vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) DParker - 03/22/2017
I meant to post this the other day, but for some reason it slipped my mind.
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/10/second-amendment-may-be-restored-on-army-corps-of-engineers-land/?utm_term=.0253cf0649e0"]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/10/second-amendment-may-be-restored-on-army-corps-of-engineers-land/?utm_term=.0253cf0649e0[/URL]
This is welcome news for me and my son. The archery-only WMA we hunt every year is ACoE land, and I've always hated the fact that we can't carry there...especially given the ~$6 million pot growing setup that was discovered there by a couple of guys hunting hogs in Sep. 2015.
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/10/second-amendment-may-be-restored-on-army-corps-of-engineers-land/?utm_term=.0253cf0649e0"]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/10/second-amendment-may-be-restored-on-army-corps-of-engineers-land/?utm_term=.0253cf0649e0[/URL]
This is welcome news for me and my son. The archery-only WMA we hunt every year is ACoE land, and I've always hated the fact that we can't carry there...especially given the ~$6 million pot growing setup that was discovered there by a couple of guys hunting hogs in Sep. 2015.
2.) bluecat - 03/22/2017
That is good news. Keep us posted.
3.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2017
Thanks for posting this. I have been trying to follow the situation for a while but information has always been scarce. Even reporting on basic facts has been lacking, and I don't understand why this hasn't been made a bigger deal in the public's mind. We have several big Corps projects here, and this rule affect a lot of people. I realize not everyone across the country is in the same boat, but still.
When the Corps says it's reconsidering, it would be nice to know how fast they're thinking. They're not known for being very nimble. I'm keeping my fingers crossed they'll come up with something before I get too old.
On a side note, we have a separate problem with rules prohibiting firearms on some significant public Game Lands and boat ramps here. Until 2011, I want to say, you couldn't have a loaded firearm at a public boat ramp in NC at all. Now you can, with a concealed carry permit, except at the ones I use most, naturally. It's always been fun coming off the water late at night wondering who's in a parking lot out in the middle of nowhere.
The rules around here can be quite confusing, especially if you like to pick up bits of information here and there, because the public discussion is a CF of hearsay, ancient history and impressions people had from when they lived in California.
If anyone is interested in the straight scoop, the rule is clearly outlined at the NC Wildlife Resources Commission website.
Bottom line: even after the concealed carry reform, there are still boat ramps and Game Lands in NC where having a loaded firearm is illegal. The Corps has nothing to do with it. It can be your duck gun or your deer rifle (when you're done hunting and coming off the water). It can be your open-carry handgun or your cc pistol at any time. It can be Corps land or not. Doesn't matter. You are disarmed, by law.
This may change in a few places if the Corps changes its position, because some of these ramps and GLs are Corps property. Some of them are not, however. The state leases land from someone--Duke Power, say--and it's the landowner's rule. The NCWRC has to go along with it if they want to continue the property in the GL program.
The thing I haven't been able to figure out is why we have a loaded gun prohibition at a few ramps that are known to be WRC ramps and not Corps-run, but which ARE on Corps lakes. By maintaining the prohibition, the WRC/State of NC seems to be acting as if the ramps are controlled by the Corps. It may well be that the ramps and the land around them ARE owned by the Corps. But why then do we have them designated as WRC ramps? The WRC seems to be responsible for maintenance. That doesn't appear to mean anything significant, though. Maybe that's just in the lease agreement.
It's a head-scratcher.
When the Corps says it's reconsidering, it would be nice to know how fast they're thinking. They're not known for being very nimble. I'm keeping my fingers crossed they'll come up with something before I get too old.
On a side note, we have a separate problem with rules prohibiting firearms on some significant public Game Lands and boat ramps here. Until 2011, I want to say, you couldn't have a loaded firearm at a public boat ramp in NC at all. Now you can, with a concealed carry permit, except at the ones I use most, naturally. It's always been fun coming off the water late at night wondering who's in a parking lot out in the middle of nowhere.
The rules around here can be quite confusing, especially if you like to pick up bits of information here and there, because the public discussion is a CF of hearsay, ancient history and impressions people had from when they lived in California.
If anyone is interested in the straight scoop, the rule is clearly outlined at the NC Wildlife Resources Commission website.
Bottom line: even after the concealed carry reform, there are still boat ramps and Game Lands in NC where having a loaded firearm is illegal. The Corps has nothing to do with it. It can be your duck gun or your deer rifle (when you're done hunting and coming off the water). It can be your open-carry handgun or your cc pistol at any time. It can be Corps land or not. Doesn't matter. You are disarmed, by law.
This may change in a few places if the Corps changes its position, because some of these ramps and GLs are Corps property. Some of them are not, however. The state leases land from someone--Duke Power, say--and it's the landowner's rule. The NCWRC has to go along with it if they want to continue the property in the GL program.
The thing I haven't been able to figure out is why we have a loaded gun prohibition at a few ramps that are known to be WRC ramps and not Corps-run, but which ARE on Corps lakes. By maintaining the prohibition, the WRC/State of NC seems to be acting as if the ramps are controlled by the Corps. It may well be that the ramps and the land around them ARE owned by the Corps. But why then do we have them designated as WRC ramps? The WRC seems to be responsible for maintenance. That doesn't appear to mean anything significant, though. Maybe that's just in the lease agreement.
It's a head-scratcher.
4.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2017
Also, it's a bit too much trivia and regional history to get into, probably, but I'm just gonna say we didn't have a lot of confusion and controversy on public or Corps land around here until four things happened: The internet became our way of getting information, handgun sales increased, CC permit applications exploded, and Obama got into office.
We're an open-carry state. Never was all this hub-bub before.
Now: mass confusion.
We're an open-carry state. Never was all this hub-bub before.
Now: mass confusion.
5.) DParker - 03/22/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;47826]...but I'm just gonna say...[/QUOTE]
Apologies in advance...but you know I'm powerless to resist...
[video=youtube;yR5Z4n1TdSI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR5Z4n1TdSI[/video]
Apologies in advance...but you know I'm powerless to resist...
[video=youtube;yR5Z4n1TdSI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR5Z4n1TdSI[/video]
6.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2017
LMAO!
That is just too funny!
I just thought I'd throw my two cents in here...LOL
That is just too funny!
I just thought I'd throw my two cents in here...LOL
7.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2017
You'll be relieved to know I scrapped an intricate post I was gonna put up outlining the decades-long history of what may or may not have been the rules on public land I may or may not hunt, and how I may or may not have always followed them, wittingly or unwittingly, pre- and post-canoe accidents...
:wink
:wink
8.) DParker - 03/22/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;47828]LMAO!
That is just too funny!
I just thought I'd throw my two cents in here...LOL[/QUOTE]
Just be glad you're not an Englishman.
That is just too funny!
I just thought I'd throw my two cents in here...LOL[/QUOTE]
Just be glad you're not an Englishman.
9.) bluecat - 03/22/2017
"Honey, there's someone at the door. Something about the Reaping?"
10.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;47830]Just be glad you're not an Englishman.[/QUOTE]
Lucky for me, LOL...But I didn't eat the mousse, either...Look where that got me...:-)
Lucky for me, LOL...But I didn't eat the mousse, either...Look where that got me...:-)
11.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2017
A dead horse walks into a bar...
Oops, wrong thread. :wink
But speaking of dead horses, wasn't there legislation pending a couple of years ago to address this problem on Corps land? How did that go away? Dems on the wrong committees is my guess, even before you get to the probable Obama veto.
I'm gonna guess that we'd still be SOL on NFS and USFWS land if loosened firearms restrictions hadn't been part of a credit card industry reform bill...:re: Too bad they couldn't have gotten the Corps in on that one.
Oops, wrong thread. :wink
But speaking of dead horses, wasn't there legislation pending a couple of years ago to address this problem on Corps land? How did that go away? Dems on the wrong committees is my guess, even before you get to the probable Obama veto.
I'm gonna guess that we'd still be SOL on NFS and USFWS land if loosened firearms restrictions hadn't been part of a credit card industry reform bill...:re: Too bad they couldn't have gotten the Corps in on that one.
12.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2017
Zzzzzzz....
What we need around here are some feisty anti-gun libtards...Maybe we should try to sign some up. LOL
What we need around here are some feisty anti-gun libtards...Maybe we should try to sign some up. LOL
13.) DParker - 03/22/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;47833]A dead horse walks into a bar...
Oops, wrong thread. :wink
But speaking of dead horses, wasn't there legislation pending a couple of years ago to address this problem on Corps land? How did that go away? Dems on the wrong committees is my guess, even before you get to the probable Obama veto.
I'm gonna guess that we'd still be SOL on NFS and USFWS land if loosened firearms restrictions hadn't been part of a credit card industry reform bill...:re: Too bad they couldn't have gotten the Corps in on that one.[/QUOTE]
Yep...
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/08/senate-rejects-firearms-on-army-corps-engineers-lands-boosting-gun-control.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/08/senate-rejects-firearms-on-army-corps-engineers-lands-boosting-gun-control.html[/URL]
It got 56 votes, but needed 60 for passage. However, it's not dead yet...
[URL="http://www.guns.com/2017/03/15/bill-filed-to-end-army-corps-of-engineers-ban-on-guns/"]http://www.guns.com/2017/03/15/bill-filed-to-end-army-corps-of-engineers-ban-on-guns/[/URL]
Oops, wrong thread. :wink
But speaking of dead horses, wasn't there legislation pending a couple of years ago to address this problem on Corps land? How did that go away? Dems on the wrong committees is my guess, even before you get to the probable Obama veto.
I'm gonna guess that we'd still be SOL on NFS and USFWS land if loosened firearms restrictions hadn't been part of a credit card industry reform bill...:re: Too bad they couldn't have gotten the Corps in on that one.[/QUOTE]
Yep...
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/08/senate-rejects-firearms-on-army-corps-engineers-lands-boosting-gun-control.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/08/senate-rejects-firearms-on-army-corps-engineers-lands-boosting-gun-control.html[/URL]
It got 56 votes, but needed 60 for passage. However, it's not dead yet...
[URL="http://www.guns.com/2017/03/15/bill-filed-to-end-army-corps-of-engineers-ban-on-guns/"]http://www.guns.com/2017/03/15/bill-filed-to-end-army-corps-of-engineers-ban-on-guns/[/URL]
14.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2017
DP, do you have a link to the 56-vote factoid? I skimmed your link plus some sub-links and didn't notice it.
I had the impression that this hadn't gotten to the point of a "real" vote...meaning beyond committees, etc.
Maybe I'll see it when I can read more closely.
Thx.
I had the impression that this hadn't gotten to the point of a "real" vote...meaning beyond committees, etc.
Maybe I'll see it when I can read more closely.
Thx.
15.) DParker - 03/22/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;47845]DP, do you have a link to the 56-vote factoid? I skimmed your link plus some sub-links and didn't notice it.
I had the impression that this hadn't gotten to the point of a "real" vote...meaning beyond committees, etc.
Maybe I'll see it when I can read more closely.
Thx.[/QUOTE]
The 4th paragraph from the first link (with the story titled "Senate rejects firearms on Army Corps of Engineers lands, boosting gun control supporters"):
[QUOTE]Senators voted 56-43 for the proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., but it fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage.[/QUOTE]
I had the impression that this hadn't gotten to the point of a "real" vote...meaning beyond committees, etc.
Maybe I'll see it when I can read more closely.
Thx.[/QUOTE]
The 4th paragraph from the first link (with the story titled "Senate rejects firearms on Army Corps of Engineers lands, boosting gun control supporters"):
[QUOTE]Senators voted 56-43 for the proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., but it fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage.[/QUOTE]
16.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2017
Thx.
17.) Swamp Fox - 03/23/2017
Oops...That's what I get for spacing out on looking at the more simple, straightforward, yet excellent Fox link. :bad:
"If it wuz a snake, it woulda bit me!"
"If it wuz a snake, it woulda bit me!"
18.) Swamp Fox - 03/23/2017
From DP's Fox link:
[QUOTE]Eleven Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent voted for Coburn's plan, underscoring the party's divisions on the gun issue.
Those voting for Coburn's proposal included all four Democrats who opposed the bipartisan bill expanding required federal background checks to more gun buyers that the Senate rejected three weeks ago.
[...]
Also backing Coburn's proposal were the two chief authors of the defeated background check measure, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa.
[B]Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a supporter of the Manchin-Toomey plan, was the only Republican to vote against expanding gun use on Corps land.[/B]
Coburn said gun rights on Corps land should be the same as in national parks and federal wildlife refuges, where federal law has allowed visitors to carry guns since 2010. He said after the vote that he would keep reintroducing the measure until it passes.
"Fifty-six votes, a majority of the Senate believes we ought to have one sane policy" on gun rights on federal lands, Coburn said.
[B]Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects.
"This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists," she said. Allowing more guns "sets up a national security threat. It endangers people."[/B]
Army Corps lands are used for recreation by 370 million people annually, more than visit the property of any other federal agency. About 80 percent of them are within 50 miles of urban areas, making them accessible destinations.[/QUOTE]
So the good news is we've identified one more mental defective...
:wink
[QUOTE]Eleven Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent voted for Coburn's plan, underscoring the party's divisions on the gun issue.
Those voting for Coburn's proposal included all four Democrats who opposed the bipartisan bill expanding required federal background checks to more gun buyers that the Senate rejected three weeks ago.
[...]
Also backing Coburn's proposal were the two chief authors of the defeated background check measure, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa.
[B]Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a supporter of the Manchin-Toomey plan, was the only Republican to vote against expanding gun use on Corps land.[/B]
Coburn said gun rights on Corps land should be the same as in national parks and federal wildlife refuges, where federal law has allowed visitors to carry guns since 2010. He said after the vote that he would keep reintroducing the measure until it passes.
"Fifty-six votes, a majority of the Senate believes we ought to have one sane policy" on gun rights on federal lands, Coburn said.
[B]Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects.
"This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists," she said. Allowing more guns "sets up a national security threat. It endangers people."[/B]
Army Corps lands are used for recreation by 370 million people annually, more than visit the property of any other federal agency. About 80 percent of them are within 50 miles of urban areas, making them accessible destinations.[/QUOTE]
So the good news is we've identified one more mental defective...
:wink
19.) DParker - 03/23/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;47852]
[quote][b]Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects.[/b][/quote]
[/QUOTE]
Because my 9mm pistol makes me more dangerous to those things than the shotgun I can legally bring onto those lands right now.
[quote][b]Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects.[/b][/quote]
[/QUOTE]
Because my 9mm pistol makes me more dangerous to those things than the shotgun I can legally bring onto those lands right now.
20.) Swamp Fox - 03/23/2017
LOL...
I like how you did the quote within a quote. Ima have to learn that...
(These people are just pathetic.)
I like how you did the quote within a quote. Ima have to learn that...
(These people are just pathetic.)
21.) bluecat - 03/23/2017
Wow, that's about it.
22.) bluecat - 03/23/2017
"Jim it looks the dam is about ready to go. Must have been some hikers through here with their damn hidden pistols. LOOK OUT!"
23.) Swamp Fox - 03/23/2017
"Bob, I think if we had just focused more on .22 rat shot, we would have been ok!"
24.) DParker - 03/23/2017
Because I've got nothing else...
25.) Swamp Fox - 03/23/2017
LOL...
Probably my favorite of all time...LOL
:laugh:
+4
Probably my favorite of all time...LOL
:laugh:
+4