National Parks


PDA






waynesan
August 23, 2006, 10:39 PM
Does anyone know if there is anything new to report on the effort to get CCW in National Parks?

If you enjoyed reading about "National Parks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
FTF
August 23, 2006, 10:44 PM
There is absolutely no danger in national parks. They are protected by the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt and the last thing you need to worry about is some bobcat or serial killer maiming you or your wife... the big stick will get them for you.

And national parks... no. State parks... some minor changes... in a few places.

AJAX22
August 23, 2006, 11:34 PM
How's the law regarding open cary? I'd like to have a little something on my hip while out and about.

Car Knocker
August 24, 2006, 12:11 AM
How's the law regarding open cary? I'd like to have a little something on my hip while out and about.

No open carry or loaded firearms in vehicle. Some NPs have an exception for hunting.

AJAX22
August 24, 2006, 12:59 AM
huh.... well that officially sux. thanks for the info tho.

oldfart
August 24, 2006, 12:34 PM
There may be a misunderstanding here: National Parks= no guns - ever, for any reason! National Forests= local rules apply. Hunting is usually allowed in National Forests so guns would be permitted. Open carry, CCW and similar issues would be subject to the local jurisdiction.

Dain Bramage
August 24, 2006, 12:37 PM
Not National Parks, but my latest NRA mag had a blurb about Gov. Jeb Bush signing a law allowing CCW in Florida state parks.

wdlsguy
August 24, 2006, 12:40 PM
National Parks= no guns - ever, for any reason!

It's bad, but it isn't quite that bad:

Traps, nets and unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use.

[36 CFR 2.4(a)(3)]

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/36cfr2_05.html

Car Knocker
August 24, 2006, 01:11 PM
National Parks= no guns - ever, for any reason!

I believe hunting is allowed in portions of some of the Alaskan National Parks.

lacoochee
August 24, 2006, 07:43 PM
HB 1029 GOES TO GOVERNOR BUSH FOR SIGNATURE
H 1029 - Right to Carry Guns in National Forests and State Parks - was sent to Governor Bush's office on June 5 and signed.

It will go into affect in October.

On a similar note, permit holders will soon be able to carry concealed in Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), effective July 1 due to an administrative rule change by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC).

And one last question, I have asked this in many places but never been able to get an answer what is the penalty for carrying a firearm concealed or otherwise in a National Park? I ask, because there are many places that when you are hiking it would be easy to be on Nat'l Park land without knowing it. This is very true especially here in Florida where a lot of our parks are co-located to preserve as much wilderness in large tracts as possible.

gezzer
August 24, 2006, 09:18 PM
What gun?
What constitutional ammendment allows national parks? Law mabey but was it ever heard against constitution? Oh come on that old paper again?

Lone_Gunman
August 24, 2006, 09:57 PM
Not every federal law has to be in the Constitution. If there could be no other federal laws than the Constitution, then there would be no reason to have created Congress.

A better question would have been: what part of the Constitution is violated by National Parks? If the answer is none, then the NPS is constitutional.

waynesan
August 24, 2006, 10:56 PM
Does anyone know of any efforts being made in Congress or with the Department of the Interior? I know the gun rights group out of Virginia started a drive last year but I haven't heard any more about how it turned out. I sure wish something could be done before the next election. I'm afraid our chances for change may diminish drasticly after that.

gazpacho
August 25, 2006, 03:08 AM
Red Rock National Conservation Area (near Las Vegas) has signs posted saying "No Loaded Firearms Allowed." I carry unloaded firearms there all the time.

Harve Curry
August 25, 2006, 10:29 AM
wdlsguy : Quote:
National Parks= no guns - ever, for any reason!
It's bad, but it isn't quite that bad:

Quote:
Traps, nets and unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use.

[36 CFR 2.4(a)(3)]

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...36cfr2_05.html
_______________________________________________________________

So are CFR's the same as laws? How could they be?
What is the penalty for violating ? I couldn't find it.

Malum Prohibitum
August 25, 2006, 10:45 AM
Not every federal law has to be in the Constitution. If there could be no other federal laws than the Constitution, then there would be no reason to have created Congress.

A better question would have been: what part of the Constitution is violated by National Parks? If the answer is none, then the NPS is constitutional.


Lone Gunman, yes it does! Well, the grant of authority to make a law must be in the Constitution. While I love having federal parks, and I am not going to argue their constitutionality here, the structure of the Constitution demands that every federal law be passed pursuant to a power granted in the Constitution. The powers of Congress are enumerated in Article I, section VIII. If it is not listed there, then Congress cannot do it.

In addition, please read the Tenth Amendment. In plain English, it says that the powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, are for the states or the people (what, "nor prohibited by it?" But I thought the Bill of Rights was only a limit on Congress and not the states ! :neener: ) .

Anyway, after you read those two things, then go check out some of the Commerce Clause gun cases. This is the whole issue in those cases. You see, if there is not an enumerated power granting Congress the ability to pass gun control, then they cannot do it (regardless of the Second Amendment). Congress cannot simply pass any law it wants without authorization in the Constitution. So, Congress has passed gun laws under the Commerce Clause. Read the Commerce Clause and you will see how ridiculous this is, but even Scalia signed on to the notion that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to do pretty much what it wants (Raich - medical marijuana case - Justice Thomas got it right in his dissent).


So, the law itself does not have to be in the Constitution, but the grant of power to make the law must be in the Constitution.

:)

wdlsguy
August 25, 2006, 12:19 PM
So are CFR's the same as laws?
CFRs are regulations implementing laws.

What is the penalty for violating ?

Sec. 1.3 Penalties.

(a) A person convicted of violating a provision of the regulations contained in parts 1 through 7, 12 and 13 of this chapter, within a park area not covered in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, shall be punished by a fine as provided by law, or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both, and shall be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings.

(b) A person who knowingly and will- fully violates any provision of the regulations contained in parts 1 through 5, 7 and 12 of this chapter, within any national military park, battlefield site, national monument, or miscellaneous memorial transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior from that of the Secretary of War by Executive Order No. 6166, June 10, 1933, and enumerated in Executive Order No. 6228, July 28, 1933, shall be punished by a fine as provided by law, or by imprisonment for not more than 3 months, or by both.

Note: These park areas are enumerated in a note under 5 U.S.C. 901.

(c) A person convicted of violating any provision of the regulations contained in parts 1 through 7 of this chapter, within a park area established pursuant to the Act of August 21, 1935, 49 Stat. 666, shall be punished by a fine as provided by law and shall be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings. 16 U.S.C. 462.

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section, a person convicted of violating Sec. 2.23 of this chapter shall be punished by a fine as provided by law. 16 U.S.C. 460.

36 CFR 1.3
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/36cfr1_05.html

Art Eatman
August 25, 2006, 12:38 PM
Whether or not any gun can be possessed or used for whatever purpose is a variable that depends on the legislation which created a particular national park.

Some legislation precludes hunting, for instance. Other legislation makes no mention of hunting or self-defense.

In many cases, then, a ban is a function of the views of past administrators who've never read the originating legislation.

It appears to me that two laws would solve the problem (as we view national park regulations as a problem): One would be a generic law authorizing CHLs to be valid in parks. The other would speak to hunting in those parks where it's physically feasible and biologically appropriate.

Art

Smurfslayer
August 25, 2006, 12:55 PM
VCDL has a petition in to the DOI to amend the offending regulation. I keep a running tab on progress here: http://bighammer.net/timeline.html

Also linked in my signature. That petition is still alive and viable, but gun owner's need to get out from behind their keyboards and get on the phone to their federal delegation to push this through. It's not sexy, but it would remove one HELL of a gun free zone from the United States...

Malum Prohibitum
August 28, 2006, 01:49 PM
Smurfslayer, thanks for keeping the running tab, but you need to flip it over so the most recent is at the top.

stevelyn
August 28, 2006, 07:20 PM
I believe hunting is allowed in portions of some of the national parks in Alaska.

Yes it is. Specifically for residents of Anaktuvuk Pass which lies within the boundries of Gates of the Arctic NP. Residents living within and along the boundries of Kobuk Valley NP and Noatak Natl. Preserve.

Generally though the NPs are off limits to firearms. The ParkStaatsPolizei tend to get outta sorts when people carry guns onto His Majesty's realm.

I tend to stay away from such places.

Smurfslayer
August 29, 2006, 07:49 AM
Smurfslayer, thanks for keeping the running tab, but you need to flip it over so the most recent is at the top


Thanks! I'll make you a deal. You get me .pdf copies of letters supporting the ban's repeal, I'll get to work on reorging the order of entries...

You first ;)

wqbang
August 29, 2006, 12:06 PM
Loaded weapons are banned in NP with one exception that I know of.

Kenai Fjords NP in Alaska.

http://www.nps.gov/kefj/planyourvisit/firearms.htm

"It is legal to possess a firearm anywhere in the park in accordance with all other applicable state and federal laws. This is different than the rule in most Lower 48 National Park areas, but is allowed here for protection from bears and other dangerous wildlife. Hunting is strictly prohibited within the park."

LAR-15
August 29, 2006, 12:11 PM
Loaded firearms can be had in National Parks for two reasons:

You are part of pack train and need a gun to put down injured llamas, alpacas, camels, horses, cattle, mules, donkeys, and other pack animals.

You get permission to cross NPS lands to access otherwise inaccessible lands that are open to hunting and trapping

LAR-15
August 29, 2006, 12:13 PM
(d) The superintendent may issue a
permit to carry or possess a weapon,
trap or net under the following circumstances:
(1) When necessary to support research
activities conducted in accordance
with 2.5.
(2) To carry firearms for persons in
charge of pack trains or saddle horses
for emergency use.
(3) For employees, agents or cooperating
officials in the performance of
their official duties.
(4) To provide access to otherwise inaccessible
lands or waters contiguous
to a park area when other means of access
are otherwise impracticable or impossible.

redneckdan
September 22, 2006, 08:53 AM
I recently made a solo trip to Isle Royale. I did CPL and there were no problems.

Car Knocker
September 22, 2006, 11:59 AM
I recently made a solo trip to Isle Royale. I did CPL and there were no problems.

Since this was illegal, do you think there would have been problems if a park ranger or other park employee had noticed you were carrying?

Weapons
Firearms, fireworks, or any implements designed to discharge missiles in the air or water are prohibited.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/isro/camping.htm

Smurfslayer
September 23, 2006, 09:52 AM
Sending this to the top with a reminder to folks that this is election season and an opportune time to contact the Congressional delegation for support. Keep an eye out here - http://bighammer.net/timeline.html for updates...

Sistema1927
September 23, 2006, 04:20 PM
Not every federal law has to be in the Constitution. If there could be no other federal laws than the Constitution, then there would be no reason to have created Congress.

A better question would have been: what part of the Constitution is violated by National Parks? If the answer is none, then the NPS is constitutional.

Sorry, but it is this type of thinking that causes us never ending trouble.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. - Amendment X

There is no power delegated to the United States by the Constitution to create National Parks, let alone create National Parks that do not allow citizens to practice their Second Amendment rights.

redneckdan
September 24, 2006, 12:05 AM
"Since this was illegal, do you think there would have been problems if a park ranger or other park employee had noticed you were carrying?"

Yes it was illegal. But my whole point is that it was concealed and nobody was none the wiser. If they ever found ut I had it, it would have been due to a situation that dictated leathal force. I'm a believer in the axiom of its better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

jeepmor
September 24, 2006, 12:31 AM
I with RedneckDan,

Concealed means just that. Should it turn ugly and come out of concealment, you've got bigger problems at the moment rather than worrying about whether or not defending your life from dangerous game or biepedal predator is "legal." Let the cards fall where they may.

I thought this was a sticky back to a thread that covered this topic before. There was an actual park ranger that chimed in and said something to this effect. While it is technically illegal, concealed means concealed. And if it stays concealed, how is anyone going to know. ;) :D :rolleyes:

A CCW is not something you wave about and advertise by definition. Should the person want to conceal to go pester game or hikers, well, that's different. If they simply want to carry protection, in my mind, go for it. I occasionally speed, I know the risks, but I still do it as do many drivers. Would you rather pay a fine, do some jail time and lose some of your waking hours to our legal system...... or feed a bear?

Some choices should not be left to the people behind desks with nice suits, they should be left to the individuals. Its not as if there would not be consequences for any criminal violations, but should you save your bacon from a bear in National Park, I'm certain you'd be happy with the legal ramifications over your own demise.

Smurfslayer
September 24, 2006, 08:08 AM
THis is essentially a 'secondary violation' by nature but the whole point is that we shouldn't be put in jeopardy for exercising our right to protect ourselves. If you ignore the weapon ban in and of itself, think back to the last time you went to a NP. Did you see any indication that weapons of any kind were prohibited? Probably not and according to their reasoning that doesn't matter. It's analogous to me inviting you all over to my house and then proclaiming "Whoa! You can't have wallets here. I'm going to have to take those for our mutual protection". Wait here while I have the police cite you for trespass. :banghead:

Sure, concealed means concealed but why should someone face a federal misdemeanor, fine and weapon seizure for doing something lawful most other places? And other than to preserve game, wildlife etc. what business does the NPS have making parks more dangerous?

jeepmor
September 24, 2006, 09:44 AM
I agree smurf, but the 12 rather than 6 rule applies. And no, I don't recall any specific signage stating weapons were not legal, but I imagine it's posted somewhere, in small print. I have seen the "no hunting" signage, but don't recall the "no guns on park property" verbage on said signage.

jeepmor

Smurfslayer
September 24, 2006, 10:30 AM
Exactly. The thing is that this "regulation" is also in effect on parkways and other properties controlled by NPS. I understand the "12/6 rule", but I'm trying to get the message out that we can change this for the better.

So if you can spare 15-20 minutes, hit up my website and use some of the linked lobbying tips and get the word out to your congressional delegation.

Thanks!

george29
September 25, 2006, 06:23 PM
I just skimmed through. Recently did a few N.P in NM, AZ and UT. Never travel w/o. Thank god for rules and regulations. Illegal to bring in weapons? Yes. Illegal to search me w/o probable cause or warrant? YES. So like the others here, if nothing happened, nothing to worry about, if I need to expose my weapon, I have bigger worries. I am an A-1 clean dressed, well behaved articulate and socially conditioned citizen of the USA, protected by the constitution and fear no L.E because they have no reason to fear me. I know never to allow an L.E permission to search me or my vehicle without a warrant. If an L.E asks, it means they cannot w/o permission and probably have no probable cause for a warrant. If you have an open bottle, or a roach in the ashtray, then the LEO has probable cause, and booze/drugs don't mix with CCW anyway so don't do it. Everywhere I go, my gun goes, especially to places that are restricted or have signs prohibitting, IMO there is more chance of needing the weapon in such a place as there is getting caught.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0808/p03s01-ussc.html
http://www.uwm.edu/~aafeltes/city.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/14/162412.shtml

If you enjoyed reading about "National Parks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!