Maine to try and ban CCW in National Parks

RETG · Feb 5, 2010

Proposal targets gun ban for parks
Lawmakers seek return to earlier 'status quo'

By Kevin Miller
BDN Staff

AUGUSTA, Maine — Lawmakers heard testimony Wednesday on a proposal to reimpose restrictions on guns within Acadia National Park and along the Appalachian Trail in Maine in response to Congress’ controversial decision to lift long-standing limits on firearms.

Last year, Congress passed a law authorizing visitors to carry guns — both concealed and carried openly — in national parks. Congress passed the law after a federal judge overturned similar regulations enacted in the final days of the Bush administration.

But the new law, which takes effect later this month, does allow states to establish specific rules governing where and how firearms can be carried in the national park system.

For the rest of the article:
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/136137.html

mljdeckard · Feb 5, 2010

This one is for the Maine guys to figure out. I'm having an open-carry party in Zion on 12 Feb.

RETG · Feb 5, 2010

Your right to open carry. And the following is my opinion, and I'll probably get flamed but I don't care, and you probably don't either.

We still have a President and many legislators in the USA who would like to see this law for carry into National Parks overturned. Concealed carrying is not noticed, people are oblivious to a another person carrying concealed (unless they know what to look for and the greater majority doesn't). However, open carrying will only spark complaints, and those complaints will end up in Washington DC, or in some cases, State capitals (not a problem in Utah).

Just a thought. Personally, the law does not affect me at this time. I go into National Parks all the time with a loaded handgun, and it is legal. But, for those who have been looking forward to this law, a law I personally believe should have been passed years ago (in fact, the ban on carry into NP should never have been passed) this could cause it to be changed; either in DC or in a State congress.

Again, your right, but if the parks are flooded with open carry of handguns, I can see the anti-gunners pressuring the DC boys and girls to make some fast and drastic changes.

Frank Ettin · Feb 5, 2010

RETG said:
...We still have a President and many legislators in the USA who would like to see this law for carry into National Parks overturned. Concealed carrying is not noticed, people are oblivious to a another person carrying concealed (unless they know what to look for and the greater majority doesn't). However, open carrying will only spark complaints, and those complaints will end up in Washington DC,...

Good point. What Congress has enacted Congress can repeal.

deadeyedog270 · Feb 6, 2010

I live in Maine and hope they do not pass this. I go to Acadia National Park and hike parts of the Appalachian Trail and I feel i should be able to protect my family there aswell seeming how on the Appalachian Trail we have seen bear and there are people that do to them trails to look for there next victom and I know there are not enough rangers to keep an eye out

TehK1w1 · Feb 6, 2010

I'm surprised to see this coming from Maine.

hso · Feb 6, 2010

The law drops federal prohibition on carry and applies the rules of the state the park lies in (or the parts in the case of national parks lying in more than one state).

If a state has legislation prohibiting carry in parks that would apply to the national parks in their state.

If the state doesn't have such laws on the books and a move is seen to put restrictive legislation into effect it should be actively opposed. The state should not be able to put laws on the books specifically intended to be applied on federal property, like national parks. If the carry law is already on the books the park can adopt. If the law is just for the national part it could be easily killed before it gets to a vote.

brboyer · Feb 6, 2010

States have no jurisdiction on Federal property.

They cannot regulate behavior on property not in their jurisdiction.

Frank Ettin · Feb 6, 2010

brboyer said:
States have no jurisdiction on Federal property.

They cannot regulate behavior on property not in their jurisdiction.

That's generally true. But here, the federal law specifically refers to state law. In effect, under the federal law whether one is lawfully carrying in a National Park is decided by state law. The federal law basically says that one my lawfully carry a gun in a National Park if he is doing so in compliance with the laws of the state in which the portion of the Park in question is located.

brboyer · Feb 6, 2010

Still, the state has no jurisdiction on federal property.

Do you think that a local or state LEO can arrest someone on Federal property? No, they have no jurisdiction. State/local laws do not exist on federal property.

A state law prohibiting possession in parks would not apply to a National park, as it is not within the jurisdiction of the state.

TexasRifleman · Feb 6, 2010

till, the state has no jurisdiction on federal property.

Do you think that a local or state LEO can arrest someone on Federal property? No, they have no jurisdiction. State/local laws do not exist on federal property.

A state law prohibiting possession in parks would not apply to a National park, as it is not within the jurisdiction of the state.

Doesn't have anything to do with it. If the state says you can't carry in a NP then the NP rangers will have the power to arrest since the Federal law says it's only legal as long as there is no STATE prohibition.

It's not the state law that a person would be charged with violating, it would be the Federal law.

brboyer · Feb 6, 2010

If the state says you can't carry in a NP

States have no such authoruty.

N003k · Feb 6, 2010

Brboyer, at least based on what I've read in this thread, the Feds GAVE the states that authority IN the law.

The states DO have that authority if the LAW says they do. Based on what's being said, the law says they do, and thus, they do.

Whether it'd hold up in a hard fought court battle or not, I don't know, but, until theres a case, or the feds change the law, the states appearently DO have that authority since the feds SAID they do.

atomd · Feb 6, 2010

I'm surprised to see this coming from Maine.

I'm not. We have a good amount of moonbat granola heads here. We especially have problems with incompetent politicians that share the surname Pingree. The people in certain parts of southern Maine and the good for nothings in Augusta do not represent the majority of Mainers....but they sure stick around to mess things up for the rest of us. A lot of these types had vacation homes here at one point and came to retire or just ended up staying. I hope they all go back to Massachusetts (where a lot of them came from anyways). One of the reasons I came from Mass was to escape idiots like these people and I still find myself surrounded by them. :banghead:

Vermont Guy · Feb 6, 2010

I'd be very careful carrying openly in a National Park.

The law states it is about "concealed, loaded, and operable firearms...in accordance with the laws of the State". I read that to mean no open carry no matter what the state law is.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-816

Looking that up I found another question. The new law refers to exceptions in Section 930, Title 18. Section 930 forbids carry in Federal Buildings, HOWEVER, Section 930 has an exception for carry "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes". Self defense is a lawful purpose so does that mean I can visit the gift shop after all?

brboyer · Feb 6, 2010

N003k said:
Brboyer, at least based on what I've read in this thread, the Feds GAVE the states that authority IN the law.

The states DO have that authority if the LAW says they do. Based on what's being said, the law says they do, and thus, they do.

Whether it'd hold up in a hard fought court battle or not, I don't know, but, until theres a case, or the feds change the law, the states appearently DO have that authority since the feds SAID they do.

Incorrect.

brboyer · Feb 6, 2010

Vermont Guy said:
I'd be very careful carrying openly in a National Park.

The law states it is about "concealed, loaded, and operable firearms...in accordance with the laws of the State". I read that to mean no open carry no matter what the state law is.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-816

Looking that up I found another question. The new law refers to exceptions in Section 930, Title 18. Section 930 forbids carry in Federal Buildings, HOWEVER, Section 930 has an exception for carry "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes". Self defense is a lawful purpose so does that mean I can visit the gift shop after all?

Uh, no. You are looking at a bill that was never voted on.

There is nothing about concealed in the Coburn ammendment to the credit card bill.

. . . The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

StarDust1 · Feb 6, 2010

Any law, ANY, infringing upon the citizens right to bear arms is an out & out violation of the Second Amendment, that includes all federal gun control laws!
Yet that hasn't stopped them from usurping your rights one iota, has it?

Buck Snort · Feb 6, 2010

"Still, the state has no jurisdiction on federal property. Do you think that a local or state LEO can arrest someone on Federal property? No, they have no jurisdiction. State/local laws do not exist on federal property."

BUT! You will be arrested by a federal LEO because the state law has BECOME the federal law in that particular park. Its tricky, its crappy, but that's the way it is.

Frank Ettin · Feb 6, 2010

StarDust1 said:
Any law, ANY, infringing upon the citizens right to bear arms is an out & out violation of the Second Amendment, that includes all federal gun control laws!...

A pretty enough notion, but unless a court agrees it's not going to do you any good.

StarDust1 · Feb 6, 2010

fiddletown said:
A pretty enough notion, but unless a court agrees it's not going to do you any good.

Thats why it's called "usurption!"

Frank Ettin · Feb 7, 2010

StarDust1 said:
Thats why it's called "usurption!"

In your opinion. But it's the opinion of the court that counts.

Bhamrichard · Feb 7, 2010

As a general rule, States do not have authority on Federal property, The National Forests obviously fall into that category. The bill by congress, as amended and passed, defers Federal regulation of firearms carry to the existing laws regarding the possession of firearms by individuals of each state where the forest is located.

As I understand it, if you are in compliance with the firearms laws of the state you are in, you are fully entitled to exercise that right under the statutes in National Forests.

The problem with this "We'll pass a new law to exclude NF's", is that the states are not in a position to regulate federal property, per se. I think if a matter ever came before a court, it could be very confusing, and interesting at the same time. It would SEEM, if a state attempted to specifically regulate on Federal property, there could easily be made a legal issue of it, since the new statute would be so narrowly tailored to specific acreage.

When it comes down to it, who knows how a court would react.. I've seen too many 'common sense' issues come up that make me a believer that there's nothing 'common' about having any sense..

FROGO207 · Feb 7, 2010

Living in the vicinity of ANP and all the save the whales/loons/deer/yotes/snails/mice/ETC. zellots prove they are nuts hereabouts. We HAVE to drive THROUGH THE PARK to get on and off the island. You have to be careful when driving down route 3. The way it is there presently (and on 102A) is if you have a firearm in your vehicle and are on the (surrounded by park property) road only (not the shoulder) you are allowed to proceed without stopping. If you should say slide off the road in icy conditions or stop at a turnout and be happened upon by a ranger you are in violation of federal law. Several people have been caught by this little technicality, picture your 30-30 in the rear window of pickup. As a firefighter in SW Harbor and Tremont there are times that if I am carrying a firearm in my vehicle I will not respond as I know I will be questioned because of my past known association with firearms as to am I in compliance if I pull of the road to respond to the fire/MV accident/search/ETC.:banghead: Really wants to make the average person support this type of legislation right. :cuss:

The repeal of the law will NOT increase the number of (overpopulated) deer and such shot on park property as some would say. BTW NO deer hunting on MDI as there is so much park land intermingled with private land. :fire:

The tourists rule the economy and all want to see the deer/raccoon/etc. visit their campsite or on their walk in the wilds of the park.

This repeal can not come soon enough.

FROGO207 · Feb 7, 2010

BTW H Pingree should move to the CAL coast as she would be a perfect fit for those types!!!

Maine to try and ban CCW in National Parks

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads