The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 28, 2010, 08:29 AM   #1
Join Date: November 20, 2009
Location: Marble Falls/Burnet, Texas
Posts: 55
USACE & Don't Ask Don't Tell

USACE & Don't Ask Don't Tell
If this "Don't Ask Don't Tell" bill is going to pass due to the Democrats in Congress ... since it affects ARMY regulations etc. ... why not attach language ... something permitting States to control whether we may carry or not on USACE recreational property/parks/lakes? (Which actually DOES affect Interstate Commerce/tourism, so Congress actually should have authority to do THAT.)

SIMILAR to language they attached regarding National Parks etc ... to the Credit Card Bill?

I hope the NRA can do something.

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 owned or controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [36 C.F.R. § 327.13(a)]. This regulation creates a patchwork of areas in our State and other States, and on state borders where a person can be accused of violating the law without prior notice and for no good reason. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE WHERE STATE PARKS' LAND/WATERWAYS OVERLAP or are leased from CORPS OF ENGINEERS owned property.

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.

RPB is offline  
Old May 28, 2010, 08:58 AM   #2
Mike Irwin
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 39,187
Sorry, should have read a lot more closely.

Reopened for obvious reasons.

But, everyone, please do NOT make this a discussion about Gays in the military or it will be closed again.
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 28, 2010, 09:21 AM   #3
Join Date: November 20, 2009
Location: Marble Falls/Burnet, Texas
Posts: 55
no problem, I only picked that as a bill to attach to because both involve revising Army Regulations

February 22, 2010
New Federal Law Pertaining To Firearms on National Park/National Wildlife Service Lands Is Not Applicable at USACE Projects and Facilities
All -- a new law regarding firearms on some specific federal properties takes effect next week. This is not new information for us, and we have been reviewing it for quite a while. Counsel has been fully engaged. We offer the following guidance:

1. Section 512 of the Credit Card Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-024) pertains to possession of firearms and allows an individual to possess an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park Service or National Wildlife Refuge System provided that the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm and the possession is in compliance with the law of the State in which the National Park/Refuge is located. This law becomes effective on 22 February 2010 on property under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2. Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects or facilities. The passage of this new law does not affect application of Title 36 regulations (36 C.F.R., Chapter III, Part 327, Rules and Regulations Governing Public Use of COE Water Resources Development Projects). 36 C.F.R. § 327.13(a) prohibits the possession of loaded firearms or ammunition on lands and waters administered by the Corps unless one of the exceptions in 36 C.F.R. § 327.13(a)(1)-(4) applies. The full text of 36 C.F.R. can be viewed on the NRM Gateway at:

3. 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 remains in full force and effect. It will continue to prohibit loaded concealed weapons on Corps properties regardless of the new law and notwithstanding any contrary provisions of State law. It remains Corps policy that we will not honor State-issued concealed weapon permits on our facilities and that District Commanders do not have discretion under 36 C.F.R. § 327.13(a)(4) to create blanket exceptions to this policy. A change of this nature to Corps regulations in 36 C.F.R. Part 327 would require formal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551-706).

4. It is incumbent upon us to communicate and reinforce our firearms regulation with our visitors and partners, which may include posting park entrances with No Firearms signs IAW the Corps sign manual (EP 310-1-6a and EP 310-1-6b) and taking other actions deemed necessary by Operations Project Managers as coordinated appropriately with other Corps elements. Information related to this matter will also be posted for public awareness on the NRM Gateway.

5. HQUSACE POCs for this matter are Stephen Austin, Natural Resources Manager, Operations (for Visitor Assistance policy and program administration information), 202-761-4489, [email protected]; and Milt Boyd, Assistant Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel (for regulatory questions on federal lands) at 202-761-8546, [email protected].

Provided for your attention and appropriate action.
Michael G. Ensch, SES

327.25 Violations of rules and regulations.
(a) Any person who violates the provisions of the regulations in this part, other than for a failure to pay authorized recreation use fees as separately provided for in Sec. 327.23, may be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months or both and may be tried and sentenced in accordance with the provisions of section 3401 of Title 18, United States Code. Persons designated by the District Commander shall have the authority to issue a citation for violation of the regulations in this part, requiring any person charged with the violation to appear before the United States Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the affected water resources development project is located (16 U.S.C. 460d).

Last edited by RPB; May 28, 2010 at 09:54 AM.
RPB is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06912 seconds with 9 queries