National Park Carry... two years later

[parsimonious_instead]

In February 2010, I started a personal tradition - I wrote a letter to Outside magazine to tell them about my support for National Park concealed carry.
(They and other general-interest outdoor lifestyle mags were opposed to it).
In February 2011, I wrote to them to let them know that all of the predicted terrible stuff (violence by CCW holders and poaching) didn't come to pass.
A few days ago, I did the same thing.
Never a reply, let alone a posted letter, but perhaps more voices are needed.

If you're so inclined, send a polite letter about National Park Carry to:

[email protected]

 

[hso]

Good idea.

Do you have a brief example of the type of note that fits them?

 

[parsimonious_instead]

As Requested:

Dear Editors:

Concealed Carry of loaded firearms has been permitted in our National Parks since February of 2010.
In this time I have yet to hear of an incident in which a permit holder entered a Park under the guise
of a legitimate visitor and committed either a crime of violence or poached wildlife.

Many outdoor lifestyle magazines at the time were opposed to this important extension of our Second Amendment
Rights, but all of their stated fears have yet to materialize in the guise of increased crime.

Park rangers are frequently hours or days away - they are spread so thin that it's impossible for them to
guarantee assistance to parkgoers in time to save them from either a two or four legged assailant.

Sincerely,

Parsimonious_instead (real name given in the letter)

Usually when I write to a magazine, I also put my address, email
phone number and "permission granted to publish."

 

[JoeMal]

Done

Thanks for the idea

 

[Pilot]

This is why, many years ago I cancelled my subscriptions to Outside, Backpacker, etc as they are very liberal and anti-2A. I got tired of reading articles that demonized gun owners, and promoted ultra liberal environmental stances.

I have also sent a letter, and asked the Editor to publish and article documenting the success of 2A carry in National Parks. I doubt it will get published as they do not want to annoy their core readership which is most likely very liberal.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

Thanks for your support, guys.

I'm sure Outside Magazine will trot out the Mt. Rainier killing as their counter-example, conveniently forgetting that the shooter was attempting to use the place to disappear, not vacationing there with his EDC.

 

[hso]

Knowing that it would be good to point out that the case is of a criminal without a permit instead of a visitor with one.

 

[X-Rap]

It would be interesting and helpful if any members have links to any situations that have been improved by guns in National Parks or NRA's since the prohibition was lifted as well.
I can't think of any at the moment but I'm sure there are some.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Well it won't work, because those who oppose guns in National Parks oppose guns everywhere. they're not gonna come out and say that, but those who don't realize a sidearm at your hip is needed in the middle of the woods of all places aren't going to be happy with it in the city or suburb. Outside isn't going to publish your letter

 

[2zulu1]

I don't suppose any articles were written about the Chiricahua Mountains burning down, including much/most of the National Monument in May/2011. Known as the Muleshoe 2 fire, it was started in a well known drug trafficking area, the first Muleshoe fire, 2010, was started in the same area but was put out before it could spread.

Then another fire across the valley in the Huachuca Mountains near Sierra Vista was started in another well known smuggling area. There are public lands that are closed to the public because of severe smuggling/trafficking problems and our borders are as safe as they've ever been, but as Sheriff Larry Devers has stated, "They aren't as safe as 1986."

Locals carry accordingly and we communicate our concerns; however, and for whatever reasons, people outside this area don't get a heads up from the media.

 

[beatledog7]

Good letter, but I do have one issue:

Many outdoor lifestyle magazines at the time were opposed to this important extension of our Second Amendment rights, but all of their stated fears have yet to materialize in the guise of increased crime.

(Emphasis added)

Rights are not granted by governments; they are inherent, and carrying a firearm is one of them.

So this was not an extension of a right. Government acted in violation of 2A when it put national park restrictions in place, so removing them was simply correcting a Constitutional error.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

Good letter, but I do have one issue:

(Emphasis added)

Rights are not granted by governments; they are inherent, and carrying a firearm is one of them.

So this was not an extension of a right. Government acted in violation of 2A when it put national park restrictions in place, so removing them was simply correcting a Constitutional error.

I wholeheartedly agree - we always had the right to carry in National Parks (and other parks, too) I simply used poor phrasing.

 

[MYREDTAIL]

NICE.?

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I too will take part. I will really blow them away when I open with "I am a Democrat". Dont get me wrong, I am not a tree hugging left wing Democrat. Just a proud 2nd Ammendment believing one. This is our one right that I will not comprimise on. It feels sad when I cant vote for ALOT of my pary's candidates because the words " gun control" comes out of thier mouths. I too am sending a letter to the magazine, and as. CCW holder, I just hope we can stand together as supporters to give even more rights for CCW carry.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

This is why, many years ago I cancelled my subscriptions to Outside, Backpacker, etc as they are very liberal and anti-2A. I got tired of reading articles that demonized gun owners, and promoted ultra liberal environmental stances.

Oh... how about the recent issue of GQ that called the killing of the Zanesville animals a "slaughter?" I haven't written to them yet, but when you really dissect how kooky the owner of those animals was, and how poorly he treated them (barely well enough to not be called outright abuse... but just barely), and how much of a threat they were to the public at large (they were mostly hungry land carnivores), the responding police did exactly what they had to do, with an appropriate level of force. Tranquing/capturing just wasn't an option.

 

[AlaskaMan]

Concealed Carry of loaded firearms has been permitted in our National Parks since February of 2010.

Uh...not exactly.

The implementation of Section 512 of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, P.L. 111-24, 123 Stat. 1764-65, allows persons to possess firearms while in units of the National Park and National Wildlife Refuge Systems if they are in compliance with applicable federal and state law. Specifically, Section 512(b) states:
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.

Note that there is no language referring to open or concealed. If the state prohibits open or concealed carry, or places other restrictions on the carriage of weapons then those laws apply. Concealed carry in a national park site in a state that prohibits concealed carry remains illegal.

The full law is available here...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ24/pdf/PLAW-111publ24.pdf
Refer to section 512 for further specifics.

 

[Hunt480]

Since this past weekend was Confederate Memorial Day Weekend here in Dixie I was at Chickamauga BattleField in Chickamauga, GA. This is run and operated by the National Park Service. My wife and I road bicycles throughout the park all day. Since I don't believe in going anywhere unarmed if I can help it...I was openly wearing my trashin around Western Style gunbelt with my 45 Vaquero since its my favorite these days. I was never once approached by any of the Rangers there. As long as you do not enter the buildings you are fine. I was within the law that applys for Ga. By the way if you like Civil War history or like your Confederate Heritage and want to see an awsome gun collection go to Chikamauga Battlefield...it is very interesting!

 

[Loosedhorse]

FWIW...

I brought a gun to a National Park today. I was very pleased to see, at the Visitor Center building, a polite and accurate sign mentioning (as I knew already) that I wasn't allowed to bring a firearm inside.

And of course, I didn't. But I thought it was very courteous of them to set out a clearly visible (but not obnoxious) reminder.

 

[fragmag]

Spent the weekend carrying in Gettysburg. I too saw a sign posted outside of the visitor's center that didn't allow guns.

 

[NATE40]

Uh...not exactly.

The implementation of Section 512 of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, P.L. 111-24, 123 Stat. 1764-65, allows persons to possess firearms while in units of the National Park and National Wildlife Refuge Systems if they are in compliance with applicable federal and state law. Specifically, Section 512(b) states:
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.

Note that there is no language referring to open or concealed. If the state prohibits open or concealed carry, or places other restrictions on the carriage of weapons then those laws apply. Concealed carry in a national park site in a state that prohibits concealed carry remains illegal.

The full law is available here...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ24/pdf/PLAW-111publ24.pdf
Refer to section 512 for further specifics.

Well I live in Wyoming and I would like to welcome everyone to Yellowstone National Park. Wyoming is a Proud Premitless carry state now! If you can buy it you can carry it with few limitations.

 

[BB62]

...Wyoming is a Proud Premitless carry state now! If you can buy it you can carry it with few limitations.

(my italics)

Uh, not quite. That's only the case for residents.

 

[Cascade1911]

Quote:
And of course, I didn't. But I thought it was very courteous of them to set out a clearly visible (but not obnoxious) reminder.

Good point. I found a similar polite sign at the Chaco Canyon,New Mexico National Monument HQ last year.

New to THR so maybe you can instruct me. I see posts where it's deemed out of bounds for the government to exclude carry of a firearms on federal lands. I've seen calls for boycotts of companies who have similar "polite" signs. OK, so why are the above quotes ok? If I can carry in a National Park, why can't I carry within the visitors center. If you feel that it's ok for the government to exclude my carry then why is it not ok for Jo-Anns?

Rights are not granted by governments; they are inherent, and carrying a firearm is one of them.

Really? I'd love to believe that. Go on and wander about with a AR with a brand new thirty round mag in New York. I live in the aforementioned New York so I am well versed in the ability of the government to restrict "rights". Even many (if not most) of the "pro 2A" states require you to jump through their regulatory hoops (think Utah, a state I certainly appreciate but what happens if I don't go through their regulatory process?)

 

[hso]

The visitor centers and other similar structures are federal buildings and fall under a separate set of rules than the park proper. Regardless of what state you're in the federal laws apply in federal buildings.

 

[langenc]

Really great. How does one drain their bladder? In the bushes?? No that will get you a sex offender title.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

Really great. How does one drain their bladder? In the bushes?? No that will get you a sex offender title.

Yup... branded for life because of an urgent need to use the "facilities."

I don't support it, but I think the rationale for it is so that people exposing themselves can't use "I needed to go, and I couldn't wait any longer" as an affirmative defense.

We're losing all sense of proportionality in our legal system - too short sentencing for some brutal crimes, shockingly long sentences for violations with little or no injury or property loss.

But back to National Parks - the Mt. Rainier incident is often mentioned as a rebuttal to the whole "park carry" debate, but that person wasn't there as a legitimate visitor, they were attempting to use it as a refuge while fleeing from the law.