Idaho: Morris v. US Army Corps of Engineers

A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
As we should all be aware, the US Forest Service and the BLM regulate firearms in accordance with State Law (in whatever State that land falls within). We also know that the US Park Service can no longer prohibit firearms, and now goes along with the laws of the State which the Park finds itself within.

An outlier to all of this, is the US Army Corps of Engineers. All of the land that it controls, in particular, its recreation lands (which comprise the vast majority of its lands), prohibit the possession of firearms.

Enter the next case on my list:

  • 85. Morris et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al: Case #13-cv-00336, filed on August 5, 2013, in the US District Court for Idaho. John L. Runft of Boise and James Manley of Mountain States Legal Foundation, attorneys for the plaintiffs.This lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Army Corps of Engineers from prohibiting firearms within its parks, campsites and other recreational areas that it oversees.
    • 08-05-2013 - Complaint Filed. MPI filed.

    Internet Archive
    Justia Summary

This is the newest case that I've encountered. Thanks goes to Gray Peterson for the heads-up, this am.
 
Thanks, Al

Looked at both those links, but didn't see anywhere which would tell me on what grounds they're bringing this lawsuit.

Is it not possible to know such a thing at this time, or are they not required to post it anywhere, or did I miss it, or?

Case Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other

was the closest thing I found
 
Last edited:
speedrrracer said:
Looked at both those links, but didn't see anywhere which would tell me on what grounds they're bringing this lawsuit.
Click to expand...

If you had clicked on the Internet Archive link, that should have taken you to the docket for this case. A couplr or three "page downs" and you should have seen Doc #1, which is the complaint. Another "page down" and you should have seen doc #4.1, which is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Clicking on those links will give you the PDF.

The Justia Summary link, besides giving a brief summary of the case, is a portal to access the case docket and files via PACER.
 
I want to follow this one as we have several ACoE sites in my area. I suppose if they are required to change their regs they will do it on a national level. I'm sure the ACoE with fight it. After all they serve at the pleasure of the president.
 
The plaintiffs have made 2 claims.

The first claim is that the defendants regulations prohibiting firearms in a tent, violate the direct holding of Heller: The constitutional right to keep a functional firearm, for lawful self-defense, in a dwelling. Temporary though it is, a tent is a dwelling.

The 9th Circuit has made it plain (in other decisions) that a tent is the equivalent of a home, even though it is only a temporary abode. Idaho is in the 9th Judicial Circuit and a district judge will be held to that standard. Manley will win on this count, in and of itself.

The second claim is the the defendants regulations prohibit the right to carry a functional firearm - openly, concealed, and in a vehicle - on Corps-administered public lands.

This one could be a bit tricky. If we were only talking about Idaho, it would be a sure thing. But this isn't an Idaho agency. It is a federal agency, however, there is ample precedent to win this claim also. We do have Moore, Ezell, Bonidy (another Manley case), Bateman, and some other cases.

Should Manley win both claims, it will effectively be a win, nationwide.
 
Thanks for the navigational details. I didn't even notice that tiny "1" was a link my first time through.

Regarding this:

Al Norris said:
Should Manley win both claims, it will effectively be a win, nationwide.
Click to expand...

If it was a victory for our side, and the court tried to keep to the narrowest scope possible, would it only then be a victory on Corps land nationwide?

I guess I'm asking if the Court granted the first or second claim for relief, specifically #49 (or #54, they're the same verbiage):

"49. By prohibiting Plaintiffs from possessing a functional firearm in a temporary dwelling, such as a tent, on Corps-administered public lands, Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, practices, and policies that deprive Plaintiffs of the right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second Amendment."

Then the victory would be limited to Corps-owned land?
 
When I wrote that the win would be nationally, I was speaking only to the case at hand. That being, all land administered by the ACoE.

This is a federal challenge against a federal agency. Although the claim originates in one State, it affects land administered by an agency that administers public land all across the US.

Having said this, it will come down to how the judge words his decision. In the USPS case in CO, Bonidy v. USPS, the judge worded the decision so that it affects only that specific post office. Hence that decision only affects that specific post office parking lot.

It is possible a decision here could be worded the same, in which case, it will only affect public land in Idaho.

Regardless, positive cases such as these can be boot-strapped to affect the rest of the nation in another suit. Best case scenario? The Congress gets involved and changes the regulatory reach of the ACoE (and perhaps the USPS as well).
 
I can't wait to hear defendants explain to the court how '422 lake and river projects in 43 states, spanning 12 million acres, 55,000 miles of shoreline, 4,500 miles of trails, 90,000 campsites, and 3,400 boat launch ramps.' constitutes a sensitive place.
 
Yes, there has been several actions. The docket has been updated and several briefs have been recapped.

The most recent series was a Motion to Dismiss (lack of jurisdiction, mootness and failure to state a claim) by the Defendants on Nov. 1st. This was followed by a Notice of Recent Authority (Chovan) by the Plaintiffs then their Opposition to the defendants MTD.
 
Federal district court win in favor of carry rights in Idaho (Morris).

http://ia800902.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.idd.32180/gov.uscourts.idd.32180.42.0.pdf

This is the case against the US Army Corps of Engineers that tried to declare wilderness area in their control a no-gun zone. The judge is ordering a reversal of policy claiming that a gun in a tent while camping implicates the right to keep a gun in the "home", but ALSO claims a carry right out of the tent.

The appellate process will be interesting on this one. I kind of suspect the feds will fold their cards and just try to defend "no guns in buildings where federal employees work".

On edit: this is a 9th Circuit case so it will be very freakin' interesting to see if the pending 3-judge rulings on carry in California (and Hawaii?) go the other way on carry rights.
 
Last edited:
SOCK!

POW!

WHAM!

In a mere 11 pages the court pretty thoroughly thrashed the Corps' arguments. Nicely done. I especially appreciate the court's non-acceptance of the Corps' "But we're spayshul" argument.

The next step will be interesting.
 
It's interesting that, of all cases, they chose to cite Chovan, which was hardly decided in our favor.

This bit goes back to Skoien, and it seems to be the fairest standard of scrutiny we've seen:

A regulation that threatens a core Second Amendment right is subject to strict scrutiny, while a less severe regulation that does not encroach on a core Second Amendment right is subject to intermediate scrutiny.
Click to expand...
 
Tom Servo said:
It's interesting that, of all cases, they chose to cite Chovan, which was hardly decided in our favor.
Click to expand...
Not directly firearms related, but we now look to Terry v. Ohio as the defining standard for when a police officer can conduct a stop-and-frisk. Many people either don't know or don't remember that Terry lost. His legacy, however, is the "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" standard laid down by the SCOTUS.

A case doesn't have to be a win to provide some good case law.
 
Agreed, but we had several other lower court decisions that said the same thing. I suppose they chose to quote from Chovan because it was the most recent.
 
Any idea if this ruling affects all corp of engineers parks and lakes, or just those in Idaho? The wording seems to me to be directed to the corp of engineers as a whole, but what I think it says and what it really says are most often two different things. Great to see the common sense in court.
 
As explained in the order: "The Corps is enjoined from enforcing 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 as to law-abiding individuals possessing functional firearms on Corps-administered public lands for the purpose of self-defense. This preliminary injunction shall remain in force until further notice of the Court."

This means that the ACE cannot enforce this particular CFR, anywhere in the nation.

This is merely the first step in this case. We have to remember that any decision by the judge can be appealed. I would expect that the ACE will appeal this Preliminary Injunction.

This thread is merged with the original thread on this matter.
 
Is it interesting how they cited Heller, and Moore v Madigan? This preliminary ruling seems to strongly imply they're both following Heller rather than ignoring it, and even possibly extending Moore here when it comes to carry? If the end result comes out looking like this one, what does that do to carry cases in this area? Not that the District Court of Idaho is the Ninth Circuit itself and this decision would be sure to fly through appeal of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top