Maine to try and ban CCW in National Parks

[StarDust1]

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

Where exactly in the Second Amendment does it stipulate that "in our opinion" it's a right, that in fact it's mostly just a highly regulated privilege, subject to the whims of a political appointee, and the political correctness associated with them?
It's not an OPINION, and USURPTION is not just another meaningless word, it's what they've done!

 

[HexHead]

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

I thought the new law doesn't take effect until Feb. 22nd?

 

[unloved]

I thought the new law doesn't take effect until Feb. 22nd?

That is my understanding as well.

 

[Byron]

In referring to the new law taking effect Feb 22, does that apply to all National Parks? Byron

 

[mljdeckard]

It is 22 Feb, I mis-typed before.

The new law basically says that for purposes of what guns are allowed into a national park, national parks will defer to the laws of the state in which they lie. Which means, in Utah, I can open carry any rifle or pistol I am legally allowed to possess at all.

 

[FROGO207]

Yeah I will be able to carry as I do everywhere else in the state at least until the &^#$* idiots get the law changed if they can somehow get enough support. We will be voicing our support for NOT changing it back again I will tell you.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Where exactly in the Second Amendment does it stipulate that "in our opinion" it's a right, that in fact it's mostly just a highly regulated privilege, subject to the whims of a political appointee, and the political correctness associated with them?
It's not an OPINION, and USURPTION is not just another meaningless word, it's what they've done!

I agree with this whole heartedly. The fact the courts, which are another wing of the government, upholds the governments violation or usurpation of your rights doesn't make it one bit more correct. If the supreme court one day decides that personal firearms ownership is NOT a personal right and upholds a total ban on personal firearms ownership, has the government not still usurped (I like that word, I'm going to start using it more) our rights?

 

[Frank Ettin]

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

Where exactly in the Second Amendment does it stipulate that "in our opinion" it's a right, that in fact it's mostly just a highly regulated privilege, subject to the whims of a political appointee, and the political correctness associated with them?

Well, Article III of the Constitution does say the following:

"Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, ...

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,..."

...The fact the courts, which are another wing of the government, upholds the governments violation or usurpation of your rights doesn't make it one bit more correct...

Nonetheless, as noted above, the Founding Fathers intended that the federal courts shall have the judicial power of the United States and shall have jurisdiction of cases arising under the Constitution.

Now the opinions of the courts regarding, among other things, the constitutionality of a law will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on the constitutionality of a law will not.

 

[jon_in_wv]

in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,..."

There is the active phrase "under the Constitution". It does not give them the power to change it, erase it, or usurp it. Even if SCOTUS interprets the law a certain way Congress can change the law or overall that decision in some cases. SCOTUS's power is not limitless, Thank God.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Even if SCOTUS interprets the law a certain way Congress can change the law or overall that decision in some cases. SCOTUS's power is not limitless,...

No, it's not unlimited. But exercising judicial power to decide cases arising under the Constitution necessarily requires interpreting the Constitution and applying it to the facts of the case.

And yes, if the Court finds a law to be unconstitutional, Congress can try to enact another law which would be found Constitutional while still serving Congress' purposes. That's what the system of checks and balances is all about.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Amen. The system isn't perfect though. Our fore fathers saw a future not where the Government would wrest our freedom by force, but by the apathy of its people. They were afraid that in the future we would take our freedom for granted and we would trade that freedom for security. I think its happening all around us.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin

 

[AlaskaMan]

Jurisdiction in National Parks

The jurisdiction in National Parks can be confusing, but it all comes down to the enabling legislation. The is the language that Congress used to create the unit. Whether it is a National Park, Battlefield, Historic Site, Wild and Scenic River, or any other unit of the National PARK system it has enabling legislation. These are the sites administered by the Department of the Interior, not the Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), and includes the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service.

THere are three types of federal jurisdiction applying to National Park Service sites. Exclusive, concurrent and proprietary.

Exclusive jurisdiction means just that...the jurisdiction remains entirely within the federal government and the state has virtually none. The state does have the ability to serve civil processes, and residents within the site can vote in local and state elections. The state cannot collect sales tax, for example. Federal officers (Law Enforcement Rangers) can apply federal law, or utilize the Assimilative Crimes act to access state law where ther is no federal law on point. They also can utilize regulations which adopt state law, i.e. traffic laws/drivers licenses/car insurance/etc. The city/county/state law enforcement officers cannot. Only the older Natinoal Park sites have this (Yellowstone, Yosemite, Denali, Olympic, Rainier, and Hot Springs National Park to name a few).

Concurrent jurisdiction means that both the federal government and the state government can enforce their own laws/regulations within the area. All state laws apply and can be enforced by noth federal and state officers. Most units of the National Park Service have this. Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Everglades National Park, and every National Park site in Maryland have this type.

Proprietary jurisdiction means that the primary law enforcement responsiblity is carried by the state. Federal officers can only enforce federal laws/regulations, or those federal regulations that adopt state law.

The new firearms law, (PL 111-24, Sec. 512) does still prohibit the posession of firearms and dangerous weapons (knives with a blade length greater than 2 1/2" for example) in federal facilities. Typically this means a structure of some type where federal employees are regularly present. The public entrances must still be prominently posted for a criminal charge to occur.

Note that this law ONLY applies to the carriage of firearms, open and concealed. The discharge of firearms is still prohibited. Simply put, if you could legally hunt in the Park Service site, you still can. If hunting was prohibited it still is. Target shooting on Park Service sites was, and will still be prohibited.

So instead of getting a single regulation that applied nationwide, (FIREARMS ARE PROHIBITED), we now have hundreds if not thousands of city, county or state laws that will apply. Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. Rest assured that the local Rangers are reading up on it.

We should do the same.

 

[Nico Testosteros]

I support state's rights and keeping Washington off our backs.

 

[zxcvbob]

I suspect the push for this in Maine is from Burt Shavitz and/or Roxanne Quimby (founders of Burt's Bee's cosmetics), not the people or the legislature.

 

[atomd]

I suspect the push for this in Maine is from Burt Shavitz and/or Roxanne Quimby (founders of Burt's Bee's cosmetics), not the people or the legislature.

I wouldn't be surprised. They are anti-hunting also and have done lots of questionable things in the past to violate the rights of the people of Maine. I understand her private "preserve" does not give right of way to lots of hunters who want to get to their or others' private property during hunting season. What a couple of annoying hippies.

 

[poilu]

what about maine STATE parks?

 

[JellyJar]

State park carry in Maine:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

Click on Maine and download the pdf file.

State park carry is Yes except for Baxter State Park. Why not there as well it doesn't say.

 

[Chas.]

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.

As a 25 year veteran of federal employment, I'm sure you're wrong. But to check to be sure, ask your state highway patrolman while he's writing out your ticket on the interstate, which definitely is federal property, built with DOD money.

 

[jbrown50]

Quote:
Originally Posted by brboyer
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.

As a 25 year veteran of federal employment, I'm sure you're wrong. But to check to be sure, ask your state highway patrolman while he's writing out your ticket on the interstate, which definitely is federal property, built with DOD money.

Local and state LEOs have jurisdiction on some federal properties due to agreements. Normally those agreements are to enforce traffic violations and some misdemeanors but never to enforce federal laws unless they're deputized or under some other temporary special agreement. Maine is simply trying to test the waters to see exactly what they can get away with, that's all. If a liberal court or two decides in their favor then so be it but they know that it's a stretch to begin with AND, no Maine state trooper is going into a NP to enforce a state law unless they first get a federal agreement.

The interstate highway system is part of the national highway system. Each state OWNS it's part of the national highway system. 90% of the funding comes from the feds but the state still owns the part that is within it's boundaries.

 

[Balrog]

So instead of getting a single regulation that applied nationwide, (FIREARMS ARE PROHIBITED), we now have hundreds if not thousands of city, county or state laws that will apply. Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. Rest assured that the local Rangers are reading up on it.

So what. It only matters that you are aware of the laws of the state in which you are in at the time. If you are a CCW holder and travel, you are already aware that you will be facing different laws as you pass through different jurisdictions. So you should already be familiar with the laws of the applicable state, or else you are going to break the law whether a National Park is invovled or not.

Last year I was in Wyoming and went to Yellowstone. I familiarized myself with Wyoming law, and carried legally with my Georgia Firearm License, as we have reciprocity with Wyoming. However, when I went into Yellowstone, the laws were different and I could not legally carry concealed. Now that this law is in effect, there is only one set of rules for the entire state, whether I am in the park or not. This is surely an improvement.