National Park no gun signs

[thorn726]

any thoughts on the continued existence of big red signs saying no guns allowed, including details that CCW is not exempt, etc? I was at Joshua Tree last month and they still have big red hard to miss signs on the doors, and I'm curious if this is the case everywhere? I am guessing some states or parks depending on Rangers may have taken the signs down.
I'm still not completely clear whether the changes only apply to CCW holders, but it appears state gun laws should extend into the Parks. To add to the confusion, one site seems to indicate you always could transport unloaded firearms through a park, while the signage at Joshua Tree seemed to indicate NO GUNS period.
HA article, linked here on 2nd page asks how this will play out in Joshua Tree...apparently the staff tries to ignore the new law? I was uncertain of the law when i saw the sign so I didn't mention it but may next time. Even with all the restrictions in CA, there are many exceptions, for example , a rifle in your campsite or open unloaded carry of a pistol..

Anyway enough details, main point here is have you seen these signs, are they still up in other Parks, and what would you do if you saw one?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I was at Joshua Tree last month and they still have big red hard to miss signs on the doors,

Buildings regularly staffed by NPS employees are still off limits as Federal facilities - 18 USC 930. Firearms carry on National Park land - not in buildings - is in accordance with the state laws the land is located in.

http://www.nps.gov/jotr/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm

Firearms
As of February 22, 2010, a new federal law allows people who can legally possess firearms under applicable federal, state, and local laws, to legally possess firearms in this park.

It is the responsibility of visitors to understand and comply with all applicable state, local, and federal firearms laws before entering this park. As a starting point, visit the California Attorney General's website.

Federal law also prohibits firearms in certain facilities in this park; those places are marked with signs at all public entrances.

 

[mljdeckard]

It does seem a bit silly when you visit a park, they have these placards all over their entrances, leaving no possibility that you can miss them. I haven't felt the need to enter any of these buildings lately, (I grew up by Zion, I already know exactly what is inside,) I mostly get out of the car, fill up my camelback, and take the kids to the trails. Let them see the visitor's center on their field trips.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It does seem a bit silly when you visit a park, they have these placards all over their entrances, leaving no possibility that you can miss them.

It's required by Federal statute 18 USC 930. The minute that a gun owner got hassled in a building without the signs, then the gun owners would all be screaming about there NOT being a sign!

 

[mljdeckard]

It's just that in Utah, in particular, they seem very out of character. There are multiple placards on the same posts facing different directions. Different heights, signs in the windows. Nowhere else in the state would you see such an effort to make you so aware. In courthouses there is one subtle placard on the door.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It's just that in Utah, in particular, they seem very out of character. There are multiple placards on the same posts facing different directions. Different heights, signs in the windows.

We are talking about the Federal government here... does that REALLY surprise you?

 

[hermannr]

The code 18-930 2.d.3 states: "section (a) shall not apply"....

3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

I would argue that self protection is an "other lawful purpose" I would also argue, that at the National Park facility in Newhalem..."hunting" would also apply as the facility is actually in the Ross Lake National Recreational Area, and not in the park itself. Hunting is legal in the RLNRA.

I think the "no guns" signs are just the Dept of Interior anti-gun bias. They do not want to follow the law. Their "rangers" that I have met are for the most part very incompitent when it comes to what the law really states.

I want to add, and open for discussion/ 18-930 2.a seems to only fully exclude a "federal court" to lawful carry. One of the reasons I am opening this is I have heard a lot about "post office" no carry. Our PO does not have any "no guns" signs anywhere that I know of, and the way I read Paragraph 2.a, and 2.d.3, there is no prohibition against bringing a firearm into a PO unless you are planning to do something "unlawful"

 

[thorn726]

ah, hadn't considered the Fed Building part of it, I need to re check those signs because they seemed to indicate it was about the whole park, but right, those are the typical Fed Building signs- which were pretty much the same as what you's see in a post office/
at least now the no CCW part makes sense.

 

[hermannr]

From that "shall not apply" paragraph, I would say that the "federal building" (Park HQ etc.) no longer has the legal right to post or enforce those signs, unless state law allows them to.

 

[NavyLCDR]

From that "shall not apply" paragraph, I would say that the "federal building" (Park HQ etc.) no longer has the legal right to post or enforce those signs, unless state law allows them to.

You might want to read this:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/271/349/597865/

before you decide to test your theory.

 

[Gryffydd]

(1st Cir. 2001)
1
The statute excepts law enforcement officers, military personnel, and those lawfully carrying weapons incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. 18 U.S.C. § 930(d). Murray does not fit any of the exceptions.

Funny, I wonder what all the court actually considers to be a lawful purpose of carrying a gun

 

[hermannr]

I would suspect the "federal building" in question has fedral court rooms in it...hence the metal detectors etc. I would also suspect the defendents reactions at the security check point did not help his case any.

Last time I was at the North Cascades National Park HQ in Sedro, I don't remember any security check point, or metal detectors...do you Lt?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Last time I was at the North Cascades National Park HQ in Sedro, I don't remember any security check point, or metal detectors...do you Lt?

I don't see a requirement for security check points or metal detectors in 18 USC 930... do you hermannr?

 

[hermannr]

Lt. I still read the law to say if it is not a federal court, it should not be a problem. Lawful purpose is a very loose term, not withstanding the appeals court in Mass.

I think they got around the "lawful" purpose with the other parts of the charges. If carrying because you are hunting is specific exemption, self protection should be a lawful purpose too.

 

[Paladin38-40]

Test, anyone?

This one is similar to the US Post Office debate. You may or may not beat the rap, but certainly will not beat the ride. If someone has the time and money to challenge the law, go for it. Until the issue goes through the court system the debate will continue unresolved.

 

[Jake Tyler]

I cant quote or link to this but Padre Island Natl Seashore (Park) has now apparently decided to allow firearms by CHL holders. Again this was posted on some fishing website dont take my word for it.

 

[NavyLCDR]

ALL National Parks allow firearms to be carried in accordance with the laws of the state in which the National Park Land is located. It's really simple. When you enter the gates of the National Park from outside the park, NOTHING CHANGES!

Any building which is regularly staffed by NPS employees is considered a Federal Facility, firearms are prohibited in such buildings by 18 USC 930 and such buildings are required to be posted with signs; and again, it doesn't matter if the building is inside the National Park or not, because there is NOTHING DIFFERENT inside a National Park than outside!

Of course firearms are allowed to be carried inside Padre Island National Searshore by CHL holders. That's because Texas allows firearms to be carried by CHL holders and NOTHING changes inside the National Park! It really, really, is not that difficult.

http://www.nps.gov/pais/planyourvisit/yoursafety.htm

Firearms

As of February 22, 2010, a new federal law allows people who can legally possess firearms under applicable federal, state, and local laws, to legally possess firearms in this park. It is the responsibility of visitors to understand and comply with all applicable state, local, and federal firearms laws before entering this park.

Every single National Park is going to be exactly the same.

 

[brickeyee]

self protection should be a lawful purpose too.

You are invited to be the test case.

I hope you have a DEEP wallet.