Im sure you have all been over this...carry in National Parks

[Quilbilly]

I am going on a hike to Royal Lakes by Sequim, WA. in a couple weeks and I am just trying to make sure it is legal to carry. I looked through the "credit card act of 2009" but it is confusing. It does worry me about what else could be thrown in the middle of some random bill...... Anyway, thanks for your help.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It passed, and carry will be legal, but not yet.

There was a time to implement, I believe one year, so we're looking at sometime in Spring 2010 before it kicks in.

 

[Quilbilly]

Sad...looks like I will have to wait till next year.

 

[KevinAbbeyTech]

It does worry me about what else could be thrown in the middle of some random bill...

It is just Dr. Coburn using a leftist trick against them.

 

[NavyLCDR]

February 22, 2010.

 

[isp2605]

To legally carry in a NP you first have to be legal to carry concealed in the state where the NP is located. The law which does not go into effect until Feb 2010 does not grant blanket concealed carry in all NPs.

 

[BossHaug]

The way I understand it, you will have to abide by the laws of the state the NP is in. So, if OC is allowed (like Arizona), then you can OC in the NP too. To CC, you will have to have a permit/license if required by that state. The only tricky thing I see, if the NP is in several states (like Yellowstone NP). Got to be careful there. I was in Yellowstone 2 years ago, I don't remember any state boundry signs in the park.

 

[NavyLCDR]

To legally carry in a NP you first have to be legal to carry concealed in the state where the NP is located. The law which does not go into effect until Feb 2010 does not grant blanket concealed carry in all NPs.

The bolded part above is incorrect. For instance, in Washington state a person may carry a firearm openly with no permit required. The same will be true in National Parks located in Washington - a person will be able carry openly in the National Park located within Washington with no permit required.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yes, this is not a concealed carry law, it's simply a law allowing for gun laws in a National Park to mirror the state where the park is located.

When this law kicks in I can legally carry an AR openly in a National Park in Texas for example.

Which is odd, because I can't openly carry a rifle in a State Park, since those are restricted to concealed carry only in Texas.

I expect some states may modify their park regulations.

 

[mljdeckard]

I second that it's not necessarily bad that it was sneaked/extorted onto a bill that the president wanted signed at all costs. We are always having to pay our NRA-ILA guys in Washington to watch and make sure that they aren't sneaking ANTI-gun legislation in through the back door, I think it's about time we took off the gloves. The other side did it a LONG time ago.

 

[green-grizzly]

Here is the text from the actual 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.

It is a lot better than the proposed regulation, and we owe it all to the Brady Campaign, that liberal federal judge in San Francisco that threw out the new regulations, and the Obama administration for not appealing the judge's ruling.

 

[jfh]

So, let's clarify this a bit further.

Staying with the WA State example--can I, a non-resident but a visitor, OC in a National Park located in Washington?

What if I have a carry permit that is on WA's reciprocity list (if there is one). Can I now concealed carry?

Jim H.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Could you OC anywhere else in Washington as a non resident?

In Texas for example OC of long guns is legal, so carrying an AR in a National Park would be legal as well.

As for reciprocity, that seems to be OK. It's pretty clearly worded to me, if you're legal elsewhere in the state you're legal in National Parks.

 

[isp2605]

LT,
You missed the entire point of my post. The law is not a blanket authority to carry in any NP. You have to be legal to carry in the state where the NP is located. Regardless of the method of carry, if the person cannot legally carry in the state in which the NP is located then they cannot carry in the NP.
I'll state it again because many people haven't read the bill - the law does not allow blanket carry in every NP. You have to be legal to carry in the state in which the NP is located. One has to be very careful to be certain they are legal to carry in the state where the NP is located. Where someone could get tripped up as BossHaug pointed out is carrying in a NP that is located in 2 or more states and where they might be legal in one state but not the other.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Once this bill goes into effect, all you have to do is follow the laws of the state the park is located in.

I am not sure though about carrying a gun into buildings in the national park. Since they are federal buildings, would carry into them be allowed?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Since they are federal buildings, would carry into them be allowed?

My gut feeling would be that carry into buildings would not be covered under this, but that's just a guess.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

That would be my guess also TRman... which is really bad, because if you are backpacking with a weapon, and need to go into a ranger station, you have to either break the law, or leave an unattended gun outside in your pack.

 

[TexasRifleman]

That would be my guess also TRman... which is really bad, because if you are backpacking with a weapon, and need to go into a ranger station, you have to either break the law, or leave an unattended gun outside in your pack.

But, there is a catch all in the US Code for guns in Federal buildings. Post Offices don't count because there are postal regulations around guns, but in general there is an exemption to guns in Federal buildings for "all other lawful purposes".

Lots of them have specific exceptions like post offices, courts, etc but then it has the catch all for other lawful purposes.

Carrying legally under state law and so therefore carrying legally in a National Park would seem to be a "lawful purpose". Even stronger argument with a concealed carry permit.

The actual code, from 18.44.930

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

The more I think about it the more I feel like carrying in a Ranger station etc would be covered by this and therefore OK.

The language of the credit card bill would seem to make the carrying a lawful purpose.

Not a lawyer, not legal advice for darned sure, but it seems to read that way.

 

[NavyLCDR]

isp2605,

Whatever the point or intent of your post was, the statement that you made is still incorrect:

To legally carry in a NP you first have to be legal to carry concealed in the state where the NP is located

You do NOT have to be legal to carry CONCEALED in the state where the NP is located.

 

[NavyLCDR]

jfh,

In answer to your questions, when the law goes into effect in February 2010,

Yes

and

Yes.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Or, Stated Differently . . .

You do NOT have to be legal to carry CONCEALED in the state where the NP is located.

Which can be rewritten as:

A concealed carry license is not a requirement for carry in a National Park.

In other words, if you're in an open-carry state, it would follow that open carry in the NP would be okay.

In Texas, given than open carry (of pistols) generally is not allowed, then only the generally (statewide) allowed methods of carry are permitted, which might, for example, include carry in the glove box.

Simple form: observe the normal state legalities and formalities for carry in National Parks.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It's simple. After the law in February 2010 goes into effect, however you are legal to carry a firearm outside the gate of the national park, you are legal to carry inside the gate of the national park, until you cross a state line within the national park, then the other state's law would apply.

It doesn't matter if you are a state resident or not, if you have a concealed weapons permit or not, if you are carrying open or concealed. If it is legal outside the gate, it will be legal inside the gate.

 

[mljdeckard]

Good code, TR. That answers a question.

I can carry in all UT and AZ parks, as well as all of Yellowstone, since my Utah permit is valid within all states that park falls across.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Good code, TR. That answers a question.

Yeah that's a good code to know. For many years gun attornies argued that carry in a Post Office was legal because of that law.

The Postmaster General apparently thought it was legal too because he had the Postal regulations amended separately to prohibit carry to get around this exemption.

 

[jfh]

something still feels hinky here to me--

but maybe it's my own confusion about state residency and handguns and carry, and only indirectly related to the NP issues.

Refining the question once more--and staying with the WA state example here--I think the question is "Can a state non-resident OC without a permit in a state where OC is allowed?"

What if that state requires a FOID-type permit for purchase--like they do here in MN--at least for FFL purchases. Obviously, I cannot OC in MA, nor in MN w/o a (state) carry permit. In MN, I can then OC if I wish--and therefore could carry in the Boundary Waters NP, for example. Now, if my MN permit(s) are on the WA reciprocity list (I don't know), I imagine I am covered.

Does WA require a 'permit' for purchase? Does that have any bearing on carry, then?

Where I am going with this is the concern that a lot of gunny-type National-Park visitors may get crossed up here....

Jim H.