National Parks - good news

Z

ZeSpectre

New member
I've been reading the text. Apparently the Heller case gave this whole thing a great big SHOVE in the right direction.

I could just KISS Mr. Heller (though I think I'll leave that to our prettier female memebers :D)
 
Z

ZeSpectre

New member
Holy COW folks, you have GOT to read the document!

They Cite Warren vs DC ("the government and it's agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen") and they also acknowledge that there is no way 3,000 NPS officers can realistically police millions of acres of parks.

I am literally STUNNED to hear that admission (though they still deny that Heller had anything to do with their decision...ya right, pull the other one).

http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final Rule.pdf (warning, pdf file)
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.
Click to expand...
Oh hogwash!

How often do these fear-mongerers have to repeat these things, when in each and every occasion, the "Blood-in-the-streets" cry has never materialized?
 
K

Keltyke

Moderator
How often do these fear-mongerers have to repeat these things, when in each and every occasion, the "Blood-in-the-streets" cry has never materialized?
Click to expand...

When the concealed carry law was passed in SC, the antis were vociferous in their objections, citing things like: There will be gunfights in every bar. Shootouts at stoplights. And so on and so on.

Ain't happened yet!
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Ah, I've just seen this is posted over in L&CR. The other post beat this by about 3 hours, so... Threads merged.
 
A

alloy

New member
they also acknowledge that there is no way 3,000 NPS officers can realistically police millions of acres of parks
Click to expand...

i know ONE, that kept me from from setting foot in his park.:) i hope hes fuming, and i will be sure to wave to him twice daily. hopefully he'll stop searching my truck now.:rolleyes:
 
M

maestro pistolero

New member
How often do these fear-mongerers have to repeat these things, when in each and every occasion, the "Blood-in-the-streets" cry has never materialized?
Click to expand...

Often enough to impune their credibility. Oops, too late. :rolleyes: Sooner or later, people's lives are going to be saved by this common sense measure.

We know that the sky will not fall into the Yosemite Valley over this. Citizens will once again demonstrate that we can be trusted with this right in the 21st century, just as we could be trusted in the 18th, 19th and 20th.
 
Last edited:
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Responses to questions in the closed thread over in the General Discussion forum.

22-rimfire said:
I wonder if this would apply to National Forest lands? In particular in my state, you may NOT legally carry firearms except during the hunting season and you must have a valid hunting license. The state has labeled these as "wildlife managment areas". My guess is that it changes nothing except inside the national park.
Click to expand...

The new ruling makes carry on National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges the same as carry on BLM and US Forest Service (National Forests) land to be the same as the State laws where you live.

If you cannot, by law, carry in BLM and National Forests now, this will have no effect.

But suppose you have a concealed permit and you travel to Wyoming to visit Yellostone (which is mostly located in WY, but some of it is in ID & MT - similar CC laws, though), you would be allowed to carry concealed as WY, ID and MT recognize your States permit (even though your State may not recognize ours). - Research the CC laws of the State you are going to visit. Do not take my word for it.

This would not work if you were going to Yosemite, however. Since CA does not recognize any other States permits.

In the thread linked above, Casimer links to the discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy, where you not only can read the many answers. Here is that link. There is a link to download the rule change. It's an 800KB PDF file, but it contains all the answers to your questions.
 
K

Kreyzhorse

New member
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.
Click to expand...

I love reading this stuff from the Brady Campaign. Spreading fear and propaganda at every turn. However, it's the same broken record they put forth on every issue. Basically, "people with CCW permits will start shooting up the place and crime and murder will sky rocket."

While Brady preaches "common sense approach" their tactics show a total lack of said common sense. For example: Making guns legal in the park will cause crime to go up therefore legal guns cause people to break the law. Making guns illegal in parks will therefore make parks safe.

In other words, people who aren't afraid of the legal and moral ramifications of robbing or shooting someone will be swayed from doing so because its illegal to carry in a park? After all, we've seen how gun free zones are working out.

Calling something the "common sense approach" does not make it so.

In my opinion, the Bush admin did the only common sense thing by allowing CCW in national parks.
 
A

alloy

New member
will this have any effect on for instance...a shotgun in a truck gun rack, or is the law only being relaxed as far as concealed weapons?

also...any chance that this will also cause the post office regulations to go under closer scrutiny, as they are also federal property?
 
R

rwilson452

New member
It has been published in the Federal Registry. It's effective 9 Jan.

Question, does this apply to parks run by USACE
 
Last edited:
J

jimpeel

New member
Rocky Mountain Gun owners http://www.rmgo.org is checking the law to see whether one may carry a firearm in their conveyance in Rocky Mountain National Park without a permit.

http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2008-ParksHSP2.shtml

Dept. of Interior allows some firearms in National Parks; H-S Precision ignores gun owners' concerns
Activists called to put more heat on H-S Precision
The Department of Interior has issued new rules to partially over turn the National Park gun ban

Today the Department of Interior issued their long-awaited new rules regarding the carrying of firearms in National Parks.

The new rules:

...would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.

While these rules are certainly a step in the right <direction> they are a far cry from truly embracing our Second Amendment rights.

And they bring up an important question for Colorado citizens: can a citizen carry a concealed handgun in their car, without a permit (which is legal in Colorado and authorized by state law), in a National Park? We believe so, but we will seek a firm, written answer (which we will post on our website) from the Department of the Interior.
Click to expand...
 
J

jimpeel

New member
From the DOJ Q&A webpage on this ruling:

http://www.doi.gov/issues/Firearms Update FAQ 12-4-08.pdf

Q: Doesn’t this rule create a complex patchwork of standards for parks and refuges?

A: No. The Department is aware that some national parks and wildlife refuges are located in two or more states. In those instances, the law of the state in which the portion of the park or refuge is located will apply to the possession, transport, and carry of concealed, loaded, and operable firearms. This is the same basic approach adopted by the BLM and the USFS, both of which allow visitors to carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.

Moreover, as is generally the case, visitors remain responsible for familiarizing themselves with and obeying all applicable laws, including the law of the state they are located within. Finally, the NPS and FWS will take appropriate steps to inform visitors about the applicable requirements when a unit is located in more than one state.

Q: Does the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller impact the Department’s rule?

A: In our view, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller does not directly impact our proposal to revise existing federal regulations to more closely conform our regulations to appropriate state laws. But we believe it is consistent with the final rule.
Click to expand...

There is also this from the Federal Register:

http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/E8-9606.html

Under the proposed amendment, visitors must have authority to
possess loaded and concealed firearms on analogous state lands before
they will be allowed to carry firearms in Federal park areas and
refuges. In practice, this will mean that two conditions must be met in
order for this proposed regulatory change to permit the possession of
firearms on federal parks and refuges. First, the state in which the
park or refuge unit is located must have laws that allow the individual
to possess concealed and loaded firearms. And second, the authorization
to carry a concealed and loaded firearm must be applicable on the
analogous state lands in the State in which the park or refuge is
located. Where these conditions are present, the proposed amendments
will accommodate State prerogatives with respect to recognition of
licenses issued by other States, including reciprocity agreements.
Individuals authorized to carry firearms under this rule will continue
to be subject to all other applicable state and federal laws.
Accordingly, as stated above, this rule does not authorize the carrying
of concealed firearms in federal facilities in national parks and
wildlife refuges.
Click to expand...

Well, that sounds like the firearm structure in Colorado. We will have to wait and see what RMGO comes up with.
 
R

rwilson452

New member
I received this from my local ACE

This isn't what I wanted to hear.

Mr. XXXXXX,

The Department of the Interior (DOI) announced on 5 December that it has
updated existing DOI regulations governing the possession of firearms in
national parks and wildlife refuges. This rule change will take effect in
early January and will allow an individual to carry a concealed, loaded and
operable weapon in most national parks and wildlife refuges, provided that
the person is authorized by state law to carry a concealed weapon in the
state in which the national park or refuge is located. However, DOI
regulations do not apply to Corps projects or facilities. This change does
not affect application of the Corps Title 36 regulations; 36 C.F.R. § 327.13
remains in full force and will continue to prohibit loaded concealed weapons
on Corps properties regardless of the new DOI regulation and notwithstanding
any contrary provisions of State law.

v/r
Michelle Miller
Tioga-Hammond & Cowanesque Lakes Project
Office: 570-835-0126
Fax: 570-835-5422
Click to expand...


TITLE 36--PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY

CHAPTER III--CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

PART 327_RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC USE OF WATER RESOURCE

Sec. 327.13 Explosives, firearms, other weapons and fireworks.

(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 Sec.
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]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A

alloy

New member
This take effect on the 5th or 6th of January, correct? i have found articles listing both dates.

Jimpeel...I am still curious about the loaded rifle/shotgun issue if you hear or run across anything additional that may apply. i have a CCW so a pistol is obviously covered. Virginia statute seems to allow me driving my work truck with a loaded long gun, back and forth from my place of business as a shopowner. its been broke into before, and there have been more recent breakins a few hundred yards down the road at a friends business. so i am just wondering if the parks are accepting the firearms laws of the states in all regards...or only with respect to CCW.
from Virginia law:
§ 15.2-915.2. Regulation of transportation of a loaded rifle or shotgun.
any person who reasonably believes that a loaded rifle or shotgun is necessary for his personal safety in the course of his employment or business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top