search
top

Restoring Right-to-Carry on More Federal Land

Representative Bob Gibbs (R-OH) has introduced new legislation that would open up more federal land to lawful carry. Specifically it would legalize carry on lands controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. There a number of such federals lands in Pennsylvania. To be honest, I didn’t even know carry was an issue on these lands until a few years ago.

8 Responses to “Restoring Right-to-Carry on More Federal Land”

  1. Stephen says:

    This would be fantastic. There is a ton of COE land in Texas, and it is not always well marked. People have tried to talk directly to the COE before regarding their carry policies, and they haven’t shown any interest in respecting the rights of citizens. Glad legislation to fix this is being pushed.

  2. Matthew Carberry says:

    I do like how this is being addressed.

    Since we are unlikely to get absolute unrestricted carry on Fed land in the near term (Go Gura Go) shaping the “Carry on Federal Land/Property open to the public issue” in terms of “as per the regulations of the state in which they are located” seems like a winner.

    States with bad carry laws can’t credibly oppose it with claims of being “overridden by the Feds” (the anti-gun state’s rights gambit) and states with good laws become examples of what a non-issue it is.

    Next up, Congress defines “sensitive places” to exclude non-secured areas of publically accessible Federal property and sets carry restrictions there at the hosting state’s level.

  3. Yeah, the COE restrictions are a bit ridiculous. I could be hunting using a 70# compound bow, a shotgun or a rifle, but not allowed to carry a handgun. It is a very stupid regulation.

  4. ParatrooperJJ says:

    The Army has traditionally been antigun.

  5. Yeah, I don’t understand that about the Army? I agree, the restrictions are not there to protect citizens, it’s just another layer of bureaucratic control. *sigh*

  6. C-Dog says:

    This would be a huge step. I hunt almost exclusively on public lands and quite a bit of C.O.E. land. In some cases, this C.O.E. land borders National Forests, state Wildlife Managed Areas and state natural areas where I can carry. It does seem silly that I can hunt on these C.O.E. lands with a firearm, but can’t carry a handgun.

    Its not like C.O.E. lands are actually military installations. Most of the time, they are managed by state resources and are nothing more than irrigation systems and surrounding flood plains. Even at critical dams and spillways, its not like there is a MP on duty guarding the place.

  7. mobo says:

    The feds ought to respect the laws of the states they own property in, period. And they should leave enforcement of the laws within the states TO the states.

  8. persiflage says:

    What C-Dog said. Much of the “COE Land” is held as part of flood control, irrigation, and floodwater attenuation/storage projects. And a lot of that flood attenuation/storage land only truly floods once in 10-20 years, but at those times it is really needed.
    Generally, the land is not actively managed, in any sense, and is just wild wasteland. The distinction between those lands and National Forest land or State WMAs seems silly with respect to handgun carry.

top