TexasCHLforum.com

Gentlemen,

I typically never post on any forums, but I wanted to get some input on a reply email to the Col who control the ACOE property in my area. Also, does aynone know if this is an issue TSRA would be willing to go to bat on?



-----Original Message-----
From: steveincowtown
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 11:13 AM
To: Richard COL SWF
Subject: Title 36/ Lake Whitney Recreation Area



Colonel Richard :

It is my understanding that you are the District Commander for Fort Worth
area, to include Lake Whitney and the USACE camping areas around this lake.

I understand that by the directive of a memo dated February 22nd, 2010, from
Michael G. Ensch, SES, you have not been granted the ability to create
blanket exceptions to any current policy regarding 36 C.F.R. § 327.13.
However you are still able to grant exceptions based on a case by case basis.
I am asking for an exception to be granted (in writing) for the time period
of June 1-7. I will be staying at Lake Whitney during the first week of
June. I am a Texas CHL holder, and originally obtained my permit so that I
could exercise my right to protect myself and my family. I have never had
to, and God willing will never need to exercise this right. It is however,
one that I hold dear.

I look forward to your reply.

Best Regards,

Steve
Fort Worth, TX


----Original Message-----
From: Richard COL SWF <Richard.J.@usace.army.mil>
To: steve
Sent: Mon, Aug 2, 2010 10:59 am
Subject: RE: Title 36/ Lake Whitney Recreation Area


Steve,

I apologize for not getting back to you in a timely manner and see
that I missed the window for your request.

At this time I have not, nor plan to grant any exceptions allowing
individual to have possession of Firearms while staying at our Lake projects.
I make this decision in the interest of public safety.

Respectfully,

COL

I don't know about the TSRA, but the Second Amendment Foundation might be interested. I suggest you contact them as I know they are looking for other second amendment cases and you may have a basis for a case.

steveincowtown wrote:I typically never post on any forums, but I wanted to get some input on a reply email to the Col who control the ACOE property in my area. Also, does aynone know if this is an issue TSRA would be willing to go to bat on?

What would the TSRA or anyone else "go to bat" for? You asked the Colonel and he said "No." It is your legal right to ask and his legal right to deny your request. I don't think that the TSRA would intervene on an individual basis.

I would think that both the TSRA and the NRA would like to remove the ACOE restrictions for all citizens. If you are not already a member of the TSRA and NRA, I suggest that you join both organizations. Both organizations will "go to bat" for your RKBA rights.

Welcome to the forum steveincowtown.

I think he meant going to bat for removing the restrictions for everyone. From what I've read, almost every lake in Texas is off limits for carry because of the COE stuff. I think the way Texas handle's it's government property should be applied to federal property as well, i.e. they can't block you from carrying.

I think he meant going to bat for removing the restrictions for everyone. From what I've read, almost every lake in Texas is off limits for carry because of the COE stuff. I think the way Texas handle's it's government property should be applied to federal property as well, i.e. they can't block you from carrying.

Which is why I strongly suggest that the OP contact the SAF, they are the ones who brought heller and McDonald to the SC and won Heller. The NRA's argument in McDonald won that case for us (Only Thomas went with the SAFs argument).

Fangs wrote:I think he meant going to bat for removing the restrictions for everyone. From what I've read, almost every lake in Texas is off limits for carry because of the COE stuff. I think the way Texas handle's it's government property should be applied to federal property as well, i.e. they can't block you from carrying.

I should have been more clear in my post. On what legal basis would you try to remove the restrictions? Is "going to bat" suggesting a lawsuit or legislation? I know, the 2nd Amendment rights could be the basis of a lawsuit, but what particular argument would presented?

WildBill wrote:I know, the 2nd Amendment rights could be the basis of a lawsuit, but what particular argument would presented?

It's not reasonable or does not represent a compelling public interest. What do they think are you going to do? Shoot a fish? Shoot sand? Mud?

Over the years, various administrations and agencies managed to get every federal property off-limits for non-LEO possession of firearms. Then they tried to get every federally funded facility off-limits, which hasn't quite failed yet. The "gun free school zones" act makes it an offense to carry a loaded weapon in about half the urban real estate in the country.

This morass needs to be cleaned up.

- Jim

I am so tired of the "public safety" argument. I would write the guy back and ask him to explain what he means by "public safety". Is he asserting that legally licensed CHL holders are a danger to the public? Does he believe that disarming law abiding citizens makes them safer in the presence of law ignoring criminals who will carry in the parks just as they do everywhere else? Is he idea of public safety denying citizens their fundamental rights?

Now that Heller and McDonald have been decided, I think it's time for us to get aggressive at demanding our rights. Tell this guy that if he is going to deny you your Constitutional rights, you want him to sign a statement to that effect so you can post it publicly.

Fangs wrote:I think he meant going to bat for removing the restrictions for everyone. From what I've read, almost every lake in Texas is off limits for carry because of the COE stuff. I think the way Texas handle's it's government property should be applied to federal property as well, i.e. they can't block you from carrying.

Exactly. I did not expect that the TSRA would call the Colonel and shame him into giving me a permisison slip. I am talking in general terms as in "use these emails as the basis for meaningful change."

WildBill wrote:

Fangs wrote:I think he meant going to bat for removing the restrictions for everyone. From what I've read, almost every lake in Texas is off limits for carry because of the COE stuff. I think the way Texas handle's it's government property should be applied to federal property as well, i.e. they can't block you from carrying.

I should have been more clear in my post. On what legal basis would you try to remove the restrictions? Is "going to bat" suggesting a lawsuit or legislation? I know, the 2nd Amendment rights could be the basis of a lawsuit, but what particular argument would presented?

No legislation is needed; we already have in the form of the 2nd Amendment. In my mind the argument is with the recent release of all other Federal Parks/Forrest to follow state carry rules why should an ACOE recreation area be any different? Also, other than private business owners, since when do we empower single people to allow or disallow other's rights?

baldeagle wrote:I am so tired of the "public safety" argument. I would write the guy back and ask him to explain what he means by "public safety". Is he asserting that legally licensed CHL holders are a danger to the public? Does he believe that disarming law abiding citizens makes them safer in the presence of law ignoring criminals who will carry in the parks just as they do everywhere else? Is he idea of public safety denying citizens their fundamental rights?

No offense but what makes you think this second letter will be any less ignored than the first one? The Colonel, bless his bureaucratic heart, is only following policy/orders and will not, under any circumstances, compromise his pension at this stage of his career. Legal CC on COE reservations has to start at the top just like it did with the NPS.

baldeagle wrote:I am so tired of the "public safety" argument. I would write the guy back and ask him to explain what he means by "public safety". Is he asserting that legally licensed CHL holders are a danger to the public? Does he believe that disarming law abiding citizens makes them safer in the presence of law ignoring criminals who will carry in the parks just as they do everywhere else? Is he idea of public safety denying citizens their fundamental rights?

A few years ago, I got involved with the Ft. Worth COE and even personally met with the Col. over problems with the marinas on Lake Grapevine. We went through a several year long battle and here's what I learned:
- The Corps's main interest in in flood control. They view anything that has to do with the recreational use of the lake property as something below priority #3 on their list.
- they are a Governemental that seems well insulated from even direct political pressure. We had a US Congressman working with us and even he couldn't make headway with them
- if they even smell a controversy, they will do everything in their power to steer clear of it.
- let to their own devices, every decision that they make will be in their own interests. For example, there is a top of an old gravel washer that was left on the bottom of the lake that becomes a navigation hazard to sailboats when the water gets low. The previous year's flood had broken the marker buoy over it loose. When the water level dropped again, it took almost constant pressure to get them to replace the buoy. They viewed it as unnecessary work since none of their boats have enough draft to get hung up on gravel washer. We located it for them, provided instruments so that they could verify how close to the surface it was and physically helped them to place the new buoy. One ranger spent about 1/2 an hour with us. You would have thought we were asking them to spend $1M.

My expectation is that the "public safety" argument is simply a coded way of saying "I don't want to get involved."

Oldgringo wrote:Legal CC on COE reservations has to start at the top just like it did with the NPS.

"The top" is Congress. We tried, but I guess we just have to keep trying.

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=34836" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Legal CC on COE reservations has to start at the top just like it did with the NPS.

"The top" is Congress. We tried, but I guess we just have to keep trying.

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=34836" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Well, congress is shut down for a month so that these good and noble public servants can go home and stoke up their never ending re-election efforts. Perhaps mid-November would be a good time to resume this noble effort? However, the USACE has dominion over many more waters than exist in Texas.

chasfm11 wrote:My expectation is that the "public safety" argument is simply a coded way of saying "I don't want to get involved."