TexasCHLforum.com

Please correct me if you read this differently, but as I understand it, I can carry my unloaded pistol to my boat from my car. I can have my pistol on my boat if I'm going fishing. We anchor and drop a line or two while also swimming in the same area. Any problems with this?

327.13 Explosives, firearms, other weapons and fireworks

(a) The possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other weapons is prohibited unless:

(1) In the possession of a Federal, state or local law enforcement officer;

(2) Being used for hunting or fishing as permitted under 327.8, with devices being unloaded when transported to, from or between hunting and fishing sites;

327.8 Hunting, fishing, and trapping.

(c) Fishing is permitted except in swimming areas, on boat ramps or other areas designated by the District Commander.

http://www.swf-wc.usace.army.mil/canyon/title36.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.swf-wc.usace.army.mil/canyon/Title36.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You fish with a pistol???

couzin wrote:You fish with a pistol???

I can think of numerous ways to legally use a pistol within the act of fishing.

couzin wrote:You fish with a pistol???

If you are fishing an alligator, yes.

Fishing on the river when I was growing up, you never got in the boat without your pistol. You never knew what might be on the other end of that line; a lot of times it was an alligator gar (sp?). Or maybe a water snake of some kind. But you better be sure that every person on that boat older than 15 or so had a gun of some kind on their person. Now, this wasn't Corps property (that I know of), but pistol was a must when you went fishin'.

TBM

I don't have a definitive answer for you. But I'll share my opinion based on a history of dealing with the Corps for many years.

The Corp of Engineers, in my opinion, is among the most arrogant of the the Federal bureaucracies. They have a mission which is flood control and they are not really interested in anything else. They are forced into relationships about the recreational use of their lakes but they are quick to point out that such matters are not in keeping with their mission and usually imply that they give very little time to anything that isn't their mission. I heard this directly from the commander of the Ft. Worth District, face to face.

They believe that they are understaffed for their primary mission and very few resource are assigned to tasks that are not directly related to that mission. That said, they do patrol the lakes and my sailboat has been stopped by them for safety checks on multiple occasions. I've never been boarded but I've seen others who have been.

They seem to believe that firearms are a distraction from their primary mission and I doubt that you will find any Corp employee, military or civilian, who understands that actual Federal rules regarding firearms on their property. They believe those rules prohibit the public from having firearms and I would expect them to enforce that point of view, if push comes to shove.

That all said, I expect the likelihood of them deliberately setting out to enforce their version of the Federal firearms laws to be as likely as your being struck by lightning. Before I got my CHL, we used to camp in a lot of Corps campgrounds and never saw them interested in firearms in anyway. The Corp property also bans alcohol but I saw a lot of people drinking without being obnoxious and never saw any interest in the Corp Ranges in enforcing the alcohol ban. They tend to go about their business and don't make a scene if you don't. I have seen flagrant violators dealt with promptly and professionally.

I would be more concerned about Texas Parks and Wildlife. They are, by far, the more aggressive in enforcement of the rules on Texas lakes I suspect that they share the Corps view that firearms are prohibited on lakes, regardless of the specific wording of the laws. In North Texas, you are much more likely to meet up with a TPW officer than a Corps ranger, based on my experience. I cannot speak for lakes outside of the DFW area, though we used to sail the Colorado River around the Mansfield dam periodically. I never met either the Corps or TPW there.

Your mileage may vary.

I always thought a Corp lake was federal property and therefore restricted.

It would be nice to find the definitive answer.

Max

Maxwell wrote:I always thought a Corp lake was federal property and therefore restricted.

It would be nice to find the definitive answer.

Max

Federal property is restricted in reference to concealed carry, but this has nothing to do with concealed carry.
I too would like a definitive answer. Not holding my breath though. I've read numerous discussions between people more educated in legal matters than I and I always seem to walk away more confused.

It should be against the law to have to be a lawyer to understand the law...

AcesFull wrote:

Maxwell wrote:I always thought a Corp lake was federal property and therefore restricted.

It would be nice to find the definitive answer.

Max

Federal property is restricted in reference to concealed carry, but this has nothing to do with concealed carry.
I too would like a definitive answer. Not holding my breath though. I've read numerous discussions between people more educated in legal matters than I and I always seem to walk away more confused.

It should be against the law to have to be a lawyer to understand the law...

Federal property is restricted to guns in general, not just concealed carry. Try entering federal property open carrying, in a state that allows open carry, and in 25 years or so, you can tell me how it worked out for you.

AcesFull wrote:Federal property is restricted in reference to concealed carry, but this has nothing to do with concealed carry.
I too would like a definitive answer. Not holding my breath though. I've read numerous discussions between people more educated in legal matters than I and I always seem to walk away more confused.

OK - I will try again (this time without the attempt at humour). The legal 'test' is "by legal means" - simply, fishing is limited to certain ways of taking (line, pole, net, trot, noodling, bow and arrow, crossbow). You can't shoot fish - and contrary to some opinions, a gator is not a fish and is not included on your fish license. Hunting has to meet the same test - a legal means AND as permitted by the particular area (shotgun only, blah blah)(nothing in this post is discussing concealed carry). The regulations you cite mean that the 'legal means of taking' are made safe ('unloaded') until you reach your hunting or fishing spot. That is - you crossbow needs to be uncocked and no bolt, you don't walk across the parking lot with an arrow notched and drawn, and - I guess, your rod and reel rig doesn't have one of those exploding worms attached. Same thing as hunting - you don't load your firearm at home and carry it all the way up into your stand loaded. Bottom line - you cannot have a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) on USACE lands or waters unless legally hunting. Trying to find a loophole is just wasting time. You do what you feel you must do and be willing to take the heat if caught I guess. I have 30 years dealing with Federal regs, laws, and EOs, 20 with USACE. BTW - I dispute that we are an arrogant organization.

couzin wrote: BTW - I dispute that we are an arrogant organization.

I'm sure that there are many individuals, both military and civil service, who are themselves cordial and easy to deal with. I'll admit that I don't have 20 years experience in dealing with the organization but I have had 10 years of dealing with the Ft. Worth District. I served on the board of a local sailing club for many of those years and the Corp people that we dealt with were at best uncooperative and unresponsive.

We have had our RV 10 years and used to enjoy camping in places like Lake Whitney. The Corps campground there is better than the State Park on the other side of the lake. The TPW rangers were a lot easier to deal with than the Corps rangers. I really believe that both cases are a result of what I put in my previous post - that recreational use of the lakes is a distant 3rd or 4th on the Corp priority list. We visit many private campgrounds and many of them give a list of their rules when we check in. I've never had one of them explain those rules in the same manner as the Corps people have delivered them to me personally. We have been on other Corps property as far away as Lake Hartwell, SC and near Atlanta, GA and didn't find much difference. If you want to see arrogance, try checking into Cedar Breaks campground near Georgetown.

If I have developed a jaded view of the organization as a result of those different dealings, it is not without cause.

I'll take it one step further. All of this discussion about firearms on Corps property could have easily been solved when the law was passed to allow firearms in the National Parks. I believe Congress could have and would have expanded that to include Corps property but there was upper level push back from Corp management. The case is very weak in the knees that Corps employees are more at risk that National Park employees because of concealed carry. I do understand that the Army is not exactly a bastion of 2nd Amendment support but the resistance within the the high level management of the Corps goes well beyond that. They just don't want to have to deal with it. That is arrogance in my book. Like the IRS, I understand that the rank and file employees do not make policy but are instructed to carry it out.

LEO bashing and now USACE bashing. What's this world coming too?

couzin wrote:

AcesFull wrote:Federal property is restricted in reference to concealed carry, but this has nothing to do with concealed carry.
I too would like a definitive answer. Not holding my breath though. I've read numerous discussions between people more educated in legal matters than I and I always seem to walk away more confused.

OK - I will try again (this time without the attempt at humour). The legal 'test' is "by legal means" - simply, fishing is limited to certain ways of taking (line, pole, net, trot, noodling, bow and arrow, crossbow). You can't shoot fish - and contrary to some opinions, a gator is not a fish and is not included on your fish license. Hunting has to meet the same test - a legal means AND as permitted by the particular area (shotgun only, blah blah)(nothing in this post is discussing concealed carry). The regulations you cite mean that the 'legal means of taking' are made safe ('unloaded') until you reach your hunting or fishing spot. That is - you crossbow needs to be uncocked and no bolt, you don't walk across the parking lot with an arrow notched and drawn, and - I guess, your rod and reel rig doesn't have one of those exploding worms attached. Same thing as hunting - you don't load your firearm at home and carry it all the way up into your stand loaded. Bottom line - you cannot have a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) on USACE lands or waters unless legally hunting. Trying to find a loophole is just wasting time. You do what you feel you must do and be willing to take the heat if caught I guess. I have 30 years dealing with Federal regs, laws, and EOs, 20 with USACE. BTW - I dispute that we are an arrogant organization.

Thanks for expanding. I have about an hours worth of time dealing with federal regs...I think I'll take your advice.

My boat is an offshore boat and we never leave port without being well armed. Caught a large Tiger shark once after fighting it for 4 hours. That would have required a firearm to bring it aboard! We released it. I guess it's a good thing that Tiger sharks don't inhabit our lakes.