• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Morris vs Army Corps of Engineers

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
If you look at case law on any federal level you will find it littered with? Other case law sometimes not even in the same district. Other decisions on other cases spring off of previous cases. One case that was in our favor was the US V Black case which used Terry V Ohio. I have not researched a case yet where a favorable decision to 2A was made that the judges did not use a previous case as part of the decision.

This case could clearly affect carry on federal property, or federally maintained property. Most likely it would not affect brick and mortar as there are decisions giving gov the privilege to infringe on that particular case.
 

buckfynn

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
29
Location
Idaho
Thanks Fallschirmjäger for the update.

I am sad to say the local Western Idaho news media was mum on reporting any information on Morris vs. ACoE.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Thanks Fallschirmjäger for the update.

I am sad to say the local Western Idaho news media was mum on reporting any information on Morris vs. ACoE.
Maybe they merely need to be reminded? If you have the names of any of the reporters who filed reports about the initial suit, you might send them an email with the results (do their work for them and they'll more likely print it than if you merely send a link and make them do the work.)
 

buckfynn

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
29
Location
Idaho
Maybe they merely need to be reminded? If you have the names of any of the reporters who filed reports about the initial suit, you might send them an email with the results (do their work for them and they'll more likely print it than if you merely send a link and make them do the work.)
What you just said is all fine and dandy. But this was the first I had heard of Morris v ACoE was an Idaho issue. I must first hear about such news before I could pass it on.

Idaho has an abundance of hydro-electric damns under the control of the ACoE. Since I am an Idaho resident naturally I was interested in knowing more about the specifics and history of this case. And to my amazement so far I am the only one from Idaho posting in this thread. Below gives a bit more information about the story compliments of the Courthouse News Service.

The plaintiffs claimed Corps District Commander Lt. Col. Andrew Kelly can give permission to possess firearms on Corps-administered lands. Both wrote letters in 2013, requesting permission to carry weapons while camping at Dworshak Reservoir in northern Idaho and at Lucky Peak Reservoir near Boise, in addition to other locations throughout the state.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Hmm.... I'm sorry, but if you declare a law that covers hundreds of properties in most of the states of the US unconstitutional, then it applies to the entire country, not just the state of Idaho, no matter what district its in. The US Constitution does not change if you go from Idaho to Georgia. There are no provisions that say it applies in certain ways in certain states. This cannot be used as a precedent to restore in other areas, this IS, by definition of the two laws involved, a total nulification of the ACoE rules.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Hmm.... I'm sorry, but if you declare a law that covers hundreds of properties in most of the states of the US unconstitutional, then it applies to the entire country, not just the state of Idaho, no matter what district its in. The US Constitution does not change if you go from Idaho to Georgia. There are no provisions that say it applies in certain ways in certain states. This cannot be used as a precedent to restore in other areas, this IS, by definition of the two laws involved, a total nulification of the ACoE rules.
I see you did not read the full text. Please see Memorandum Decision -- 9 in the link I provided in post #30.

Applies to Idaho only and only to ACOE controlled properties. Not all federal property.

I do agree with your reasoning though. It seems disingenuous to restrict the ruling to one state and to a particularly controlled federal property.
 
Last edited:

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
I would think the following language from the decision would set precedent for allowing the carrying of a firearm for self defense on all government property.

From the decision:

"The Court must ask first whether the Corps’ regulation burdens conduct protected
by the Second Amendment. It does. The Second Amendment protects the right to carry
a firearm for self-defense purposes. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628 (stating that “the inherent
right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). That right
extends outside the home. Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1166 (holding that “the right to bear arms
includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of
self-defense”)."
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
I did read the whole thing. What I dont like is that one judge in one area can say "this law is unconstitutional" while another judge in another area can cay "not its not" and then you have two different ways of dealing with the same law. Yes, the judge in the Idaho case stated his ruling applied on there, and in that, I believe he's wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it applies in different ways depending on where you are in the US of A. IMO, since that judge has said the rule is wrong, then its wrong everywhere that the ACoE has property, and they dont have the right to enforce it anywhere until/unless SCOTUS overturns the lower court. I know thats not how the system works, but I view it as just another way that the system is screwed up.
 
Top