NPS petition for NPS weapons regulation amendment to be changed!


PDA






Smurfslayer
April 29, 2008, 01:35 PM
http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-09606_PI.pdf

VCDL's petition for rulemaking has achieved a measure of success.

The proposed regulation will not help folks in states where it is illegal to have firearm in a state park, but it would be a huge step forward.

More specifics as they come.

If you enjoyed reading about "NPS petition for NPS weapons regulation amendment to be changed!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
April 29, 2008, 01:39 PM
I haven't heard any news of this in some time - what is the current status?

deanf
April 29, 2008, 07:42 PM
Uh, isn't this old news? I knew months ago of the same-as-state-parks change.

WayneConrad
April 29, 2008, 07:56 PM
As far as I know, this effort took two forks: One administrative, referenced here (possibly old news), and one legislative, referenced here (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=354542), stalled since April 11th. The legislative fork is the better of the two, if it can get done in a satisfactory way, since anything an administration does can be undone by the next administration.

Oro
April 29, 2008, 08:03 PM
Yes, this is old news from February. At that time, the Sec. of the Interior responded to Senator Mike Crapo's letter and lobbying. He said then that the public rule changes were to be made public by the end of April for commentary before being adopted.

After the 60 day public commentary period is up, they will review and ammend/approve the rules and set an effective date. I am not sure how long that will take, but perhaps by the end of the summer the laws will be changed.

Well Regulated
April 29, 2008, 08:49 PM
This is not old news. If you look at the date, it is the official publication of the Change of the Regulation and request for input from the public. This is the official start of the administration change process. Up until today, it has been all talk and no action by the DOI.

Oro
April 29, 2008, 09:00 PM
This is EXACTLY the action promised in Secretary Kempthorne's letter of February 22nd to Senator Crapo. It is "new action" but it is based on "news" that was reported several months ago. Here is the outline of the process as initiated in February, courtesy of the NRA. This is when this was "news":

http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/KempthorneRTC.pdf

Yes, the DOI dragged their heals through out 2007 on this issue, but they had no mandate from the White House or congress to act - the only outside authorities that can direct them to do anything. Once a majority of the Senate was behind it in Feb 2008, they have responded clearly and timely, even without a congressional mandate to do so - there was no congressional vote, and the house has been silent, and would be unlikely to vote on the issue anyway. Sen. Reid blocked it in the Senate through some unethical dealings.

lacoochee
April 29, 2008, 09:00 PM
This is definitely not "old news" it looks like we are going to get National Park carry in the states that allow concealed carry in their state parks and National Forests. So in Florida, concealed carry in National Parks is legal, in Tennessee it's not.

This is a huge first step even though everyone will not reap the rewards just yet but with a enough pressure on your state legislature you too will get National Parks on your list of allowed places.

Wow, all I want now is permitted open carry (to address "printing") and I am pretty much satisfied with the ways things are now in Florida. There is almost no where left in Florida that I can't carry a concealed weapon.

Oro
April 29, 2008, 09:07 PM
Lacochee, this is only "new news" if you haven't been paying attention to the issue or not heard about it here or from the NRA. It has been in some newspapers, but not very widely reported. This is just the process as outlined in February moving forward - feel free to follow the links above or below talking about Senator Crapo, Sec. Kempthorne, and check out the NRA-ILA coverage of it. Here's the new release from February outlining this policy change from the NRA web site:

http://www.nraila.org/news/read/newsreleases.aspx?id=10651

It will likely now be news in the "main stream media" since they have ignored it until now, but it's not "new" - it's been around for months, since the February hearings. There have been a ton of threads here as well as other gun boards covering it in detail for six months or more.

In our favor, it getting it into the media is a good thing since it will make a strong distinction between left wing gun-grabbers and those pro-gun during the fall elections and presidential race. Trying to head off a senate vote to protect Clinton and Obama is why most suspect Senator Reid did what he did.

lacoochee
April 29, 2008, 09:19 PM
I knew about the proposal this is just the first time I have seen it actually codified.

[FR Doc. 2008-9606 Filed 04/29/2008 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 04/30/2008]

It really doesn't matter if it's old or new news, it's mostly hopefully good news. :)

Oro
April 29, 2008, 09:31 PM
Yep, Lacoochee, I totally agree. This is going to make things feel more secure for lots of people, hopefully cut some crime, help secure our 2nd Amendment rights, and help keep things from eating us or our livestock! Almost like it was 100 years ago...(sigh)

WayneConrad
April 30, 2008, 12:45 AM
The proposal says, "you may submit comments," and gives several ways to do so. Are requests that the rule be placed into effect an appropriate for us to submit at this time?

Smurfslayer
April 30, 2008, 08:54 AM
Because the petition response contains additional 'restrictive' language which will effectively disenfranchis several hundred thousand petitioners, the official response from the petitioners is under review. As we've seen, DOI can best be described as dysfunctional. Once we've discussed the response from DOI we will put out a suggested comments notification.

It would good for as many of us to be on the same page as possible regardless of whether you think the idea is great, or it's crap. I would wait to submit comments (as a petitioner, obviously I have a biased view ;) ).

Listen to VA Congressman Jim Moron whine about the petition in Congress:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88512175

Siderite
April 30, 2008, 09:45 AM
Smurfslayer,
could you elaborate on the "additional 'restrictive' language" that you mention? I tried the link in your signature, but that seems to be for a separate petition.

Reading over the petition on regulations.gov, it states that the federal lands would be under the same as the restrictions of their home states. I know this doesn't help WI and IL, but it does avoid the change being postponed while those states take the federal government to court to determine whether federal law supremecy (federal laws overrule states law) or tenth amendment powers (states get powers not granted to federal gov) is at stake.
Thanks,
Siderite

Smurfslayer
April 30, 2008, 12:43 PM
Here is what the new regulation promulgated by DOI reads:

"A person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park, or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law"

First, they're requiring concealment. Think Texas, where you can be cited for brief, unintentional exposure. Second, instead of "weapons" it now says "firearms". Third, and perhaps most important, the "permission" they're granting you is contingent upon your state's law on firearms in state parks OR "any similar unit of state land".

Totally unnecessary. Instead, try this regulation on for size:

A person may possess, carry, and transport loaded, and operable firearms or other weapons within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport loaded and operable firearms or other weapons in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.

Do the restrictions now make more sense?

Art Eatman
April 30, 2008, 02:06 PM
Looking at the Senate's proposed action, Sen. Reid killed the bill that had the amendment legalizing carry in NPS parks. I don't know if the amendment's language was added to any other bill.

Siderite
April 30, 2008, 02:10 PM
Smurfslayer,
thanks for clearing that up. I didn't catch the nuances.
-Siderite

Smurfslayer
April 30, 2008, 02:50 PM
Looking at the Senate's proposed action, Sen. Reid killed the bill that had the amendment legalizing carry in NPS parks. I don't know if the amendment's language was added to any other bill.

I recall Coburn held up passage by either amending or threatening amendment of the original bill. Then Reid introduced an identical bill w/o the pro-2A language. Are you saying reid's bill got a vote & passed?

WayneConrad
April 30, 2008, 03:08 PM
Requiring concealment?

Yuck!

I'm chomping at the bit to comment on this.

Smurfslayer
April 30, 2008, 04:14 PM
Please... let's not make this another shout-fest about open and concealed.

We just don't want NPS making someone an example of for printing or something silly.

fletcher
April 30, 2008, 04:20 PM
Please... let's not make this another shout-fest about open and concealed.

Yes. If you make comments, please express your support for the policy in its current form as well as suggesting that it should also contain some provision for open carry. It would not be in our best interest to create a 3-way (the antis and two factions of us fighting amongst ourselves) fight in getting such an important policy implemented.

deanf
April 30, 2008, 05:24 PM
First, they're requiring concealment. They are? They are allowing concealment, but I don't see where they are proscribing open carry.

Smurfslayer
May 1, 2008, 08:43 AM
"the inclusion of one thing in a statute necessarily means the exclusion of other things". By telling you explicitly what method you may have loaded firearms in parks, they are prohibiting others by omission.

My main concern here is brief printing, brief exposure, etc. They're actually making the patchwork of laws more difficult; albeit less restrictive. Leave it to government to come up with something which does that.:rolleyes:

kd7nqb
May 1, 2008, 12:59 PM
I just go the Oregon Firearms Federation alert about this. They expressed the same objections. No OC and you have to have a permit valid in that state.

While I agree that less restriction would be nice, I can understand that this may be best we are going to get right now.

Here is the link to the OFF Alert

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/05.01.08.html

deanf
May 1, 2008, 02:11 PM
"the inclusion of one thing in a statute necessarily means the exclusion of other things".
Putting it in quotation marks doesn't give it any legitimacy. You'll have to do better than that.

Here, I'll put my rebuttal in italics:

that which is not specifically prohibited by law is permitted.

Smurfslayer
May 1, 2008, 03:22 PM
Putting it in quotation marks doesn't give it any legitimacy. You'll have to do better than that.

Here, I'll put my rebuttal in italics:

that which is not specifically prohibited by law is permitted.
The inclusion exclusion quote is commonly used in statutory construction. That's how the courts interpret the language in a statute.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/coa/opinion/2003/2003q2/02CA0736.doc
http://www.state.hi.us/jud/23153dis.htm
http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2007/20070907/96452.htm

I know you don't think quotes make it legit, but still:

"Black's defines this rule as follows:

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded."

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/states/Iowa/99-1491.asp.html
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2007/2007-ohio-2147.pdf
http://www.oah.state.mn.us/aljBase/634917443.DISM.OR.htm
http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=17500
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2006b/20061220/ca06-316.pdf
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc03-1327/op-sc03-1327-corrected.pdf
http://www.thecapitol.net/Research/images/CRS97-589.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1987/sg870072.txt

HTH

romma
May 1, 2008, 04:51 PM
Boy if we do well with this as gun owners, it could be the opening to a National Reciprocity bill that works.

I understand we will have to follow each States Laws with regards to manner of carry... ie; State Parks and so forth,,,

But this is the FEDGOV recognizing our rights.

Whodathunkit?

WayneConrad
May 1, 2008, 10:27 PM
I've read it through, and it's clear that open carry is proscribed. I'll write to support it, but add that open carry should be added, and why (in states like Arizona, many citizens do not possess CCW, and have open carry as their only means of carry--they should not be unfairly excluded).

It'd be mighty kind of those of you in CCW-only states to put in a kind word for us open carriers when you write, if you think of it.

Art Eatman
May 1, 2008, 10:55 PM
Since there are more recent developments, let's use that new thread.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=360418

If you enjoyed reading about "NPS petition for NPS weapons regulation amendment to be changed!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!