Proposed Rule Change Would Eliminate Written Permission Requirement for Guns on Army Corps Of Engineers Property

gun woods hike wilderness pistol holster

Bigstock

The Army Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments on a notice of proposed rule-making that would make life easier for gun owners on 11.7 million acres of federal lands they manage.

The Department of the Army, through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), is soliciting comments on its proposed revision of its regulation that governs the possession and transportation of firearms and other weapons at Corps water resources development projects (“projects”). This proposed revision would align the Corps regulation with the regulations of the other Federal land management agencies by removing the need for an individual to obtain written permission before possessing a weapon on Corps projects.
[…]
Specifically, the proposed revision would remove the requirement that an individual obtain written permission before possessing a weapon on a Corps project, which is a requirement except when the possession occurs for certain authorized recreation purposes. In doing so, the revised regulation would permit an individual to possess a weapon and associated ammunition when the possession both complies with the Federal, state, and local law where the project is located, and the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the weapon. This change would reduce the burden on the public by eliminating the requirement to obtain written permission before possessing a weapon, but it would not change the fact that individuals already may, at present, possess weapons on Corps projects if they receive appropriate permission.

This proposed change is the result of years of hard work and a lawsuit by Georgia Carry. Please comment in support of this change. The docket number is COE-2018-0008, and commenting closes June 12, 2020.

It is long past time for this unconstitutional policy to end.

Requiring free Americans to beg for the discretionary permission of the District Commander in order to exercise an enumerated civil right on government managed land that’s open to the general public is abhorrent and a violation of the Second Amendment. It’s also a violation of plain common sense.

comments

  1. avatar enuf says:

    Well, okay then …..

  2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Winning. One step at a time in our Republic. If the rule change does happen.
    Trump 2020.

  3. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    I never knew written permission was required. I just did it anyway.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I’m sure 99% of people did. I bet an awful lot of people carry concealed onto Post Office property as well. Would be nice if that change was made, too… if the court didn’t punt.

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        Hannibal, the only time I’ve ever disarmed was a Federal Court House and an airport, but only if I was boarding the plane.

        1. avatar X marks the spot says:

          You were also a cop. Let’s not act like a different set of rules didn’t apply to you.

      2. avatar Chris says:

        Count me as one (PO carry). There’s no mail delivery where I live so PO boxes are necessary along with the almost daily trip in to pick up my mail. Not once in over twenty years have I disarmed before going in. And considering all the gun stuff I get in the mail, including my CCW permit renewals, I’m sure they know. But then at the same time, if they were to “crack down” on it, half the county would get locked up.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          I’m not sure it’s even enforced on a federal level unless there’s more to the story (i.e. a threat, etc). I could be wrong but it looks like when someone is arrested for post office carry it’s handled by state law rather than federal, as it applied. And if there’s no state law against is (the person is legally allowed to carry generally) I’m not aware of people getting charged by the feds. Could happen and I’m just not aware of it… any postal inspectors in the comments section?

        2. avatar Rev. Philip E. Evans says:

          In our small rural Oklahoma town, our Postmaster is very vocal on the rule about “no firearms” on the federal property. He would not hesitate to call in the federal Marshal or the FBI if he thought someone was carrying on the Federal Land. He has stated more than once that if anyone has a firearm in their vehicle, they are more than welcome to park in one of the parking spaces adjacent to the Post Office Federal property line, BUT NOT ON THE FEDERAL PROPERTY!

      3. avatar Daniel Schitkovitz says:

        Yes, the POST OFFICE ban is another of those pointless OFF LIMIT places ; especially since the parking lot is off limits too! Funny thing, I’ve been to many different Post Offices, and they all DO NOT have posted signage that I was able to locate?

        1. avatar Not Larry from Texas says:

          As a general rule most federal buildings are off limits for armed carry. CCW on most military bases are verbatim unless specifically allowed by the Post commander, even different federal agencies don’t allow other armed agents/police to be armed unless on official duty or have prior permission. When I thought I was going the medical out of my current job I was looking at instructor jobs on military bases and even with HR-218 I would not be allowed to be armed while on the installation.

          And do not get me started on the drama of me trying to ship out a M/G I sold to guy in Alaska and the post master of that particular post office telling me it was illegal to do so. I handed her the form 3 transfer the SOT and blank look she hand on her face. You gotta admit she was definitely out her league and essentially told me if I didn’t leave she would class the police.

        2. avatar Not Larry from Texas says:

          call the police**

        3. avatar GS650G says:

          The P.O. rule came from numerous PO employees going postal starting around 35 years ago. It’s been a long time since it’s happened again but the rule againSt guns will be with us forever.

        4. avatar Hillbilly says:

          @GS650G no the federal law was passed long before people went “postal” and it was the elder Bush, a Republican BTW who passed the law. It applies to all Federal Facilities not just the Post Office. But I forget gun control is only “good” when Republicans pass it.

        5. avatar neiowa says:

          Hillbilly – go retake 6th grade civics. The President doesn’t PASS dick.

        6. avatar Hillbilly says:

          @Neowia you are wrong as usual. Bush Sr clarified an EO specifically pertaining to firearms on federal property. USC 18 I believe. That would be making and passing law by executive fiat like your hero Trump. Who will inadvertandtly or by design get all semi autos banned. But hey, it’s cool because a Republican is doing it. With friends like Rebuplicans we don’t need enemies.

    2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      BTW. Why is that holster so big?

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Because they’re using kydex to do leather’s job.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    So we won’t have to ask permission to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right? How lovely.

  5. avatar Semperfit says:

    Well, the land does belong to the taxpayers. The Army Corps merely uses it.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      That’s what I thought. Same with our state parks. We have a “federal” bike trail that allows CC but since some parking lots are in some towns, it’s a no-no for some of them. It’s the I & M 96mile bike trail. Maybe the National Parks are the same way?

      1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        Obama (believe it or not!) was the one that opened the National Parks to armed carry…

        1. avatar Daniel S. says:

          “The new law allowing guns in national parks was created as part of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, which was approved by Congress and President Barack Obama. It took effect Feb. 22, 2010.”

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          “opened”, “allowing”… wrong language

          We weren’t granted a boon by our betters, *an infringement was removed*.

        3. avatar GS650G says:

          They did to BigO what they did to other presidents, bury something they abhor in a bill they need.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          “bury something they abhor in a bill they need.”

          Obama and the Democrats knew exactly what the bill contained, and it was a credit protection Bill that protects people like you and me from predatory lending practices.

          Isn’t it interesting that the Republicans opposed a bill to protect you and I from predatory lending practices by payday loan businesses and other unscrupulous loan sharks.

          Barack Hussein Obama not only got us the credit protection we need, he also signed to allow you and I to carry weapons on millions of acres of national Lance.

          After more than three years I’m still waiting for Messiah Trump to do a single thing to expand our gun rights on a national level.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          No you’re not still waiting, miner. If you and your dear leaders like barry could have swung it nobody but his troops would have been armed. Guys like you, and I am greatful, are why we have Trump now and will have him for another 4.

          We couldn’t have done it without you. Well done.

        6. avatar The Truth About The Credit Protection Act says:

          Miner, all the Credit Protection Act did was make it more difficult for poor people and people with bad credit to access financing, especially short term financing. This put more poor people into worse situations and drove more dependence on big daddy government which is what your messiah Barry “The rag head call to prayer is the most beautiful sound in the world” Sotero wanted.

          What the government, any government, needs to do is leave people alone to make their own decisions, assess their own situations, suffer their own consequences, and learn from their own mistakes.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Wait, doesn’t all such areas belong to taxpayers? Streetways, highways, parks, roads, multi-use shopping malls and lots, libraries, etc. We’re still waiting on the Hawaii v. Young appeal to advance so we can settle this ban-on-open-carry nonsense for good.

      And before all the haters get into a twist again and start spouting with “open carry is stupid, bruh”, consider how much of California (and actually all states within the Ninth Circuit’s influence) is semi-rural or fully rural, and how many trails we have even in foothills of Los Angeles in which one is usually alone and out of sight of anyone. Perfect target for two- or four-legged critters intent on doing harm. I would love to be able to slap my compact G26 on my hip while hiking/jogging the mountains.

      1. avatar Semperfit says:

        Do it. You have that right. F the Cali commie politicians.

        1. avatar possum says:

          arrested, truck towed off$.,,gunm taken $, thrown in jail, bond out $, go to trial $, put on probation and stuck with a heavy fine.$. liberty=financial sacrifice’s

        2. avatar The Truth About Gadsden Flag says:

          And how many times have you publicly violated unconstitutional laws or regulations and gone through the legal process over it, Gadsden?

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Fed taxpayer owned land so WTF “possession both complies with the Federal, state, and local law where the project is located,”

      Correct regulation would be “complies with the Federal and regardless of state or local restriction or infringement”

  6. avatar LifeSavor says:

    So, this is removal of a regulation, not of a law. Got that.

    Not many of us seemed to know this regulation existed. How many more useless regulations can we get rid of? Maybe we need Trump to commission a regulatory body to oversee the removal of obscure, useless regulations and those that infringe upon the Bill of Rights. The Department of Regulatory Regulation. They can be funded by the money saved from not administering and enforcing all the regulations they de-regulate. How is that for motivation?

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      Maybe we’d finally be able to legally put a donkey in a bathtub again. Or an Alligator 😉

      https://americanbathfactory.com/blogs/news/crazy-bathtub-laws

  7. avatar enuf says:

    Honestly don’t know if I was ever on an Army Corps of Engineer’s “project” or not. Of course like most folks out in the freer parts of America I carried a gun for years before all the concealed licensing/permiting/opening of Federal parks to State gun laws became a thing.

    In fact I can recall post offices in two tiny New Mexico towns where the “postmaster” openly carried all the time.

    1. avatar Semperfit says:

      My father-in-law, no big gun guy at all, always packed a pistol on his travels–for decades. He just believed that it was his right without ever voicing that. It was just natural.

    2. avatar Hillbilly says:

      Unless he is a post office inspector ie: federal LEO he is committing a felony. This goes for all you LEO’s who come in before or after work to mail packages with your duty weapons on in the Post Office. They can and do prosecute people for this. I do not agree but as ya’ll say; The law is the law.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        It was a long time ago in an America far, far away ……

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I remember those days. 13 yo and riding through town with a rifle or shotgun on my bike and not a question asked.

        2. avatar enuf says:

          Me too. At 13 I had permission from the school principal to bring my brand spanking new Ruger 10/22 to class. We had an assignment to do a presentation on something mechanical. I took it apart, explained the parts within and drew up a .22LR cartridge on the backboard. Got an “A”.

          The principal did say the rifle could not go on the buss and had to be in his office except during class.

          After school I picked up my rifle, walked home, stopping by a bridge over a dry river bed where I’d hidden a box of ammo for my hike home.

          These days the principal would have lost his job just as soon as the SWAT team calmed down and the news helicopters flew away to land and re-fuel.

  8. avatar RayS says:

    Around here in the NW, many docks and public boat ramps are Corp controlled. I never knew this reg existed AND I’d bet most boaters don’t know, including those that keep a little sumthin in that tackle box.

  9. avatar Darkman says:

    After spending some time looking into this. I’m not real sure this is a big win. With the word (project) highlighted. This new Reg may only cover projects in the Design, Build and/or Modification phases. When reading what the Corp. defines as (projects). This may not cover existing. Lands or structures unless they are in one of those 3 phases. Having worked in the Government for 20+ years. I know the Devils in the details and what seems logical or face plain. Usually isn’t. Without further Info. I’m not real sure this means a great deal. Especially since. Those in Government still believe they decide what Rights. We are Allowed. Keep Your Powder Dry. Shit can still get ugly out there.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I think. Your “period” button. Is stuck. Either. That or you’re. Texting and. Driving.

    2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Do what you want to. I carry a handgun wherever. They catch me? I’ll deal with that then.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Same here.

    3. avatar hawkeye says:

      Sure it’s a win, even if it’s only the healing of one of the thousand cuts into our rights. It applies to public access properties such as campgrounds, boat ramps, flood control spillways, etc. They are all considered “projects” of one sort or another, but mostly for flood control. Projects that are under construction or modification are often temporarily closed to the public anyhow, so why would this apply only to them?

      I read the proposal, and am familiar with how USACE operates, and I think this is a positive change. I also read all the public comments to date, and only 2 of a total of 94 are against the change. Both of those are anonymous. One is a rant against “gun nuts” and the other is a long snowflake litany that includes a paragraph on gun ownership in Iceland, of all things. The rest are in favor of the change, and thankfully are all polite and positive in tone. Good work, POTG.

  10. avatar Imayeti says:

    I always laugh at the extreme, you can’t have a .22 gun on a military base, but the nuclear weapons are fine. IIRC base commanders can allow unloaded guns carried back and forth between home and the practice range, or some similar.

  11. avatar possum says:

    when do we get the bull ets? We don’t get bullets, well fck then, I ain’t standing here holding this weapgunm, you got any crackers?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I’ll leave a trail of crackers for you to follow around behind this shed……

  12. avatar nicolemcolon6 says:

    Jamshine Gayle have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself,….9.ly/a71LB

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email