C.F.R. » Title 36 » CHAPTER III—CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY › PART 327—RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC USE OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ADMINISTERED BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

36 C.F.R. § 327.13

Explosives, firearms, other weapons and fireworks

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other weapons is prohibited unless:

(1) In the possession of a Federal, state or local law enforcement officer;

(2) Being used for hunting or fishing as permitted under § 327.8, with devices being unloaded when transported to, from or between hunting and fishing sites;

(3) Being used at authorized shooting ranges; or

(4) Written permission has been received from the District Commander.

(b) Possession of explosives or explosive devices of any kind, including fireworks or other pyrotechnics, is prohibited unless written permission has been received from the District Commander.

[65 FR 6901, Feb. 11, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1984–2016 · leading case: GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 788 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 788 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “36 C.F.R. § 327.13 . A violation of this ban is punishable by a $5,000 fine, six months’ imprisonment, or both.”
GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 212 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (N.D. Ga. 2016). · cites it 4× “(“Plaintiff GCO”) and David James (“Plaintiff James”) filed this lawsuit, seeking a declaration that 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 (the “Firearms Regulation”), which restricts gun use on Defendant Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Defendant Army Corps”) property, violates the Second Amendment of…”
GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 38 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2014). · cites it 2× “Procedural Background On June 12, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint seeking the Court’s declaration that 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 (the “Firearms Regulation”), a regulation restricting gun use on Defendant Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Defendant Army Corps”) property, violates…”
Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 990 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (D. Idaho 2014). · cites it 3× “36 C.F.R. § 327.13 . The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that this regulation violates the Second Amendment by (1) banning the possession of firearms in a tent, and (2) banning the carrying of firearms on Corps’ recreation sites.”
Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D. Idaho 2014). · cites it 2× “36 C.F.R. § 327.13 . The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that this regulation violates the Second Amendment by (1) banning the possession of firearms in a tent, and (2) banning the carrying of firearms on Corps’ recreation sites.”
United States v. Richard A. Lauchli, 724 F.2d 1279 (7th Cir. 1984). “Three different charges resulted: a federal petty offense charge for possessing a loaded firearm on a water area of a water resource development project in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 , a state firearm charge, and this federal indictment charging the defendant with a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.