Lucky Peak comes up here because it's a perfect example of the problem. That reservoir is Army Corps land, and if you've ever camped there with a sidearm, you were technically in violation of federal regulations — probably without knowing it.

"An individual who is lawfully carrying a firearm should not be forced to disarm simply because they crossed an invisible federal line."

That's not a hypothetical edge case. The Corps shares borders with BLM, state land, and private property all over the backcountry. There's no signage telling you which side of a trail you're on, and the legal exposure flips without warning. That's a real problem for anyone doing serious time in the backcountry with a carry gun.

The piece points out that NPS and BLM have both deferred to state law since 2009 — fifteen-plus years ago. USACE just never followed, and apparently nobody made them. The Trump administration drafted a rule to fix it in the first term and didn't finish it either. So here we are again, with a letter creating political pressure and rulemaking still somewhere in a queue.

The remote Corps land angle matters too. If you've ever been ten miles in on a trail that borders a Corps reservoir, you already know there's zero law enforcement presence out there. The self-defense argument isn't abstract — it's just honest.

For those of us in Idaho who carry and spend time on federal land, this is worth following. The fix is apparently simple. The groundwork is done. It just needs to actually get done.

Anyone here camp or hunt on Corps land regularly — Lucky Peak, Dworshak, Anderson Ranch? Curious whether you've been paying attention to the land boundary question or just carrying and hoping for the best.

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett