TexasCHLforum.com

Would I be correct in that a hunter with a CHL can not carry a pistol on Corps of Engineers property while hunting? Any law or rule that overrides the below?


http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/o ... itle36.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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;
(3) Being used at authorized shooting ranges; or
(4) Written permission has been received from the District Commander.
(b) Possession of explosives or explosive devices of any kind, including fireworks or other pyrotechnics, is prohibited unless written permission has been received from the District Commander.


And

http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/o ... 0final.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10. Are there weapons and/or means and methods restrictions on public hunting areas?
The “Means and Methods” restrictions as required under state law apply to all Corps
of Engineers hunting areas with the following additional requirements:
a. Hunting or shooting within 600 feet of homes, developed parks, roads, fishing piers or
platforms, farm and ranch yards, outlet structures, emergency spillways, or other areas is
prohibited unless otherwise stated or posted.
b. Pistols are prohibited.
c. Buckshot (any shot size large than #2 shot) is prohibited anywhere on government property. Buckshot is prohibited due to increased public safety concerns. Shotguns with rifled
slugs are allowed when hunting deer and feral hogs except at those lakes which restrict deer and
feral hog hunting to archery only.
d. Crossbows may be used in accordance with state law when hunting deer and feral hogs
unless prohibited at specific lakes.
e. Muzzleloaders: Muzzle-loading shotguns may be used at any lake which allows the use of
a conventional legal shotgun as defined by state law. Muzzle-loading rifles may be used only at
Lake O’ the Pines, Town Bluff, Sam Rayburn, and Wright Patman Lakes as stated in the Lake
Information section of this guide.
f. The use of conventional center-fire or rim-fire rifles is prohibited at all lakes, except Lake
O’ The Pines and Wright Patman Lake as stated in the Lake Information section of this guide.
g. The use of pellet, BB, or any other type of air gun is prohibited at all lakes.
h. Archery equipment for bow fishing must comply with TPWD regulations
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publication ... 3200_1559/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and will not take place
within 600 feet of homes, developed parks, roads, farm and ranch yards, outlet structures,
emergency spillways, or other areas.

Qustion: "Would I be correct in that a hunter with a CHL can not carry a pistol on Corps of Engineers property while hunting?"

Yes. That's the short answer for those of us who don't want to possibly be a test case. The search function might pick up some prior threads here on the topic.

Not sure which Corps lake that you hunt, but one way I've tried to remain "compliant" while "archery only" hunting hogs on Lewisville is to put a sling on a lightweight shotgun loaded with that lake's largest allowed shot size (2s). That's of course for a little rabbit hunting.

Only problem with that is by other rules you are required to be wearing flourescent orange when rabbit hunting.

Lotsa times if on public lands, I wear or at least carry orange gear in backback whether required or not. Last year, a buddy was south of 380 up in tree stand with bow when he nearly got shot by two yahoos tossing up bottles for each other and shootin at with semiauto pistols. Denton cops and game warden just gave 'em a verbal warning. With an aggressive prosecutor, you or I with CHL could still be in the courthouse over packin our normal carry piece in there ...

is a corps of engineering a federal land? if so, they may enforce stricter rules. On Wild life managements (TX state land?) and wet lands those rules are not enforced. I know that open carry is allowed. Am I correct?

Yep, Corps land definitely federal. Lotsa variations in rules, regs. And often varied interest by locale in prosecuting "violations" - or not.

A complete ban of handguns in an area under federal jurisdiction has been found unconstitutional. I'm just sayin'...

casingpoint wrote:A complete ban of handguns in an area under federal jurisdiction has been found unconstitutional. I'm just sayin'...

D.C.? Wasn't that just to possess one in your home? I don't think they have started issuing carry permits, have they?

Or are you referring to the national park thing? I remember one judge ruled concealed carry permit holders could carry if that state's laws allowed it (something like that), but I thought another judge put a hold on that until some environmental study was completed.

Sorry about the vagueness. That's the best I can do this late on a Monday.

C-Dub,

I took it that Casingpoint was referring to Heller and D.C., but he had a point. The ruling made it explicitly clear that a complete ban on firearms for self defense in a federal jurisdiction was not constitutional. The current ban on firearms on Corps land is a complete ban of them for self-defense purposes. The exception of allowing them for hunting, but not to be usable when not actually hunting or target shooting is very similar to the ban D.C. had on storage in the home. It would make for a very interesting case, and my guess would be the Appeals Court would hold the ban unconstitutional and SCOTUS would decline review. I am not in a position to test the law though, so I recommend against trying.

But I think the Corps ban would not hold up to a determined challenge (someone with the money to fight it far enough).

Well, unfortunately, that's going to be me. Sorry everyone.

srothstein wrote:C-Dub,

I took it that Casingpoint was referring to Heller and D.C., but he had a point. The ruling made it explicitly clear that a complete ban on firearms for self defense in a federal jurisdiction was not constitutional. The current ban on firearms on Corps land is a complete ban of them for self-defense purposes. The exception of allowing them for hunting, but not to be usable when not actually hunting or target shooting is very similar to the ban D.C. had on storage in the home. It would make for a very interesting case, and my guess would be the Appeals Court would hold the ban unconstitutional and SCOTUS would decline review. I am not in a position to test the law though, so I recommend against trying.

But I think the Corps ban would not hold up to a determined challenge (someone with the money to fight it far enough).

I think the more relavent point is that SCOTUS clearly denoted self-defense as a legal use of a firearm. Maybe we should start a push to have the COE rule changed similar the the national parks rule.

that's going to be me

Have you been cited, or like me, are you just going to carry yours and see what happens?

Thanks. srothstein, for the excellent clarification. Saved me the trouble. I was a little fuzzy last night, too.

casingpoint wrote:

that's going to be me

Have you been cited, or like me, are you just going to carry yours and see what happens?

Thanks. srothstein, for the excellent clarification. Saved me the trouble. I was a little fuzzy last night, too.

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

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

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

Luckily the penalty for failure to show has been removed. So concealed means concealed.

You are stilled required by law to display, but laws without penalties are pointless.