Pistol on Corps of Engineers Property

[Greybeard]

Yep, am quite pleased with that change.

[srothstein]

How would one go about being a test case. If one is carrying concealed, how could you get charged without breaking concealment.

There are several ways to become a test case. One includes a fall requiring medical evacuation. Another is if you have to use the pistol, even against an animal. A third is if you make some other mistake where an officer searches you for some reason (or just look like a suspect in another incident).

And you could become a willing test case by filing the lawsuit without being arrested. You would have to claim some harm to get standing, and I do not think the mere fact that you went to a park and were disarmed would be enough harm. The civil rights violation might be enough though.

[ELB]

And you could become a willing test case by filing the lawsuit without being arrested. You would have to claim some harm to get standing, and I do not think the mere fact that you went to a park and were disarmed would be enough harm. The civil rights violation might be enough though.

Different federal appellate court jurisdictions have different (and conflicting) standards for "standing," and I think srothstein is dead on about the "harm" issue and standing. The D.C. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has a very strict one, and it is the reason that the famous lawsuit went from being "Parker" to being "Heller." The DC court's standard includes "... requiring proof that the challenger faces a specific, personal threat of being prosecuted." Most of the original plaintiffs were dismissed because they were only arguing that DC prevented them from having a handgun -- but because they were obeying the law, they had never had been threatened with prosecution. Dick Heller's standing survived because he had applied for a permit and was denied, so he could show having been actually affected or harmed by the law. The others presumably would have had to obtain handguns, then notify the police so they could be threatened with prosecution -- and if the police chose to ignore them (say, to sabotage their standing) then no standing for them. Or they could have been arrested and maybe spent several years in jail or on parole or at least having a criminal conviction hanging over them, waiting for their appeal to go forward.

So if you want to be a test case, you need to pick your jurisdiction -- and your lawyer(s) and strategy carefully. Some appellate courts are like DC, some aren't. I think this is one area that the left has long been much better at than the right. The left is much more willing to engage in confrontations over the law. Of course, in court they only have to convince a few judges along the way, especially ones who have been educated in leftist dominated institutions, rather than convince large parts of the populace and the legislature. And it is part and parcel of leftist philosophy to bend judicial decisions to political goals...

As always, IANAL and all that.

[Sniper John]

Thanks for all the input guys.

[stash]

Scenario: State or Federal Game Warden or Park Ranger asking to see hunting license and/or id.

I am not sure a Federal Game Warden or Federal Park Ranger would be considered a peace officer in the eyes of the State of Texas in relation to providing your CHL if asked to ID.

[couzin]

Typically - Federal law enforcement officers can 'assist' in chase, apprehension, and arrest, in cases where State laws have been, or will be, violated - but, no - there really is no requirement to show a CHL. HOWEVER - if someone was subjected to a terry search and a firearm was discovered - one might find themselves at the point of a gun/stuffed and cuffed/charged with Federal fireams violations/whatever - until the situation could sort itself out (if ever). If you were carrying on Federal land where carrying (with or w/o a CHL) a handgun is legal (most US Forest Service; soon the NPS system; etc.), when stopped by Fed LEO - it would be simply the best move to identify the gun and note the CHL (esp in the NPS system where the regulation is specific to the State laws permitting carry). Just my opinion...

Federal 'Park Rangers' come in all flavors - for example, NPS has law enforcement rangers, but also has 'interpretive' rangers and other park rangers that are not 'law enforcement' but they are 'regulatory enforcement' with citation authority. The Corps of Engineers has regulatory (citation) type rangers. Because the Corps rangers do not have chase/search/interrogate/arrest authority - the Districts that they work in have agreements with local and State LEO for assistance - the local/State LEOs can arrest/interrogate and, if needed, hold a suspect until the US District Attorney for the area can file charges (which happens very fast).