TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:15 am I tried awhile back and couldn't find anything either. I'm afraid some bureaucrat slow rolled the process hoping Trump would lose and they could ditch the changes. I'm very pessimistic these days.

This one affects me because we would like to use COE RV parks but will not do so unarmed. The COE controls the State Park on Lake Whitney among other. I had hoped that President Trump would just Executive Order this out of existence since it isn't a law that needs changed but that hasn't happened. The fact that we are still here, dealing with it suggests that it isn't going away.

chasfm11

What we have learned since this zombie thread last raised its head is that Federal judges can issue rulings which are binding on all US immigration policy, not just their district. But rulings that should affect the entire jurisdiction of the COE do not.

chasfm11

The Annoyed Man wrote:
ELB wrote:Absent pressure from the courts, I see no reason to expect the COE to make any serious effort to amend their regulations. If bothered by anyone enough to respond, my pessimistic assessment is they will say they need to wait to see how the national reciprocity bill pending in Congress turns out (recall it would allow carry on federal lands).

Not holding my breath.
This is why the pessimist in me says that things like this will NEVER change until we burn this thing down and start over. Why do they persist in repressing freedom? Because they CAN, and nobody will hold them to account for it.

Stop and think for a minute what it means that the federal gov’t is so afraid of its own citizens - the citizens who in theory are their masters - that they forbid those citizens a constitutional right anywhere near or on a federal facility - even a facility where the citizen is not likely to encounter a federal employee most of the time. What are they afraid of? Their fascist laws have zero effect on criminals, and they KNOW this. So what are they afraid of?

What they are afraid of is the liberty of free citizens exercising their rights in a responsible manner, telling gov’t that they need less of it, not more, and that the gov’t can go pound sand. They are afraid of a citizenry that holds first and foremost that the gov’t serves us, not the other way around, and that they only have as much power as we let them have. In addition to that fear, they ALSO agree with Chairman Mao that all political power flows from the barrel of a gun. So, wherever they forbid YOU to have a gun, THEY hold the power.

It is really that simple.

And since power is a more addictive drug than any opiate, they’ll never willingly surrender it. Therefore, it has to be taken from them. I would vastly prefer that this be through the power of the ballot box, but if gov’t doesn’t back down, we may not be afforded that choice. What then?

These are questions every American has to answer for themselves. Are they willing to continue the slide into despotism; are they willing to vote intelligently; are they willing to hoist the Jolly Roger and take matters into their own hands when all else fails?

I have hoped that the NRA would help to spearhead this change. While I recognize that the NRA cannot right all of the 2nd Amendment wrongs, at the heart of this, an executive action is all that is needed to fix it. President Trump to direct the Secretary of the Army to do just that. You and I cannot bring enough focus to the President to get that to happen but a group like the NRA might.

I wrestled with the Ft. Worth District COE and the commanding officer there over the monopoly that they granted for the marinas on Lake Grapevine. He was quick to point out (in person) that the COE is in the water management business and that everything else they do is not their primary mission. It is all pretty condescending. If were to editorialize his message it would be "be glad that we allow recreational boating and such on OUR controlled land. We do things (like the monopoly) because it is easier for us to manage than several vendors." I doubt that the COE leadership mentality is different than that anywhere or on any other subject. It is, in their mind, easier to prohibit guns on their property than to allow them and there is no check and balance for that line of thinking. While I do believe that government in general gets its jollies from controlling things and the greater that control, the greater the jollies, I think that much of the action can be more easily explained as convenience.

Lastly, the discussions here about the military mentality regarding civilian guns seems to support the idea the military leadership opposes the idea. It should not be surprising when the Army leadership at COE has that same mentality. Please don't interpret that comment to include any of the rank and file working within the COE.

chasfm11

s3779m wrote:I have tried to keep up, off and on with this case but have not seen anything new in about 8 months. Does anyone know if it is moving forward, dropped or has it been ruled on? I take it we still can not carry on acoe land here in Texas?

I contacted the office of Congressman Burgess. I asked him to intervene with the Ft. Worth COE based on this case. My question was: why is it necessary for a citizen in every COE District to have to file a lawsuit when the COE has already lost and this could be fixed by executive action from the district commander. Nothing came of it. Frankly, I didn't have very high hopes of success but I thought it worth a try.

chasfm11

anygunanywhere wrote:
AEA wrote:Bout time.
How about the bankrupt postal service next.

Anygunanywhere

But I'd like to see this one turned into a permanent injunction first and the opportunity for the Corp to come up with some sort of a SD regulation not happen.

Personally, I can get around going the Federal controlled Post Office bricks and mortar places by using a local counter at my dry cleaner's place. The folks at the dry cleaner can do almost everything that the Federal employees can do and are a whole lot more friendly in the process.

We are denied access to the numerous Corp controlled lake areas and camping areas by the current ban. Our church group goes to a Corp campground twice each year and we don't join them because of the Corp practice.
Having this injunction in place would change that and I certainly welcome that change. Right now, I have only cautious optimism about a good and more permanent outcome on Morris. I read the Parker decision and don't see any relationship but then IANAL.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 5 matches

Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!

Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!

Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!

Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!

Re: Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers