Morris v. US Army Corps of Engineers

[kcbrown]

I saw last week that the US House of Reps voted on a bill to allow people to carry firearms on Corps of Engineer property. My fine dumb a** Rep. John Delaney voted against the bill.

If it's the bill I'm thinking of, I believe it stipulates that one can carry on such land as long as it is consistent with the laws of the state that the land in question is within. Which is to say, if you're in Maryland, you won't be carrying unless you happen to have a permit.

If that's the bill in question, then given the status of Morris, it's probably better that your legislator voted against it. If the Morris court is consistent with its initial justification for issuance of the preliminary injunction, then it will wind up ruling that the Corps' prohibition is Unconstitutional, and that will mean that everyone will be able to carry on land managed by the Corps regardless of the laws of the state. That is a much better outcome.

Note, too, that passage of the law you're thinking of would moot Morris, making it unusable in the fight for the right to carry in public. I'd much rather see the outcome of that case before any such law is considered.

 

[redeemed.man]

How long before a lawsuit win like this enables us to carry in DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Island, etc.? Federal Territories should clearly comply with 2A yet they are some of the most difficult places to exercise the right. No wonder the states have thought 2A didn't apply to them they simply followed the federal government's example of a near complete ban on carry.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I saw last week that the US House of Reps voted on a bill to allow people to carry firearms on Corps of Engineer property. My fine dumb a** Rep. John Delaney voted against the bill.

I believe you're referring to the SHARE Act (H.R. 3590). It does take Title 36 head on and would moot any appeal to Morris.

(b) Protecting the right of individuals To bear arms at water resources development projects

The Secretary of the Army shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm at a water resources development project covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), if—

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the water resources development project is located.

The Corps owns the Cape Cod Canal in Massachusetts as well as adjacent recreational areas and even the highway bridges that provide the only land access to Cape Cod. It's essentially illegal to carry a loaded firearm or ammunition over the bridge onto Cape Cod.

 

[Inigoes]

Hearing is set for both motions on 8/27/2014 at 2:00 PM in Coeur d Alene – District Courtroom before Judge B. Lynn Winmill

http://michellawyers.com/morris-v-u-s-army-corps-of-engineers/

 

[Inigoes]

ELIZABETH E. MORRIS; and ALAN C. BAKER won

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=162388

 

[Blaster229]

How long before a lawsuit win like this enables us to carry in DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Island, etc.? Federal Territories should clearly comply with 2A yet they are some of the most difficult places to exercise the right. No wonder the states have thought 2A didn't apply to them they simply followed the federal government's example of a near complete ban on carry.

Federal can carry in PR and St. Thomas. No different than being inside the U.S.

That's a good question, are cops covered under LEOSA there? I don't know.

 

[press1280]

Federal can carry in PR and St. Thomas. No different than being inside the U.S.

That's a good question, are cops covered under LEOSA there? I don't know.

Opinion is limited to Idaho only.

 

[Inigoes]

Opinion is limited to Idaho only.

For now

 

[press1280]

After a 2 plus years wait this case goes to oral arguments at CA9. The case is now Nesbitt V. Army Corps of Engineers: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/view.php?hearing=March - William K. Nakamura Courthouse, Seattle Washington&dates=6-10&year=2017

 

[wolfwood]

February 28, 2017 –

This case will be decided by GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Bad panel. Ikuta is on our side. The other two are dems.

 

[press1280]

February 28, 2017 –

This case will be decided by GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Bad panel. Ikuta is on our side. The other two are dems.

Graber was on the en banc panel in Peruta. Yea, this probably won't end well.

 

[Boxcab]

As we should all be aware, the US Forest Service and the BLM regulate firearms in accordance with State Law (in whatever State that land falls within). We also know that the US Park Service can no longer prohibit firearms, and now goes along with the laws of the State which the Park finds ...

Caution, slight thread drift.

Seems Al (the OP) has not posted since 2014. Anyone know if he is still with us?



.

 

[Master_P]

February 28, 2017 –

This case will be decided by GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Bad panel. Ikuta is on our side. The other two are dems.

Didn't Ikuta author Jackson v. SF?

If so, she's not on our side...

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

[wolfwood]

Didn't Ikuta author Jackson v. SF?

If so, she's not on our side...

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

trust me on this she is pro 2a
Jackson could have been a lot worse

 

[Kharn]

Caution, slight thread drift.

Seems Al (the OP) has not posted since 2014. Anyone know if he is still with us?



.

He's a staff member on TheFiringLine and has posted there within the last month.

 

[Boxcab]

He's a staff member on TheFiringLine and has posted there within the last month.

Thank you.


Now back to the thread....



.

 

[wolfwood]

the government filed a motion to stay
because they are not going to enforce the ban any longer.
the Court filed this order after



Filed order (SUSAN P. GRABER, SANDRA S. IKUTA and ANDREW D. HURWITZ) The parties shall be prepared to discuss, at oral argument, whether Plaintiffs have standing. See San Diego Cty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) ("As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing their standing to sue."); id. ("To assert standing on [the basis of a threat of prosecution], plaintiffs must show a genuine threat of imminent prosecution under the [challenged law]." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 1126–29 (looking to the definitiveness of the plaintiffs’ plans, any "specific threat of prosecution," and any "history of prosecutions" under the challenged law); see also Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("We have consistently treated a license or permit denial pursuant to a state or federal administrative scheme as an Article III injury."). [10339920] (WL) [Entered: 03/02/2017 10:34 AM]



and today the Court said



03/03/2017 53 Filed order (SUSAN P. GRABER, SANDRA S. IKUTA and ANDREW D. HURWITZ) Appellants’ Unopposed Emergency Motion, filed March 2, 2017, is GRANTED. The appeal is referred to the Mediation Office, and its submission is deferred pending further order of the court. The Circuit Mediator will contact the parties to schedule mediation and shall provide a status report to the panel within 60 days following this order. The parties shall provide a status update to the panel on or before April 2, 2017. [10341520] (WL) [Entered: 03/03/2017 08:41 AM]
03/03/2017 54 Phoned and left voicemail to attorneys regarding to 3/3/17 order. [53] [10341604] (WL) [Entered: 03/03/2017 09:18 AM]

 

[Southwest Chuck]

the government filed a motion to stay
because they are not going to enforce the ban any longer.
the Court filed this order after

Do I see a Trump / Sessions thumb on this Scale ?