't own? Or a hunter, illegally poaching? Or any other example you can cook up of people breaking laws other than firearms laws?

It doesn't help. Federal antigun laws don't protect innocents. They only violate the rights of good guys.

[chasfm11]

How does banning CHL on COE land help against methheads, breaking the law to cook up illegal drugs on land they don't own? Or a hunter, illegally poaching? Or any other example you can cook up of people breaking laws other than firearms laws?

It doesn't help. Federal antigun laws don't protect innocents. They only violate the rights of good guys.

You mean like the TSA pat downs? Anyone notice a pattern here??????

[shootthesheet]

Which makes it all the more ridiculous that they do not allow CHL carry there.

Obviously the passage of the law will correct the issue of no weapons (with State sanctioned authority), but one has to understand that it wasn't an arbitrary decision on the Corps part. It has more to do with the current Federal Regulation (36 CFR Part 327) specific only to US Army Corps of Engineers controlled lands as it was originally written in 1971, the Corps interpretation of the specific section on firearms (36 CFR Part 327.13), AND, most importantly, the Corps desire to protect its personnel at the parks/recreation/lakes/wildlife areas. While the National Park Service, US Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, and all the rest, have armed law enforcement personnel, the Corps has a policy of no law enforcement and are unarmed regulatory enforcement (Rangers) only. There have been many assaults and several Rangers shot over the years. A few years back (2001) they supplied us with OCS and of course the hands on defensive training has became more intense. While the tendency may be to bluster on about personal freedoms and 2A rights - just remember these folks are still out there in some really remote places, not just in the campsite areas, and it is still dangerous out there. The Corps wisdom at the time of the writting of 36CFR327 was to simply treat the Federal land as a no guns (except legal hunting) area - there was never a consideration of the States move toward legal carry of firearms. We (current and former Corps employees/rangers) all know that the bad guys do not give a rip about some regulation and always assumed that any situation had some very bad potentials with it - especial when we come across some meth camp 15 miles from nowhere. Unless the Corps now starts an armed law enforcement program - danged few Corps Rangers will be taking those risks.

Sorry but our rights are more important than your choice to continue to work for the federal government. "While the tendency may be to bluster on about personal freedoms and 2A rights - just remember these folks are still out there in some really remote places, not just in the campsite areas, and it is still dangerous out there." They choose to work there so that is an issue they have to deal with. I am sorry that the government chose to risk their lives but they chose to work there. It was unconstitutional for them to make laws restricting bearing arms on non-secure federal property in the first place so I have little concern about that. Basically, I am concerned for every person who has to deal with criminals and I am very happy the law abiding will soon be able to be free to protect themselves by law. I hope the federal employees are safe and none are harmed by the criminals it is their job to deal with as well as those who can't afford to buy the ability to carry on those lands.

[boba]

Does it seem to anyone else that we're getting more pro-gun rule changes with Obama than we did with Bush?

[RPB]

Does it seem to anyone else that we're getting more pro-gun rule changes with Obama than we did with Bush?

Tea Party is more vocal

[RPB]

Senate still has to vote on it and Pres still needs to sign it

The amendment doesn't make it "legal" it just defunds the enforcement for one year

Like as speed limit sign where police have no radar guns... a red light camera with no $ for the electricity to run the camera etc

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2354" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=110&t=44851&p=577690#p577682" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mamabearCali]

It was never "you" we worried about - it was the amped up meth head cooking in the deep woods, the poacher that just bagged his 4th out of season deer, the felon with a gun, the pothunter that was looking at serious Federal time if caught, even getting between a couple during a domestic - these folks have nothing to lose and know full well they are being corraled by an unarmed Ranger with no pursuit, detain, or apprehension authority. It can go south in a heartbeat. It is like I said - the interpretation by the higher ups and their thought processes was that they can make it safe if the provision of 36CFR327.13 was enforced. You (talking at fellow CHL'ers) have got to know that those of us (Specialist / Rangers) that were deep in remote areas on atv or upriver in flat boats, sometimes in the middle of the night and usually alone, without contact (USACE decided that radio repeaters were too expensive and replaced our handhelds with cellphones that did not work in remote areas - go figure...); knew dang well what we getting in to - would you (the broad 'you' now) go unarmed?

I fail to see how restricting my ability to carry helps you deal with methhead, poachers, and other nasties in the forest. They (obviously) don't care about laws and are not interested in following them. If they are going to have a weapon they are going to have a weapon and don't care two cents about what the law says. I would argue that not having any good guys out there in the forest armed makes it MUCH more dangerous for you because now you and they know that the ONLY person there with a firearm is them. No law abiding hiker enjoying the scenery is going to come across your situation and be able to help you out, they know that and you know that. So not allowing law abiding citizens to be armed (like in every other situation) only empowers the criminals. It does absolutely nothing to help you out.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Well, I sure hope that we someday get an unrestricted right to carry on COE land.

I used to like to go down to a nice park in Lake Dallas, which has a beach, picnic tables, and a long walking path.
It's on Lake Lewisville, and is a very scenic, relaxing spot. No parking fees to enter.

Vaguely, I thought that since the City of Lake Dallas ran it and maintained it, that maybe it wasn't considered COE
land anymore.

Wrong, wrong, wrong - One day I stopped to read the long list of rules that govern the use of the park. Firearms were
specifically mentioned as being banned since the land is still considered COE.

Since one of the evening shift LDPD officers knows I have a CHL, and simply because it's illegal anyway, I have foregone
any further trips to this nice park since I would have to leave my handguns at home if I wanted to visit. Sheesh.

SIA

[RPB]

new article today
http://www.ammoland.com/2011/08/24/army ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;