New National Parks Rules and Are Park Buildings Federal Buildings?

[Sam1911]

After a bit of searching I was able to find the exact text of the NPS amendment to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. And here it is!

SEC. 512. Protecting Americans from violent crime.

(a) Congressional findings.—

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
(2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that “except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net”.
(3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not “possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges” of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(4) The regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals while at units of—

(A) the National Park System; and
(B) the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(5) The existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
(6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009—

(A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and
(B) the new regulations—

(i) are under review by the administration; and
(ii) may be altered.

(7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.

(b) Protecting the right of individuals To bear arms in units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.—

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.

Soooooo... one reading of that seems to indicate that the DOI may not in any way limit the 2nd A. rights of a citizen to any extent beyond what the state where that park is located already does. Period.

However, the DOI previously had very specifically called out "Federal Buildings" as still off limits. From the original DOI rule change press release last April:

...The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. ... Existing regulations regarding the carrying of firearms remain otherwise unchanged, particularly limitations on poaching and target practice and prohibitions on carrying firearms in federal buildings

Which may be simply because the Secretary does not have the authority to allow weapons in Federal Buildings whether he wants to or not, so his ruling reversing the no-weapons policy in Parks could have no bearing on the legality of doing so in the buildings on that property.

The only other way I can read this is for the Act to declare park buildings to not be "federal buildings" -- so the host state's rules apply within them. It doesn't specifically say that, either.

So, after a lot of reading, I'm still confused.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

And what about Open Carry?

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.

This section is interesting in and of itself, as I believe the DOI's rule change of last year (April?) specifically allowed "Concealed Carry" -- leaving Open Carry off limits regardless of the host state's position on that. The text of this Act seems to wash that away. Am I correct?

-Sam

 

[TexasRifleman]

However, the DOI previously had very specifically called out "Federal Buildings" as still off limits. Which may be simply because the Secretary does not have the authority to allow weapons in Federal Buildings whether he wants to or not, so his ruling reversing the no-weapons policy in Parks could have no bearing on the legality of doing so in the buildings on that property.

The law doesn't say that all Federal Buildings are off limits for carrying a gun, at least in general.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000930----000-.html

Unless a specific prohibited building like Post Office, Courthouse, etc the law says:

(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.

And the exception list says:

(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.

Not a lawyer yadda yadda but seems to me if a law specifically states it's a "lawful purpose" to carry a concealed handgun onto National Park property then it's a lawful purpose to enter a building in that park to pee or buy a bag of ice.

I cannot find a specific National Parks ruling that counters that. Anyone have one?

 

[Sam1911]

I'm sorry TR, I edited my first post while you were responding. I added the SOI's previous statement that carrying if Federal Buildings on the property was still off-limits.

And, this is an offshoot thread from the current one on PA law which has exactly the same "other lawful purposes" wording regarding carrying weapons in schools. Many have said that "lawful purposes" include self-defense weapon carrying by licensed individuals, so carrying at a school is legal. However a man was very recently arrested for specifically that offense less than a year ago. He was licensed to carry, was carrying concealed at a local high school football game, someone identified his gun, called the police, and he was arrested, specifically for carrying a weapon on school grounds. I've not been able to find a follow-up to the case, so I don't know if the arrest was upheld and he was convicted or not.

Now, I'm not arguing that PA law is or should be applicable anywhere else. I'm just using that to illustrate how unhelpful that exact language may be to your defense.

-Sam

 

[TexasRifleman]

. I added the SOI's previous statement that carrying if Federal Buildings on the property was still off-limits.

Yeah, that's the thing. His statement doesn't say that it's illegal in a building, he just says the new law leaves the current prohibitions unchanged

The actual US Code says it's legal for "lawful purposes" so it seems like carrying in a building inside a NP would be a lawful purpose.

I can't find anything that is contrary to that. I've been wondering about this myself but I can't find anything that says specifically that Federal buildings inside a National Park are off limits.

 

[travellingJeff]

Good post Sam and TR...

I believe, from my reading, that all DOI (Thus, NPS and various other) lands will be required to adhere to the laws of the state/county in which they reside.

I hope that the NRA or some attorney's group will put out a pamphlet or instructional video covering this in detail sometime before the February "dead" line.

 

[Sam1911]

I believe, from my reading, that all DOI (Thus, NPS and various other) lands will be required to adhere to the laws of the state/county in which they reside.

That is the reading I fervently HOPE they do adopt.

I hope that the NRA or some attorney's group will put out a pamphlet or instructional video covering this in detail sometime before the February "dead" line.

That would be very helpful! Especially as the original wording of the DOI rule change had a couple other vague points.

IIRC, certain "national icon" sites would remain off-limits, but there wasn't a definition of a "national icon." Which lead to lots of speculation: Statue of Liberty?, Independence Hall?, Mt. Rushmore? Who knows where else? Between that and the "federal buildings" mention, it seemed like there would be plenty of opportunities for law-abiding folks to screw up, and get screwed up.

It would be good to have a clear and concise explanation of how, exactly, it will be enforced.

-Sam

 

[travellingJeff]

And which agencies or specific lands are exempt. I can't see the NPS in Grand Teton allowing backcountry hikers with slung, loaded long-rifles, though it's acceptable in Teton County.

Same in the Montana NP's, Colorado NP's and Idaho, I'm sure.

 

[content]

Hello friends and neighbors/// Does this mean no open carry or no carry period in the Great Smokies National Forest, or just the National Park areas? Will I need ccw to carry now while hikeing? I usually have handgun in nylon bag ,hidden but handy, sort of across my chest. Long strap hangs bag from pack frame. Keep binocs/ camera maps in one pocket, flash light and 4" pistol in other pocket. I want to obey laws but want protection as well.... great thread .. content

 

[jmr40]

The law takes effect on Feb. 22, 2010. On that date you can carry legally in a national park if you have a carry permit valid in the state where the NP is located. You must follow all laws in the NP just as anywhere else in that state.

 

[Sam1911]

I hear you Jeff. So much of the NPS's original rulings seemed to be merely anti-poaching rules applied with way too broad a brush. For them to now have to allow anyone who would be legal to do so in the host state to openly carry whatever firearms would be legal outside the park's boundaries, is going to be a bitter pill for them to swallow.

If this is indeed the case, I expect to hear a lot of crying that there is no way to enforce anti-poaching laws. Which is, of course, facetious, as many states approve O.C. for all legal arms without creating undue difficulty in enforcing the game laws.

Who knows, maybe they'll be forced to prosecute folks for their actions rather than for their possessions.

But that's probably asking too much!

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Hello friends and neighbors/// Does this mean no open carry or no carry period in the Great Smokies National Forest, or just the National Park areas? Will I need ccw to carry now while hikeing? I usually have handgun in nylon bag ,hidden but handy, sort of across my chest. Long strap hangs bag from pack frame. Keep binocs/ camera maps in one pocket, flash light and 4" pistol in other pocket. I want to obey laws but want protection as well.... great thread .. content

Agree with jmr40.

Up to this point, carry in National Parks was strictly forbidden. When the new law takes effect, carry in National Parks will be governed by whatever laws are in effect in the state where the National Park is located.

National Forests have, I believe, always been handled this way. Concealed carry without a permit is not legally o.k. in most states.

It sounds like you do need a CCW permit or license to carry the way you describe, and have always needed one.

-Sam

 

[gc70]

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

While licensed concealed carry could be argued to be a lawful purpose, I would rather not be the person whose lawyer was making that argument in court. The law prohibiting guns in federal buildings has been around for about 20 years and I have not heard of any cases in which licensed concealed carry was ruled a lawful purpose.

Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility

Since the law requires signs to be posted, we will find out in February.

 

[content]

Sam1911 // Thanks very much for that info. .. Old bad info, I never checked on. Guess I'll ask DNR when I get license next week just to be safe// I hope this thread stays up for a bit very interesting to me. As someone else stated I really don't want to explain to every hiker I see... content

 

[NavyLCDR]

The law takes effect on Feb. 22, 2010. On that date you can carry legally in a national park if you have a carry permit valid in the state where the NP is located. You must follow all laws in the NP just as anywhere else in that state.

The bolded part above, jmr40, is not necessarily true. A permit may not be required. It's not required to carry concealed in Vermont or Alaska. Also a permit is not required to open carry in WA, NM, VA, MT, WY and quite a few other states. In those cases, a permit would not be required to carry in the National Park in those states.

 

[Sam1911]

NavyLT,

Also a permit is not required to open carry in WA, NM, VA, MT, WY and quite a few other states. In those cases, a permit would not be required to carry in the National Park in those states.

This seems to be what the amendement to the CC Reform Act would say -- allow whatever forms of carry are acceptable in the host state.

However, the previous DOI ruling only allowed "Concealed" carry, correct?

I'd like to make sure that this new Act superceeds the previous DOI ruling completely. Or does it, in effect, simply remove the injunction against that ruling allowing it to stand as written in April of last year?

Thanks!

-Sam

 

[NavyLCDR]

Sam1911,

The new CC Reform Amendment completely does away with any restrictions of firearms possession enacted by the DOI. It takes away the authority of the DOI to regulate firearms possession completely.

 

[Sam1911]

THAT's what I wanted to hear! Thank you!

How do you view the "federal buildings" issue? Will the "lawful purposes" clause cover CCW in a NPS muesum, park office, etc?

Thanks!

-Sam

 

[TexasRifleman]

How do you view the "federal buildings" issue? Will the "lawful purposes" clause cover CCW in a NPS muesum, park office, etc?

The problem with this one is that there really hasn't been a test case.

So, it may sound perfectly logical to us but a jury might not agree.

As far as I know no one has ever been charged solely with this, they were charged with this along with some other crime.

Until someone gets charged with it, and beats it, it's an iffy proposition.

But, since the law requires signs, we'll have to wait til 2010 and see if NPS puts the signs up in all the buildings.

And to say that you can never ever take a gun into a Federal building is of course completely false, since you may take firearms into the Post Office to ship them.

If firearms in Federal buildings was 100% prohibited FFL's wouldn't be able to mail guns. FFL's shipping firearms is a "lawful purpose".

Main problem is of course that no one wants to be the test case.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I agree with what TexasRifleman said completely, with one clarification.

The "Federal buildings" prohibition is in 18 USC 930 and includes any building in which a federal employee regularly performs their duties. However, 18 USC 930 DOES NOT apply to the post office.

The prohibition on firearms on postal property is contained in 39 CFR 232.1 and is completely separate from 18 USC 930.

 

[Sam1911]

Thank you! Very good to hear!

-Sam

 

[TexasRifleman]

The "Federal buildings" prohibition is in 18 USC 930 and includes any building in which a federal employee regularly performs their duties. However, 18 USC 930 DOES NOT apply to the post office.

The prohibition on firearms on postal property is contained in 39 CFR 232.1 and is completely separate from 18 USC 930.

It does now, you are correct. 232.1 hasn't always been there and when it wasnt, the "other lawful purposes" clause was thought by many to include CCW.

There was a time, I can't remember how long ago (5-6 years maybe?) where the prohibition on firearms in the Post Office was not codified in the CFR. 232.1 didn't exist then.

At that time there were several pro 2A legal experts that claimed that carry in a Post Office was legal because of the "lawful purposes" thing.

Once the Postmaster added the rules to postal regs (232.1) that argument went out the window. Now, that said, the arguments for "lawful purposes" still make sense they just can't be applied to Post Offices but they should apply to what we're talking about here.

An interesting read on the new regs can be found at Buckeye's forum. They have looked into it in pretty good detail I think. Of course they come to the conclusion that Post Offices are off limits but they make the same "lawful purposes" argument we're talking about here. I think it is a pretty strong argument but again, you'd have to be crazy to want to be the test case

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Concealed-carry-in-a-post-office-may-lead-to-rude-awakening

The "once upon a time" legal analysis was here:

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html

As that shows, things changed once the post office added 232.1. Seems like that was 2002 but I can't remember for sure.

It's interesting. The Buckeye article argues that since the Postal Regulations have their own rules that USC doesn't apply anymore. That makes sense.

Well if that's the case, and the DoI has rules saying carry is OK in a National Park, does the same thing apply? Do the buildings in a National Park now fall under the DoI regs rather than the USC? Who knows....

I guess my point in all this is, when the Post Office changed their rules in 200x a lot of people asked "why?". If the USC didn't include concealed carry why worry about it?

By the Post Office changing their rules it was seen by some as an admission that the "other lawful purposes" would cover concealed carriers and the Postmaster's legal office didn't want to allow that so they added a specific exclusion just in case.

Gives hope to the idea that "lawful purposes" really means a lawful purpose like CCW. But it's just hypothetical I guess.

 

[SFilpansick]

Without trying to get too far from the OP, for a few years here in MI the post offices all had the "no weapons allowed" signs on the doors, and then about a year ago, the signs all disappeared.

I was told (can't even recall the source) that the USPS is no longer run by the Federal gov't; that it's a private entity now. Has anybody heard anything about this?
Any other ideas as to why the "no weapons" signs went away?

 

[ArmedBear]

Any other ideas as to why the "no weapons" signs went away?

Maybe they were found to be false advertisement?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Any other ideas as to why the "no weapons" signs went away?

Well, like NavyLT posted, the US Code requires those signs. When the Post Office put their own rule 232.1 in place there was no longer a requirement for the signs.
It's still a crime but it's in the Postal regulations, not the US Code.

The new code excludes the "lawful purposes" and replaces it with "official".
It also no longer says "possess" firearms, it says "carry".

Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may
carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either
openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for
official purposes.

Sending or receiving mail is "official" business I guess which is why FFL's can still mail guns at the post office and I suppose a gun packed in a box for mailing is not being "carried".

As regards the sign, this new regulation doesn't require a "no guns" sign, instead the whole 232.1 is supposed to be posted:

Applicability. This section applies to all real property under
the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies,
and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall
be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property.

All just guesses on my part. The whole thing is enough to give a headache.