TexasCHLforum.com

just in:

House votes to allow firearms on lands managed by Army Corps
By Pete Kasperowicz - 07/14/11 04:25 PM ET

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... army-corps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Altmire noted that he and Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) have proposed a longer term solution to this problem, the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act. A longer term answer would be needed, as Gosar's amendment would only apply to the next fiscal year, which begins October 1.

It'd be arrogant to say Twitter has an effect, but I was tweeting earlier today, and @GOPoversight and others follow me :)

Rep Bob Gibbs H.R. 1865, Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://therightofthepeople.org/h-r-1865 ... duced.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #tcot #GOP #Libertarian
#p2

Rep Bob Gibbs @RepBobGibbs @Bob_Gibbs H.R. 1865, Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act
http://gibbs.house.gov/press-release/co ... efense-act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dear Colleague Letter @RepBobGibbs @Bob_Gibbs H.R. 1865, Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act
http://gibbs.house.gov/sites/gibbs.hous ... %20Act.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

---------
Of course, since I'm followed by @DarrellIssa @ChuckGrassley @jasoninthehouse on at least one of each of their accounts, I suggested they also:

SRSLY defund #ATF let IRS collect Tax on tobacco alcohol firearms instead, save taxpayer money and LIVES #tcot #gop

Firearms, ands lots of them, are allowed on many USACE lands...during the various hunting seasons.

Oldgringo wrote:Firearms, ands lots of them, are allowed on many USACE lands...during the various hunting seasons.

yes, but no MPA guns are allowed on USACE parking lots in Georgetown city/county parks, etc etc etc and no HB 25 guns in boats on any of the USACE lakes and no CHL laws honored even a gun in a car by a CHL is illegal in a USACE parking lot when you go fishing at Lake Waco etc....

I actually figured this would be "test case" year for some unknowing poor guns in boats carrier on a usace lake thinking it was legal because Texas said guns in boats are ok when HB 25 goes in effect...

Great news! Hope Gibbs' bill is next.

Oldgringo wrote:Firearms, ands lots of them, are allowed on many USACE lands...during the various hunting seasons.

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

74novaman wrote: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.

couzin wrote:Unless the Corps now starts an armed law enforcement program - danged few Corps Rangers will be taking those risks.

Great to hear from someone on the inside, thanks for sharing your perspective. Hope the ACE personnel get the opportunity/permission to defend themselves as well!

couzin wrote:

74novaman wrote: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.

Thank you for your insight. As one who is intensely interested in the subject of CC on COE lands, I was reading this article. http://altmire.house.gov/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=48 on another thread closed as a duplicate. If I'm reading correctly, there are actually two bills.

H.R. 1865 – The Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act, - which has not yet passed and

An amendment to H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, In this case, the funding for enforcement was denied by the amendment being passed by the House. I'm assuming that the overall Appropriations bill has passed or will pass.

Can you interpret this for me? I assume that the denied funding means that Rangers cannot be specifically tasked to seek out people with guns on Corp property. My expectation is that any Ranger, in the course of the performance of their other duties, could look for them and take action.

Thanks,

Chas

HR 2354 is sorta bouncing around at the moment, dealing with budget cuts on other areas, it only affects one Fiscal year;
HR 1865 still needs to pass for a permanent solution http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.2354" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

I'll say it again; the NPS doesn't go to war, and the CoE has no business managing parks.

chasfm11 wrote:Can you interpret this for me? I assume that the denied funding means that Rangers cannot be specifically tasked to seek out people with guns on Corp property. My expectation is that any Ranger, in the course of the performance of their other duties, could look for them and take action.

Beats me how this would be handled. Sorta like the police being told to catch burglars but ignore robbers. Gotta say this though - while serving as a specialist / ranger - I never went seek(ing)" people that I thought might have a gun. I had some yahoos that kinda worried me and had some threats, but never any major incidents.

couzin wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Can you interpret this for me? I assume that the denied funding means that Rangers cannot be specifically tasked to seek out people with guns on Corp property. My expectation is that any Ranger, in the course of the performance of their other duties, could look for them and take action.

Beats me how this would be handled. Sorta like the police being told to catch burglars but ignore robbers. Gotta say this though - while serving as a specialist / ranger - I never went seek(ing)" people that I thought might have a gun. I had some yahoos that kinda worried me and had some threats, but never any major incidents.

That is exactly what I expected. I believe that "most" COE employees are more interested in a DADT policy than enforcement of gun restrictions. If I'm not out there actively trying to bag animals out of season, I won't expect anyone to bother me.

But the real point is the legality. If I wanted to do things illegally, I would have gone to a pawn shop, picked up a gun and stuffed in the front of my pants, never worrying about taking tests or shooting qualification. I deliberately set out to stay within the legal framework and I'd like to continue that approach on COE property. It looks to me like this whole de-funding approach is simply to start the ball rolling in the right direction and has little to do with what is actually happening on a day to day basis on COE controlled land.

couzin wrote: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.