CCW allowed in some National Parks...
- Thread starter KBintheSLC
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
KBintheSLC
Member
oops... looks like someone beat me to it.
shooter429
Member
Why? Nobody will ever know
It is a good first step. One thing, by restricting to permit holders, they have background information on all the good guys carrying. That makes a lot of sense
Well, I am affected, so I am happy to see the change. The thing with open carry is a) it freaks some people out b) Those people include cops c)It is legal in theory, but may not be in practice as circumstances can be present which would turn an otherwise legal act, into an illegal one.
Bottom line: I think it is a good start. Carrying concealed has many advantages and very few drawbacks, IMHO. So get your permit and enjoy your new freedom, knowing that now they can find you anytime they want to. 
Shooter429
It is a good first step. One thing, by restricting to permit holders, they have background information on all the good guys carrying. That makes a lot of sense
Well, I am affected, so I am happy to see the change. The thing with open carry is a) it freaks some people out b) Those people include cops c)It is legal in theory, but may not be in practice as circumstances can be present which would turn an otherwise legal act, into an illegal one.
Bottom line: I think it is a good start.
Carrying concealed has many advantages and very few drawbacks, IMHO. So get your permit and enjoy your new freedom, knowing that now they can find you anytime they want to. Shooter429
uh-oh
Member
I think the post is making up its interpretation of the ruling.
See it here:
http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final Rule.pdf
See it here:
http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final Rule.pdf
It's pretty clear from reading the rules that open carry is banned.
A) Everyone is affected; we all benefit from the change, whether you carry or not. This is a fundamental axiom of firearms ownership and the right to carry. See Kleck, et al.
B) If legal open carry "freaks some people out", then they should become comfortable with others exercising their rights, not cow-towed too and the other side surrender their constitutional right. Because some people don't like to hear atheists, Catholics, or Muslims talking about their beliefs in public is no reason to suspend the first amendment; because some people choose to "bear arms" without cringing is not a reason to abandon a constitutional right. See DOI ruling, Issue #13, pgs. 18-19.
C) "Those people include cops" - all the more reason to exercise your right. When "cops" oppose free speech, will you stop talking? When state officials decide the burden of "reasonable" search and seizure is too onerous, will you just go along with them? Because a heavily armed segment of the population is against a right, do you abandon it?
D) "It is legal in theory, but may not be in practice ..." One of the more sheepish things I've ever heard in my life. When "legal" practices are abandoned because they are too inconvenient to practice, we've lost the battle for a free state.
I also live in WA state. We have a massive amount of federal land in this state, national parks included. That I am left to let my dogs, myself, and my stock animals be prey to predators when I am in National Parks (not the same as "public land," but still very significant here) is beyond foolish. That I have to carry the gun "concealed" instead of easily accessible and comfortably in a scabbard or open holster is a ridiculous infringement on my right to self preservation, traded off for the shallow and inconsequential and visual comfort of others. "Concealed carry" to make others comfortable, especially in grizzly country, is outright foolish beyond being ethically defensible.
I have followed this issue for over a year, and from the wording insisted upon by the senatorial lobby for the rule change, it was clear that any legal means of carry was part of their intent, not just "concealed."
However, the DOI chose not to adopt that for reasons of purely political intent. If you read their full 25 pages of reasoning, the only one not supported by case law or logic is Issue #10, where they state they do not endorse in the rule change the carrying of long guns, and do so without a valid explanation (which they acknowledge in their response). Open carry and the carry of long guns is pretty clearly prohibited, though without a valid reason stated.
A) Everyone is affected; we all benefit from the change, whether you carry or not. This is a fundamental axiom of firearms ownership and the right to carry. See Kleck, et al.
B) If legal open carry "freaks some people out", then they should become comfortable with others exercising their rights, not cow-towed too and the other side surrender their constitutional right. Because some people don't like to hear atheists, Catholics, or Muslims talking about their beliefs in public is no reason to suspend the first amendment; because some people choose to "bear arms" without cringing is not a reason to abandon a constitutional right. See DOI ruling, Issue #13, pgs. 18-19.
C) "Those people include cops" - all the more reason to exercise your right. When "cops" oppose free speech, will you stop talking? When state officials decide the burden of "reasonable" search and seizure is too onerous, will you just go along with them? Because a heavily armed segment of the population is against a right, do you abandon it?
D) "It is legal in theory, but may not be in practice ..." One of the more sheepish things I've ever heard in my life. When "legal" practices are abandoned because they are too inconvenient to practice, we've lost the battle for a free state.
I also live in WA state. We have a massive amount of federal land in this state, national parks included. That I am left to let my dogs, myself, and my stock animals be prey to predators when I am in National Parks (not the same as "public land," but still very significant here) is beyond foolish. That I have to carry the gun "concealed" instead of easily accessible and comfortably in a scabbard or open holster is a ridiculous infringement on my right to self preservation, traded off for the shallow and inconsequential and visual comfort of others. "Concealed carry" to make others comfortable, especially in grizzly country, is outright foolish beyond being ethically defensible.
I have followed this issue for over a year, and from the wording insisted upon by the senatorial lobby for the rule change, it was clear that any legal means of carry was part of their intent, not just "concealed."
However, the DOI chose not to adopt that for reasons of purely political intent. If you read their full 25 pages of reasoning, the only one not supported by case law or logic is Issue #10, where they state they do not endorse in the rule change the carrying of long guns, and do so without a valid explanation (which they acknowledge in their response). Open carry and the carry of long guns is pretty clearly prohibited, though without a valid reason stated.
Last edited:
Lone_Gunman
Member
I believe you will be able to open carry if you have a permit and the state in which the national park is located allows open carry with a permit.
I don't think the facts are being reported clearly. I think the Dept of Interior's rule is basically you can carry in whatever manner (concealed or open) that is allowed by state law.
I don't think the facts are being reported clearly. I think the Dept of Interior's rule is basically you can carry in whatever manner (concealed or open) that is allowed by state law.
That was the intent of the law suggested by the NRA and senators who asked for the rule change. However, it is very clearly NOT what the DOI adopted. If you read the reasoning and rules adopted by them, open carry is NOT allowed. They explicitly state it is concealed only. I personally lobbied this point when the rule changes were proposed, and their suggested language made public back in the spring. Open carry is not endorsed by their rules, only concealed. They explicitly state they have made the rule change to "narrowly" adopt this approach. See issue/response #10 of the ruling, pg. 17.
The rule change, in numerable instances, specifies only "concealed, loaded, and operable" firearms" - the word "and" is significant and not fungible. The reasoning also goes to lengths to distinguish this from "loaded and operable." Any reasonable person, and, more importantly, a judge, when reading the rule changes can easily discern that the intent was to allow only concealed weapons, and not open carry. I am not trying to be negative here; I'd rather carry a 30-30 in a scabbard than a .44 under my shirt in the summer. It's more effective against our local predators, and more comfortable. But the rules very clearly are for "concealed" weapons.
I guess that S&W 629 will get more use next year than I had hoped!It is well worth reading the rule change in it's entirety as referenced above. It is in general very well reasoned and presented. This was an important issue to me since, with dependents, live stock, and extensive back-country travel in my typical use, I have spent the last two years very consciously avoiding the North Cascades NP, Olympic NP, and Mt. Rainier NP, and instead using the Okanagon NF, Mt. Baker NF and adjacent wilderness areas so I could defend myself. I have not failed to cross paths with a large bear at least once per year, and have no intentions of going deep into wilderness areas w/o protection. Now, at least, I can cc in the NP and enjoy it just as safely as Lewis & Clark did in 1805. I guarantee you, they would not have traversed what we now call "National Parks" if you made them give up their flintlocks at the gate.
Banning open carry and long guns, for the general comfort of the antis, is my only quibble. Again, here is a link so you can read it for yourself and not take second-hand guesses as to what it means:
http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final Rule.pdf
Last edited:
Lone_Gunman
Member
Well I guess its better than nothing.
Yep, it sure is! Believe me, I'm very happy with this - it sure is better than nothing. I went to great lengths to explain it above so someone reading this doesn't go open carry into an urban NP (like "Independence NP" in downtown Philly) next week.
ALSO NOTE: Many NRA's (National Recreation Areas) are administered by the national park service. They are subject to the same rules as NPs. Don't go open toting into them. Some are administered by the USFS. Check into this before you take firearms into an NRA, too.
spentbrass
Member
Well, I am floored, I was sure they'd say no keep the laws the way it was.
Believe me, I've met plenty of creepy people on trails in the National Parks.
Only think I'm wondering is, what if I have to go into the ranger station to check on trail conditions? It's a federal building right?
Believe me, I've met plenty of creepy people on trails in the National Parks.
Only think I'm wondering is, what if I have to go into the ranger station to check on trail conditions? It's a federal building right?
Since I've never encountered a ranger station in your state of WA that wasn't on a paved road near a gas station, I don't see a problem. Many of the "ranger stations" in WA aren't actually in the forest or park, just in towns or along popular state roads nearby. This increases the "user-friendliness" of them, don't get me wrong. Just pop the six-gun in the glove compartment and go pick up your "land use plan" and a slurpee. Chat with the summer intern who doesn't have a clue. If you want real trail info, then you will have to find the "real" ranger who is out on the trails, out of cell phone range.
For trail info, your best bet is the online site they update weekly based on ranger input, or the "watrails" web page which is user updated. http://www.wta.org/
If you are going into a ranger station for trail info, you are well behind the game! If I had a dime for every time I've checked with NPS or USFS ranger station about trail conditions in WA, then went out to find them unpassable, I'd be a rich woman!
Last edited:
Me too. My chin is on the floor. I really can't believe this is true. I've been waiting almost 20 years! This ruling more than makes up for the election for me, although I can't say I care that much about the election because both candidates stunk.
I pretty much never drink alcohol, but I'm going to dredge out that old bottle of whisky now and toast to what's still great about our United States of America!
armoredman
Member
Concealed weapons per state law? Cool, AZ allows any lawful firearm, including those on the National Registry. Gonna be a market for shoulder bags to hold those collapsing stock AR and folder AKs. thos folding KelTecs may become popular, too, if they can be deployed fast.
Hey, I meet a bear, I'd rather have a rifle than a pistol, and mountain lions are also quite active in some areas...not to sure about .223 against a bear, though. Might just stay with the 7.62x39mm that I have...
Hey, I meet a bear, I'd rather have a rifle than a pistol, and mountain lions are also quite active in some areas...not to sure about .223 against a bear, though. Might just stay with the 7.62x39mm that I have...
HeavenlySword
Member
Bear? .223? Dump the whole mag into it
30 rounds should hit SOMTHING critical
30 rounds should hit SOMTHING critical
shooter429
Member
Don't get me wrong, I support open carry in theory
I was trying to point out that in practice, especially in a blue state, it can bring many negatives upon the gun owners that can better be done without-like being stopped by the Rangers. As I spend a lot of time in Grizzly country alone, I would rather carry a 45-70 openly, but until that point is fixed, I would much rather have 6 Rds of .44 bear ammo in a SRH in a holster while fishing or gathering wood, than do without anything at all.
They should make it open to any carry any time, but in the real world, I think this is a good compromise that will allow us to carry magnum wheelguns concealed for defense, where we are likely to run into an angry bruin. Better than nothing for now, I say.
Shooter429
I was trying to point out that in practice, especially in a blue state, it can bring many negatives upon the gun owners that can better be done without-like being stopped by the Rangers. As I spend a lot of time in Grizzly country alone, I would rather carry a 45-70 openly, but until that point is fixed, I would much rather have 6 Rds of .44 bear ammo in a SRH in a holster while fishing or gathering wood, than do without anything at all.
They should make it open to any carry any time, but in the real world, I think this is a good compromise that will allow us to carry magnum wheelguns concealed for defense, where we are likely to run into an angry bruin. Better than nothing for now, I say.
Shooter429
Titan6
member
I just wanted to send thanks to everyone who worked tirelessly to make it happen. You are great Americans.
When we think of national parks, typically thoughts of the great outdoors come to mind. However, there are national parks (Hot Springs, AR) located within/around a metropolitan area. It has been extremely confusing as to which parts of the city are legal and which are illegal for CC (part of the historic downtown area is beside/on national park land). I have never gotten a clear answer, but it has been my understanding that one side of the street (downtown central avenue) is legal for CC, illegal on the other side. Also, I have had to avoid certain roads while driving, so as to not venture onto national park land. Hopefully, the ruling will stand and life here will become much less confusing with regards to legal CC.
gbran
Member
California?
How will this affect CA?
How will this affect CA?
Crimp
Member
sailortoo
Member
ShakyJ & Crimp - Yes, I made a comment in the "Thank You" letter to my senator (Domenici), that some NP entrances are directly through the main Park Administration building (for fees, and information), which nullifies the value of the new regulations, as it is still a No-No to CCW into those buildings. You may be legal to CCW in the Park, but you can't get there from here! Still and all, it is major progress, and gives more momentum to "clean up" the legislation/regulation change.
sailortoo
sailortoo
devilc
Member
But can't the next administration just countermand this rule?
caribou
Member
Here in Alaska, we can carry conceled, just like Vermont, no license nessarry. We have always been allowed to carry conceled when hunting (Under your parkee, in the Arctic, keeps th esnow off) in our own home and place of business..and weve been hunting here on Monuments refuges and National Parks before they were designated as such.
Glad to see the rest of the country get a bit as Free as we.
Glad to see the rest of the country get a bit as Free as we.
Sorry, that wasn't very" High Road" of me. - Status