Army Corp of Engineers Properties

[jgreiner]

Tad slow, but mine went out today.

 

[eldirector]

Tad slow, but mine went out today.

Now slow, just "staggered delivery".

Folks, don't forget to post up any response you might get!

 

[Westside]

just a thought. when I got permission at my to carry at my church which is also a school they wanted me to write my authorization letter so that all they had to do was read it then vote on it, then sign it if they approved.

You could add a authorization letter that all he had to do was sign and date so that it was easy for him. Because if it takes work he probably won't do anything about it. also include a self addressed and stamped envelope as well.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

just a thought. when I got permission at my to carry at my church which is also a school they wanted me to write my authorization letter so that all they had to do was read it then vote on it, then sign it if they approved.

You could add a authorization letter that all he had to do was sign and date so that it was easy for him. Because if it takes work he probably won't do anything about it. also include a self addressed and stamped envelope as well.

Would you do me a huge favor and either direct me to a thread where you talked about this process or if you haven't would you mind posting your experience in one of the existing threads regarding carrying in a school?

I can provide a link to one of mine if you are interested. Thanks.

 

[dnurk]

Just saw this thread and it truly was enlightening for me. We have property that is adjacent to ACoE land on Salt Creek down in Monroe County. We go hiking on their land all the time, fishing, etc. Every single time I'm on that land I am carrying. I know the local DNR CO and don't think he would every confront me but it's scary to know I am actually in violation of the law. I will most definitely be sending my letter in tomorrow.

Thanks a ton for posting this. Rep added.

 

[KG1]

Just saw this thread and it truly was enlightening for me. We have property that is adjacent to ACoE land on Salt Creek down in Monroe County. We go hiking on their land all the time, fishing, etc. Every single time I'm on that land I am carrying. I know the local DNR CO and don't think he would every confront me but it's scary to know I am actually in violation of the law. I will most definitely be sending my letter in tomorrow.

Thanks a ton for posting this. Rep added.

Your story is but one example of exactly why this law needs to be changed.

 

[Hawkeye]

It will be interesting to see the responses!

 

[asipes]

I am printing my letter now. I will be sending it out very soon.

 

[fastwally]

Got my denial back today:

 

[KG1]

Got my denial back today:

Nice try. Kinda figured it would turn out like this though.

The part of the letter that does'nt make one bit of sense is in the last paragraph where he gives his reasoning for denial as to "preserve and protect the safety and security of park rangers and visitors"

That's bogus since it's legal to carry on all other surrounding DNR property and there has'nt been an open season on DNR rangers and other visitors.

The question I would like to ask the Commander is. How is ACOE governed property any different than DNR property in that respect and can he personally guarantee the "safety and security" of myself and my family if I/We decide to visit an ACOE disarmament zone that he has encouraged us to "visit and enjoy"?

They really need to get busy and get the ball rolling on some kind of legislation to break the grip ACOE has on public land.

 

[asipes]

Got my denial back today:

Exactly what I got as well. Not sure exactly why "A copy of this decision will be retained on file." It would be different if the denial actual changed things.

 

[fastwally]

Exactly what I got as well. Not sure exactly why "A copy of this decision will be retained on file." It would be different if the denial actual changed things.

So if your caught on Corps property they have proof you were told you couldn't carry.

 

[jbombelli]

Who didn't see THAT coming?

 

[Arickosmo]

...what constitutes loaded?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

...what constitutes loaded?

Typically a round in the chamber or loaded magazine inserted into the firearm if detachable. Indiana does NOT consider a loaded magazine not inserted into the firearm to be a loaded weapon; however, some states such as Ohio do consider a loaded magazine the same as a loaded firearm.

 

[eldirector]

...what constitutes loaded?

You know... I've never pursued this line......

I can't find anything in the Code of Federal Regulations that defines a "loaded firearm". Indiana DOES have a definition, but it is specific only to the IC on Children and Firearms:

IC 35-47-10-4
"Loaded" defined
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "loaded" means having any of the following:
(1) A cartridge in the chamber or cylinder of a firearm.
(2) Ammunition in close proximity to a firearm so that a person can readily place the ammunition in the firearm.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.12. Amended by P.L.203-1996, SEC.3.

So, the question becomes: Can we legally carry UNLOADED (like California) with our mags in our pockets? Inquiring minds want to know.....

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You know... I've never pursued this line......

I can't find anything in the Code of Federal Regulations that defines a "loaded firearm". Indiana DOES have a definition, but it is specific only to the IC on Children and Firearms:



So, the question becomes: Can we legally carry UNLOADED (like California) with our mags in our pockets? Inquiring minds want to know.....

IDK... #2 seems like it would be "readily accessible" in your pocket.

 

[BravoMike]

IDK... #2 seems like it would be "readily accessible" in your pocket.

That IC states "As used in this chapter," which is this...
IC 35-47-10
Chapter 10. Children and Firearms

IANAL but doesn't that mean that it would only apply to that specific chapter?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That IC states "As used in this chapter," which is this...
IC 35-47-10
Chapter 10. Children and Firearms

IANAL but doesn't that mean that it would only apply to that specific chapter?

DEpends I guess. If it is the only definition of loaded then it may be used elsewhere by the court's decision. Bacically it would be up to the judge/jury.

Personally if THAT defintion is in there and no other can be found, it would be the one I went by.

IANALEither

 

[Arickosmo]

It's a sticking point, but easily argued. They make rules for a reason and the ACoE doesn't define loaded in their code. I wonder if it could be argued that since IC doesn't apply to ACoE property than neither does this definition.

FINALLY...us panty wastes that carry empty chambered are the smart ones!

Lastly, I love that the acronym for I Am Not A Lawyer is always, in my mind, read as:

I ANAL