White House - Target Shooting Is OK But Self-Defense Is Not

HR 3590 - the Sportsmen's Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013 - passed the House of Representatives yesterday on a vote of 268 in favor with 154 opposed. The bill passed in a somewhat bipartisan manner with 41 Democrats and 227 Republican voting in favor of the bill.

The bill, if acted upon and passed by the Senate, does a number of things including setting aside Pittman-Robertson monies for range construction, removes the authority of the EPA to regulate lead for ammunition and fishing tackle, and allows electronic duck stamps. The bill would also prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from banning firearm possession on Corps recreational and water resource development projects. The US District Court for the District of Idaho issued a preliminary injunction preventing the US Army Corps of Engineers from doing just that in the case of Morris et al v. Army Corps of Engineers.

A summary of Title VI states:

Title VI: Access to Water Resources Development Projects Act - Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act of 2013 - Prohibits the Secretary of the Army from promulgating or enforcing any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm at a water resources development project administered by the Chief of Engineers if: (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm, and (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the state in which the project is located.

On Monday, the White House issued a statement on the SHARE Act stating what they supported, what they opposed, and what they didn't care about one way or another. The White House said it supported the use of Pittman-Robertson monies for range development (Title II), it supported allowing the importation of a handful of legally killed polar bear trophies from Canada which have been stuck in limbo (Title IV), and it supported the electronic sales of duck stamps (Title V).

The White House said that it didn't oppose Title I which, in its words, "excludes certain sport fishing equipment from the classification of toxic substances." They ignored mention of that part of the bill that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 to "exclude from the definition of "chemical substance" for purposes of such Act: (1) any component of any pistol, revolver, firearm, shell, or cartridge the sale of which is subject to federal excise tax, including shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants, and primers".  I guess I should be thankful that they didn't oppose it.

Among the things the White House opposed was Title VI. They said:

The Administration also opposes Title VI, which prohibits the Secretary of the Army from enforcing any regulations that would prohibit the possession of firearms at water resources development projects with limited exceptions.

In other words, they are opposed to the right of visitors to any Corps-administered lands to be able to be armed for the purposes of self-defense. A tent or camper has been found to be a temporary residence many times by the courts and, as such, is the place which the Supreme Court found in the Heller case that the need for self-defense is "most acute".  Thus, while the Obama Administration is somewhat OK with gun owners and hunters doing target shooting at some backwoods, out-of-the-way location, they don't believe you have the right to self-defense while in a tent or camper in a campground on Corps-administered lands.

Go figure.

Morris V. US Army Corps Of Engineers

The Mountain States Legal Foundation filed suit yesterday in the US District Court for the District of Idaho challenging the US Army Corps of Engineers' prohibition on firearms on Corps-administered lands. The plaintiffs in the case, Elizabeth Morris and Alan Baker, are residents of Idaho who wish to have functional firearms for self-defense while they are camping, boating, or hiking in Corps-administered recreational areas.

A bit of the history behind the suit from MSLF:

Ms. Morris was issued an emergency license by the Nez Perce County Sheriff to carry a concealed handgun in 2012 due to threats and physical attacks against her by a former neighbor. She regularly carries a handgun for self-defense. She uses Corps-administered public lands near the Snake River in Lewiston, Idaho, to boat with friends, regularly walks the Corps-administered paths in the area with her dog and/or her family, and must travel across Corps-administered public lands to reach Hells Gate State Park.

Mr. Baker is a NRA-Certified Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection In The Home, Rifle, Pistol, and Shotgun Instructor, and also a Utah Concealed Firearms Instructor. He is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Idaho, Utah, Oregon, and Arizona and regularly carries a handgun for self-defense. A life-long outdoorsman, he regularly recreates on Corps-managed lands in Idaho, including Dworshak Dam and Reservoir on the North Fork Clearwater River.

Because Corps of Engineer regulations ban functional firearms, even while camped in tents, Ms. Morris and Mr. Baker are subject to criminal prosecution if they exercise their Second Amendment rights. The Corps of Engineers did not respond to requests from MSLF seeking exemptions from its firearm ban for Ms. Morris and Mr. Baker. Also filed with their complaint is a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to immediately stop enforcement of the firearms ban.

The lawsuit makes the point that when camping a tent should be considered a temporary dwelling that is treated no differently than something made from bricks and mortar. This argument was used in another successful MSLF lawsuit against the State of Nevada and their park system. Mr. Baker was the plaintiff in that case.

The plaintiffs present two claims for relief. The first alleges that by prohibiting law-abiding individuals from possessing a firearm in a temporary dwelling on Corps-administered lands, the US Army Corps of Engineers and the other defendants are violating the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. The plaintiffs are asking for both declaratory and injunctive relief.

The second claim for relief in Morris et al v. US Army Corps of Engineers et al is that the Corps is again violating the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights by prohibiting the carrying of a functional firearm - whether openly, concealed, or in a vehicle. Again, the plaintiffs are asking for both declaratory and injunctive relief.

While the Heller decision allowed the prohibition of firearms in "sensitive areas", I think it would be hard to argue that a campground or a lake constituted a sensitive area. They are not sensitive areas like the control house for the dam and powerhouse on Lucky Peak Lake.

The complaint in Morris et al v. US Army Corps of Engineers et al can be found here.