National Parks
- Thread starter waynesan
- Start date
- Status
There is absolutely no danger in national parks. They are protected by the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt and the last thing you need to worry about is some bobcat or serial killer maiming you or your wife... the big stick will get them for you.
And national parks... no. State parks... some minor changes... in a few places.
And national parks... no. State parks... some minor changes... in a few places.
Car Knocker
Member
No open carry or loaded firearms in vehicle. Some NPs have an exception for hunting.
oldfart
Member
There may be a misunderstanding here: National Parks= no guns - ever, for any reason! National Forests= local rules apply. Hunting is usually allowed in National Forests so guns would be permitted. Open carry, CCW and similar issues would be subject to the local jurisdiction.
Dain Bramage
Member
Not National Parks, but my latest NRA mag had a blurb about Gov. Jeb Bush signing a law allowing CCW in Florida state parks.
Car Knocker
Member
I believe hunting is allowed in portions of some of the Alaskan National Parks.
lacoochee
Member
Florida just passed legislation regarding CCW in Parks
HB 1029 GOES TO GOVERNOR BUSH FOR SIGNATURE
H 1029 - Right to Carry Guns in National Forests and State Parks - was sent to Governor Bush's office on June 5 and signed.
It will go into affect in October.
On a similar note, permit holders will soon be able to carry concealed in Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), effective July 1 due to an administrative rule change by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC).
And one last question, I have asked this in many places but never been able to get an answer what is the penalty for carrying a firearm concealed or otherwise in a National Park? I ask, because there are many places that when you are hiking it would be easy to be on Nat'l Park land without knowing it. This is very true especially here in Florida where a lot of our parks are co-located to preserve as much wilderness in large tracts as possible.
HB 1029 GOES TO GOVERNOR BUSH FOR SIGNATURE
H 1029 - Right to Carry Guns in National Forests and State Parks - was sent to Governor Bush's office on June 5 and signed.
It will go into affect in October.
On a similar note, permit holders will soon be able to carry concealed in Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), effective July 1 due to an administrative rule change by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC).
And one last question, I have asked this in many places but never been able to get an answer what is the penalty for carrying a firearm concealed or otherwise in a National Park? I ask, because there are many places that when you are hiking it would be easy to be on Nat'l Park land without knowing it. This is very true especially here in Florida where a lot of our parks are co-located to preserve as much wilderness in large tracts as possible.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Not every federal law has to be in the Constitution. If there could be no other federal laws than the Constitution, then there would be no reason to have created Congress.
A better question would have been: what part of the Constitution is violated by National Parks? If the answer is none, then the NPS is constitutional.
A better question would have been: what part of the Constitution is violated by National Parks? If the answer is none, then the NPS is constitutional.
Any word on any new efforts?
Does anyone know of any efforts being made in Congress or with the Department of the Interior? I know the gun rights group out of Virginia started a drive last year but I haven't heard any more about how it turned out. I sure wish something could be done before the next election. I'm afraid our chances for change may diminish drasticly after that.
Does anyone know of any efforts being made in Congress or with the Department of the Interior? I know the gun rights group out of Virginia started a drive last year but I haven't heard any more about how it turned out. I sure wish something could be done before the next election. I'm afraid our chances for change may diminish drasticly after that.
Harve Curry
Member
wdlsguy : Quote:
National Parks= no guns - ever, for any reason!
It's bad, but it isn't quite that bad:
Quote:
Traps, nets and unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use.
[36 CFR 2.4(a)(3)]
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...36cfr2_05.html
_______________________________________________________________
So are CFR's the same as laws? How could they be?
What is the penalty for violating ? I couldn't find it.
National Parks= no guns - ever, for any reason!
It's bad, but it isn't quite that bad:
Quote:
Traps, nets and unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use.
[36 CFR 2.4(a)(3)]
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...36cfr2_05.html
_______________________________________________________________
So are CFR's the same as laws? How could they be?
What is the penalty for violating ? I couldn't find it.
Malum Prohibitum
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 572
Lone Gunman
Lone Gunman, yes it does! Well, the grant of authority to make a law must be in the Constitution. While I love having federal parks, and I am not going to argue their constitutionality here, the structure of the Constitution demands that every federal law be passed pursuant to a power granted in the Constitution. The powers of Congress are enumerated in Article I, section VIII. If it is not listed there, then Congress cannot do it.
In addition, please read the Tenth Amendment. In plain English, it says that the powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, are for the states or the people (what, "nor prohibited by it?" But I thought the Bill of Rights was only a limit on Congress and not the states !
) .
Anyway, after you read those two things, then go check out some of the Commerce Clause gun cases. This is the whole issue in those cases. You see, if there is not an enumerated power granting Congress the ability to pass gun control, then they cannot do it (regardless of the Second Amendment). Congress cannot simply pass any law it wants without authorization in the Constitution. So, Congress has passed gun laws under the Commerce Clause. Read the Commerce Clause and you will see how ridiculous this is, but even Scalia signed on to the notion that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to do pretty much what it wants (Raich - medical marijuana case - Justice Thomas got it right in his dissent).
So, the law itself does not have to be in the Constitution, but the grant of power to make the law must be in the Constitution.
Lone Gunman, yes it does! Well, the grant of authority to make a law must be in the Constitution. While I love having federal parks, and I am not going to argue their constitutionality here, the structure of the Constitution demands that every federal law be passed pursuant to a power granted in the Constitution. The powers of Congress are enumerated in Article I, section VIII. If it is not listed there, then Congress cannot do it.
In addition, please read the Tenth Amendment. In plain English, it says that the powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, are for the states or the people (what, "nor prohibited by it?" But I thought the Bill of Rights was only a limit on Congress and not the states !
) .Anyway, after you read those two things, then go check out some of the Commerce Clause gun cases. This is the whole issue in those cases. You see, if there is not an enumerated power granting Congress the ability to pass gun control, then they cannot do it (regardless of the Second Amendment). Congress cannot simply pass any law it wants without authorization in the Constitution. So, Congress has passed gun laws under the Commerce Clause. Read the Commerce Clause and you will see how ridiculous this is, but even Scalia signed on to the notion that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to do pretty much what it wants (Raich - medical marijuana case - Justice Thomas got it right in his dissent).
So, the law itself does not have to be in the Constitution, but the grant of power to make the law must be in the Constitution.
CFRs are regulations implementing laws.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/36cfr1_05.html
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Whether or not any gun can be possessed or used for whatever purpose is a variable that depends on the legislation which created a particular national park.
Some legislation precludes hunting, for instance. Other legislation makes no mention of hunting or self-defense.
In many cases, then, a ban is a function of the views of past administrators who've never read the originating legislation.
It appears to me that two laws would solve the problem (as we view national park regulations as a problem): One would be a generic law authorizing CHLs to be valid in parks. The other would speak to hunting in those parks where it's physically feasible and biologically appropriate.
Art
Some legislation precludes hunting, for instance. Other legislation makes no mention of hunting or self-defense.
In many cases, then, a ban is a function of the views of past administrators who've never read the originating legislation.
It appears to me that two laws would solve the problem (as we view national park regulations as a problem): One would be a generic law authorizing CHLs to be valid in parks. The other would speak to hunting in those parks where it's physically feasible and biologically appropriate.
Art
Smurfslayer
Member
Call your Reps and Senators!
VCDL has a petition in to the DOI to amend the offending regulation. I keep a running tab on progress here: http://bighammer.net/timeline.html
Also linked in my signature. That petition is still alive and viable, but gun owner's need to get out from behind their keyboards and get on the phone to their federal delegation to push this through. It's not sexy, but it would remove one HELL of a gun free zone from the United States...
VCDL has a petition in to the DOI to amend the offending regulation. I keep a running tab on progress here: http://bighammer.net/timeline.html
Also linked in my signature. That petition is still alive and viable, but gun owner's need to get out from behind their keyboards and get on the phone to their federal delegation to push this through. It's not sexy, but it would remove one HELL of a gun free zone from the United States...
Malum Prohibitum
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 572
Smurfslayer, thanks for keeping the running tab, but you need to flip it over so the most recent is at the top.
stevelyn
Member
Yes it is. Specifically for residents of Anaktuvuk Pass which lies within the boundries of Gates of the Arctic NP. Residents living within and along the boundries of Kobuk Valley NP and Noatak Natl. Preserve.
Generally though the NPs are off limits to firearms. The ParkStaatsPolizei tend to get outta sorts when people carry guns onto His Majesty's realm.
I tend to stay away from such places.
Smurfslayer
Member
Thanks! I'll make you a deal. You get me .pdf copies of letters supporting the ban's repeal, I'll get to work on reorging the order of entries...
You first
Loaded weapons are banned in NP with one exception that I know of.
Kenai Fjords NP in Alaska.
http://www.nps.gov/kefj/planyourvisit/firearms.htm
"It is legal to possess a firearm anywhere in the park in accordance with all other applicable state and federal laws. This is different than the rule in most Lower 48 National Park areas, but is allowed here for protection from bears and other dangerous wildlife. Hunting is strictly prohibited within the park."
Kenai Fjords NP in Alaska.
http://www.nps.gov/kefj/planyourvisit/firearms.htm
"It is legal to possess a firearm anywhere in the park in accordance with all other applicable state and federal laws. This is different than the rule in most Lower 48 National Park areas, but is allowed here for protection from bears and other dangerous wildlife. Hunting is strictly prohibited within the park."
Loaded firearms can be had in National Parks for two reasons:
You are part of pack train and need a gun to put down injured llamas, alpacas, camels, horses, cattle, mules, donkeys, and other pack animals.
You get permission to cross NPS lands to access otherwise inaccessible lands that are open to hunting and trapping
You are part of pack train and need a gun to put down injured llamas, alpacas, camels, horses, cattle, mules, donkeys, and other pack animals.
You get permission to cross NPS lands to access otherwise inaccessible lands that are open to hunting and trapping
(d) The superintendent may issue a
permit to carry or possess a weapon,
trap or net under the following circumstances:
(1) When necessary to support research
activities conducted in accordance
with § 2.5.
(2) To carry firearms for persons in
charge of pack trains or saddle horses
for emergency use.
(3) For employees, agents or cooperating
officials in the performance of
their official duties.
(4) To provide access to otherwise inaccessible
lands or waters contiguous
to a park area when other means of access
are otherwise impracticable or impossible.
permit to carry or possess a weapon,
trap or net under the following circumstances:
(1) When necessary to support research
activities conducted in accordance
with § 2.5.
(2) To carry firearms for persons in
charge of pack trains or saddle horses
for emergency use.
(3) For employees, agents or cooperating
officials in the performance of
their official duties.
(4) To provide access to otherwise inaccessible
lands or waters contiguous
to a park area when other means of access
are otherwise impracticable or impossible.
- Status
