Most people assume the "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers” deals with military infrastructure, which is true. However, it's also "the nation’s largest provider of water-based outdoor recreation." According to the Washington Post: 

It administers 422 lake and river projects in 43 states, spanning 12 million acres, encompassing 55,000 miles of shoreline and 4,500 miles of trails, and including 90,000 campsites and 3,400 boat launch ramps. Waters under its control constitute 33 percent of all U.S. freshwater fishing.” (Here is a list of the Corps’ 1,969 recreational facilities.) Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, the Corps has announced that it is reconsidering the gun ban on its outdoor property.

As you imagine, hunting is allowed on some of that 12 million acres. But if you aren't hunting, you better not get caught with a firearm -- not even in your tent to protect yourself at night. This anti-gun regulation began in 1973, under Richard Nixon who thought “guns are an abomination.” But a recent lawsuit, Nesbitt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, might change this regulation.

In 2014, Clinton-appointed District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled this gun ban violated the Second Amendment in a lawsuit filed by two Idaho residents. Winmill wrote:

"... this complete ban goes beyond merely burdening Second Amendment rights but ‘destroys’ those rights for law-abiding citizens carrying operable firearms for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” Accordingly, the ban was unconstitutional. The opinion recognized the Corps’ authority to regulate guns on its outdoor property, but not to forbid them altogether.

However, discontent with Americans having a way to protect themselves, the Obama administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. As the 9th Circuit was preparing for oral arguments, however, something very cool happened. David Kopel reports that the Corps asked to be taken off the calendar. They said:

“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.”

What a wonderful development for lovers of freedom, the Constitution, and common sense!