Army Corp Lawsuit - WA Implications?

[Thor80]

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/...01/10/morris-v.-army-corps-order#.UtIpcbSldun

I saw this posted in the Idaho forum, but my understanding is that the injunction ruled goes for all Army Corp managed properties? I am curious as to everyone's thoughts as this pertains to Washington? I find my self camping at Army Corps sites at least a few times a year where I leave my personal protection device either unloaded in the car, or not carried at all due to being on Army Corps property, since it is not "State Run" property I have obeyed the rules if I am not "hunting" on Army Corps property.

For us on the "Dry-Side" this is a lot of the campgrounds on the Snake River.....

-Thor

 

[Difdi]

Unfortunately, I don't think it applies to Washington, since Washington is not located in Idaho. On the other hand, the Corps is likely to appeal the injunction and the next higher court DOES include Washington so it might backfire on the Corps.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I would think that similar arguments would apply ..

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I wonder what the effect might be if people in every State the CoE operates in began filing lawsuits?

 

[JoeSparky]

I wonder what the effect might be if people in every State the CoE operates in began filing lawsuits?

I don't think a preliminary injunction from a district court is precedent. Might influence, might not!

 

[Difdi]

I don't think a preliminary injunction from a district court is precedent. Might influence, might not!

It isn't. But if the Corps of Engineers appeals a permanent injunction, that appeal goes to the next level up which is the 9th circuit. Depending on how the 9th rules on that appeal, it MIGHT apply to Washington as well.

 

[Lammo]

It isn't. But if the Corps of Engineers appeals a permanent injunction, that appeal goes to the next level up which is the 9th circuit. Depending on how the 9th rules on that appeal, it MIGHT apply to Washington as well.

Therein lies the problem. It is possible, but highly unlikely, that the citizen will prevail in a firearms case at the next level. There is a reason we call it the 9th Circus. Thankfully, it is the most overturned circuit in the country. This may have to be settled by SCOTUS.

 

[JoeSparky]

Let me rephrase my question on this situation:

IS the Idaho District Federal Court OVERSTEPPING its bounds by granting/imposing anything with a NATIONWIDE effect? The are a District Court for a state NOT even the Federal Circuit Court. Precedents/Rulings in Circuit courts are limited to that Circuit until/unless case is heard by the Supremes......

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Let me rephrase my question on this situation:

IS the Idaho District Federal Court OVERSTEPPING its bounds by granting/imposing anything with a NATIONWIDE effect? The are a District Court for a state NOT even the Federal Circuit Court. Precedents/Rulings in Circuit courts are limited to that Circuit until/unless case is heard by the Supremes......

My snooping so far indicates the U.S. District Court has NO GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS, and no geographical limitations are mentioned in the court order. The unknown right now to me is if a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT has jurisdiction to issue a nationwide injunction. If they do and can, the absence of geographical limits should indicate a nationwide injunction.....I think.

Just to clarify, the court injunction was NOT issued in a state court, rather, it came from the U.S. District Court of Idaho in Boise.

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/...01/10/morris-v.-army-corps-order#.Uthjq9JDvZr

Next court date is a Status Hearing at Boise on Feb. 19. I suspect there will be more clarification then.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Aren't the District Courts are there to reduce the number of cases needing to be heard by the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court is an Appellate Court, they'll only hear court cases* where the party rules against can make a case that the decision was in error. If the matter is decided by a lower court and there is no appeal to the Supreme Court then the matter stands. The SC receives Thousands of requests each year for hearings, they let most stand.

According to research...
District Courts (94) are where trials are heard, the case may be appealed to a Circuit Court (12) and thence to the Supreme Court (just the one).



*Yes, they have another special category that they Must hear, but that's not germane to this conversation.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Therein lies the problem. It is possible, but highly unlikely, that the citizen will prevail in a firearms case at the next level. There is a reason we call it the 9th Circus. Thankfully, it is the most overturned circuit in the country. This may have to be settled by SCOTUS.

Unfortunately some of their good civil rights rulings get overturned too.....

 

[Thor80]

My snooping so far indicates the U.S. District Court has NO GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS, and no geographical limitations are mentioned in the court order. The unknown right now to me is if a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT has jurisdiction to issue a nationwide injunction. If they do and can, the absence of geographical limits should indicate a nationwide injunction.....I think.

Just to clarify, the court injunction was NOT issued in a state court, rather, it came from the U.S. District Court of Idaho in Boise.

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/...01/10/morris-v.-army-corps-order#.Uthjq9JDvZr

Next court date is a Status Hearing at Boise on Feb. 19. I suspect there will be more clarification then.

That was kind of my line of thinking, it didn't say that it only applied to Army Corps properties in Idaho, it says

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.

No mention of geographical areas in which this injunction applies, just mentions the "Corps" and "Corps-administered public lands".....

-Thor

 

[Gray Peterson]

It's a nationwide injunction. See Log Cabin Republicans v. United States (US District Court for the Central District of California).

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Just to give an update to this thread.
Morris v Corps of Engineers has been settled in favor of the plaintiff, unfortunately due to the way the suit was brought the injunction only applies to CoE land in Idaho.

http://www.usrkba.org/images/pdf/coreofeng10132014.pdf

Conclusion
The regulation banning the use of handguns on Corps’ property by law-abiding citizens for self-defense purposes violates
the Second Amendment. While the Corps retains the right to regulate the possession and carrying of handguns on Corps property, this regulation imposes an outright ban, and is therefore unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny, as set forth in Heller and Peruta. The Court recognizes that this result conflicts with GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
2014 WL4059375 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 18, 2014), but the Court’s decision is dictated by the law of the Ninth Circuit, namely
Peruta.

For all of the reasons cited above, the Court will grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and deny the Corps’ motion. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that 36 C.F.R. § 327. 13 violates the Second Amendment, and an injunction enjoining its enforcement in Idaho. The injunction is limited to Idaho because its scope is dictated by the allegations of the two named plaintiffs – Elizabeth Morris and Alan Baker. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that “[t]he district court abused its discretion in enjoining the rules themselves as opposed to enjoining their enforcement as to the plaintiffs before him”). Morris and Baker allege that they use Corps’ campgrounds in Idaho, see Declarations of Morris and Baker (Dkt. Nos. 9 & 10), and so the Court’s injunction will be limited to enjoining enforcement on Corps’ property in Idaho. See Meinhold v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 34 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir 1994) (holding that court could not impose nationwide injunction against application of unconstitutional federal regulation where plaintiffs had not been certified as a class).

The Court will enter a separate Judgment setting forth these rulings as required by Rule 58(a)