Online:
Visits:
Stories:
Profile image
By Gun Watch (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Army Corps of Engineers Considers Reform of Second Amendment Rules

Saturday, March 18, 2017 13:09
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

After President Trump won election in November of 2016, I explained how a Trump administration could eliminate gun free zones in the Army Corps of Engineers. One of the options to do this was with a court ordered settlement agreed to by both sides. 

Another method available to President Trump is a negotiated Court settlement. The ban on possession of weapons on land administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is being challenged in the Courts. Court cases in both the Ninth Circuit and in the Eleventh Circuit are active. A Trump administration could order the Corps of Engineers to negotiate a Court sanctioned settlement that would prohibit the Corps of Engineers from ever violating the Second Amendment again. Such Court sanctioned agreements have long been used to create law without congressional approval, law that is impossible to remove by regulatory means.

It appears that approach may be underway. From the washingtonpost.com:

The 9th Circuit case was ready for oral argument on March 6. But on March 2, the Corps filed a request to remove the oral argument from the calendar and to put the case into mediation. The motion explained: “The Army Corps of Engineers is reconsidering the firearms policy challenged in this case, as well as plaintiffs’ requests for permission to carry firearms on Army Corps property. This reconsideration has the potential to fully resolve plaintiffs’ objections.”

This does not show the Trump administration is behind this change of heart on the part of the Corps. But it seems likely a reversal of policy that occurs a couple of months after a change of administration might be related to that change. Mediation at the Ninth would allow both parties to agree on a settlement. Then the Court would approve of the agreement.  Most mediation would be considered certain once both parties approve. But in a politically charged circuit such as the Ninth, such an approach may not be guaranteed.  From uscorts.gov:

For over twenty years, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has operated a court mediation and settlement program. During that time, experienced and skilled circuit mediators have worked cooperatively with attorneys and their clients to resolve a variety of disputes. The disputes mediated range from the most basic contract and tort actions to the most complex cases involving important issues of public policy. The mediators have even successfully resolved death penalty cases. No case is too big or too small for mediation in the court’s program.

The court offers this service, at no cost, because it helps resolve disputes quickly and efficiently and can often provide a more satisfactory result than can be achieved through continued litigation. Each year the mediation program facilitates the resolution of hundreds of appeals.

The Ninth Circuit claims that what goes on in mediation is strictly confidential, and that mediators are shielded from the rest of the court. But what if the Court abhors the result of a mediation process? What if the Court finds the results of a mediation involves fulfilling a campaign promise of a President that the Court finds ideologically distasteful? Would the Court then approve of such a settlement?

We may find out. I do not believe the court is bound by law to approve of settlements reached during mediation. Courts might find a settlement violates law or the Constitution, though I am not aware of such a case. Legal experts, feel free to inform us.

Refusing to order a settlement agreed to by both parties would be unusual. But we live in unusual times. Who would have thought that a Ninth Circuit Court would order that a simple, temporary, executive order on vetting visitors from war torn lands, be halted pending judicial review? The lines between policy making and political review in the courts seem thin indeed.

In the case of Elizabeth Nesbitt, et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al,
we may find out if that line will be crossed when it comes to the Second Amendment and the Corps of Engineers.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch



Source: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2017/03/army-corps-of-engineers-considers.html

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • desertspeaks

    unless they can show the exact wording in the Constitution that limits the peoples natural right to self preservation “we all know they can’t” they need to stfu!
    Oh and in the event some of you wish to discuss limiting gun rights via the 2nd amendment.. take a look at the 9th amendment! OUR NATURAL RIGHTS TO SELF PRESERVATION ARE IN THE 9TH AMENDMENT!

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.