Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,253 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Even though the feds are now allowing loaded handgun carry in national parks, Corps of Engineers areas are still off-limits, except for hunting where explicitly permitted by Corps rules.
No carrying for protection. Even with a valid State permit.
Even unloading your gun doesn't matter, because "loaded ammunition" is also forbidden!

IS IT ABOUT TIME TO CHALLENGE THIS RULE?
Is anybody asking the Corps to change the rule?
Has Congress ever considered passing legislation forcing them to allow guns on their property?

If the Corps of Engineers says they need a gun ban to keep terrorists from hijacking dams and flooding our cities, how should we respond?

If the Corps of Engineers says if you let people carry guns, there's no way to stop them from shooting everything that moves, sinking boats, shooting people off their jet skis just for fun, killing all the raccoons and squirrels that city folk drive up to look at, etc?

I think it's time we (the gun-rights crowd in Georgia) made this a priority.

P.S. If we can't get them to repeal the no guns rule, about about getting them to give written permission to any individual with a GFL / GWL who requests that permission and signs a statement that they will not SHOOT the gun on Corps property except if necessary in defense of life or property, or for signaling for emergency help?
The head honcho of each Corps district as the authority to give individuals permission to have guns and ammo.
 

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,386 Posts
If the Corps of Engineers says they need a gun ban to keep terrorists from hijacking dams and flooding our cities, how should we respond?
Do terrorists get permits? What is stopping non-permitted terrorists now?
If the Corps of Engineers says if you let people carry guns, there's no way to stop them from shooting everything that moves, sinking boats, shooting people off their jet skis just for fun, killing all the raccoons and squirrels that city folk drive up to look at, etc?
Are folks doing this in National Parks? Or State Parks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
Every time I've raised this concern, I've been shot down, or at least there's no support.

I'm in agreement with everything you say, and I would certainly join in the fight. I love a good fight, and it seems I'm losing the battle for getting firearm privileges on Ft. Gordon.

Every time I drive across the dam at Strom Thurmond, I'm probably in violation. It is COE property, and I've never seen an exception for safe transit posted. Then too, just how do federal properties, governed by the US Army yet public, differ from National Parks. Since last February, all of the animals in Yellowstone have not been shot. Where's the evidence that carry on federal property would be detrimental. COE managed properties are not military bases!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,038 Posts
I'm sure I'll get a few of these :screwy: for asking, but I wonder why NRA hasn't worked on this? I'm certainly willing to contact my useless, corrupt congressman to ask for support on this.
 

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,386 Posts
I have sent an email to national. If I get a response I'll post it. I'll send one to my congress critters now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
Mountainpass is a pit bull!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
gunsmoker said:
Even though the feds are now allowing loaded handgun carry in national parks, Corps of Engineers areas are still off-limits, except for hunting where explicitly permitted by Corps rules.
No carrying for protection. Even with a valid State permit.
Even unloading your gun doesn't matter, because "loaded ammunition" is also forbidden!

IS IT ABOUT TIME TO CHALLENGE THIS RULE?
Is anybody asking the Corps to change the rule?
Has Congress ever considered passing legislation forcing them to allow guns on their property?

If the Corps of Engineers says they need a gun ban to keep terrorists from hijacking dams and flooding our cities, how should we respond?

If the Corps of Engineers says if you let people carry guns, there's no way to stop them from shooting everything that moves, sinking boats, shooting people off their jet skis just for fun, killing all the raccoons and squirrels that city folk drive up to look at, etc?

I think it's time we (the gun-rights crowd in Georgia) made this a priority.

P.S. If we can't get them to repeal the no guns rule, about about getting them to give written permission to any individual with a GFL / GWL who requests that permission and signs a statement that they will not SHOOT the gun on Corps property except if necessary in defense of life or property, or for signaling for emergency help?
The head honcho of each Corps district as the authority to give individuals permission to have guns and ammo.
I have talked to congressman paul broun about this twice in the last four months. He says he is very pro-gun however no response on this matter. He hasn't forgotten to send me requests for money though.
 

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,386 Posts
CountryGun said:
Mountainpass is a pit bull!
I wouldn't go that far....I just sent a few emails. I sent one to Chambliss and Isakson, and one to newly elected Congressman Graves(my old house Rep).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
There are many prior threads on this. We at GCO, and myself in particular, have worked this problem over the last few years extensively. It has been worked up and down through the Corps, politically, etc. The current civilians in charge of the military are not going to allow for an administrative fix under the Corps. You will have to wait for a Republican administration. As far as a national political fix, similar to the National Parks Coburn Amendment, yes something like that is potentially possible. Perhaps even more hopefully, with the Republicans in charge in the House come January, they will have the opportunity to introduce legislation and amendments. In the House, if you're the minority, you don't introduce squat. In the Senate, as with Coburn, the minority has many more options.

There are, of course legal avenues. There are only so many suits that can be tackled at once, however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
I would give my support to this change. I live backed up to Allatoona corps property and have always been annoyed by it. Being unarmed while I'm on the lake (or 50 yards past my house) is unfortunate.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,820 Posts
The COE law or rule is just bogus. It's a clear infringement on our constitutional right to be armed, as well as violating the spirit of the law that allows weapons permit holders to carry in our state.

Keep at 'em CountryGun, a lot more people are on your side than you may know.

CountryGun said:
Every time I've raised this concern, I've been shot down, or at least there's no support.

I'm in agreement with everything you say, and I would certainly join in the fight. I love a good fight, and it seems I'm losing the battle for getting firearm privileges on Ft. Gordon.

Every time I drive across the dam at Strom Thurmond, I'm probably in violation. It is COE property, and I've never seen an exception for safe transit posted. Then too, just how do federal properties, governed by the US Army yet public, differ from National Parks. Since last February, all of the animals in Yellowstone have not been shot. Where's the evidence that carry on federal property would be detrimental. COE managed properties are not military bases!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,972 Posts
gunsmoker said:
IS IT ABOUT TIME TO CHALLENGE THIS RULE?
Is anybody asking the Corps to change the rule?
GCO has been quietly at work on this for some time, but the administration change threw a wrench into the monkey works. GCO is still pursuing it, but through another avenue. It takes time to do it properly and in a way that ensures success. This rule will go down.
 

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,386 Posts
Dear mountainpass:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding carrying firearms in National Parks. I appreciate hearing from you.

On May 22, 2009, the Senate passed the "Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act", which was signed into law (P.L. 111-24). An amendment was included to eliminate regulatory restrictions on the possession and transport of firearms in lands controlled by the National Park and Wildlife Refuge Systems. Under the amendment, the rules will be determined by the laws of the state in which the lands are located. With my support, the amendment passed by a vote of 67-29.

We must ensure the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens are not infringed upon. Sportsmen, hunters, gun enthusiasts and citizens concerned with their personal safety have a right to own guns for these legitimate purposes. The ability of decent, hard-working Americans to own a gun, whether for sport or protection is clearly defined in the Constitution and must not be compromised. Only a government that does not trust its citizens would refuse them the right to bear arms.

If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
#-o
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
mountainpass said:
Dear mountainpass:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding carrying firearms in National Parks. I appreciate hearing from you.

On May 22, 2009, the Senate passed the "Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act", which was signed into law (P.L. 111-24). An amendment was included to eliminate regulatory restrictions on the possession and transport of firearms in lands controlled by the National Park and Wildlife Refuge Systems. Under the amendment, the rules will be determined by the laws of the state in which the lands are located. With my support, the amendment passed by a vote of 67-29.

We must ensure the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens are not infringed upon. Sportsmen, hunters, gun enthusiasts and citizens concerned with their personal safety have a right to own guns for these legitimate purposes. The ability of decent, hard-working Americans to own a gun, whether for sport or protection is clearly defined in the Constitution and must not be compromised. Only a government that does not trust its citizens would refuse them the right to bear arms.

If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
#-o
Nice try, MP! Seems he's just as confused as the rest of us. Federal land is federal land. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
CountryGun said:
Every time I've raised this concern, I've been shot down, or at least there's no support.

I'm in agreement with everything you say, and I would certainly join in the fight. I love a good fight, and it seems I'm losing the battle for getting firearm privileges on Ft. Gordon.

Every time I drive across the dam at Strom Thurmond, I'm probably in violation. It is COE property, and I've never seen an exception for safe transit posted. Then too, just how do federal properties, governed by the US Army yet public, differ from National Parks. Since last February, all of the animals in Yellowstone have not been shot. Where's the evidence that carry on federal property would be detrimental. COE managed properties are not military bases!
I agree 100% with CountryGun et al with comments regarding COE property carry and carry on Military Bases in Georgia. It is preposteros to me IMHO that while having a picnic at the lake I could be arrested for having an otherwise legal weapon, but for the COE exception (NO GUNS ALLOWED). Count me among the willing to be an advocate for these two causes: COE and Military Base carry for GWL folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
Military bases are an entirely different issue from COE property.

Military installations tend to be little fiefdoms, controlled by the installation commander and the senior unit commander (normally not the same person). Think of the installation commander as roughly equivalent to an appointed city manager (or Chief Operating Officer) and the senior unit commander (usually a division or corps commander on Army installations) as the mayor. Yes, they have to adhere to DoD regulations and policy, but much of the low-level decision making is done locally by the installation commander with the oversight and concurrence of the senior unit commander.

This is why when you drive onto Fort McPherson in Atlanta you'll see big, unmissable signs at the gates stating that Georgia firearms permits are not valid on the installation, yet if you drive down to Fort Benning you won't see anything of the sort. Different installations, different policies. I know for a fact that the installation commander and provost marshal who had those signs installed were strongly anti-gun. They have long since moved on, but their policy remains in place.

Most installation commanders are risk avoidance admin types. An large number of them are military police officers, with a good percentage of them female. Since an installation command position counts as 'command time' at the 05 or 06 level for many Army non-combat arms branches the slots tend to get filled with the types who are desperate for a command (key to promotion), yet don't want anything to negatively impact their command tour (like a possible civilian firearm incident). From my experience most installation commanders are not exactly gun friendly and have no problem being as restrictive as possible when it comes to civilians bringing guns on base. It's a no brainer - who are the the civilians going to complain to?

Changing policy for military bases will require at least individual service policy changes (Army, Air Force, Navy, etc.) or implementation of an over-arching DoD policy.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top