Amendment Approved Allowing Guns in Nat'l Parks

[Matthew Carberry]

Interesting. This could possibly mean I can carry at work. Discreetly, of course. Something small and slim in an ankle holster under my pants leg.

Until, of course, the upper echelons of NPS hand down the edict that employees shall not carry.

Check your employee manual to see if it is already against policy.  If not, carry and keep quiet about it. 

[Matthew Carberry]

I am disgusted as anyone by the current state of the Republican Party, but I am not so naive as to believe it would be "good riddence" if they incur additional losses in the next election.  Having at least two viable parties is very important, even if there are more similarities than differences.  The only thing that saves us from a truly oppressive federal government is the gridlock provided when two parties clash for power.

Again, I'm talking about individuals, not parties.

Individual Dems can better match a persons overall beliefs than Repubs in some cases.  The balance of power should be between ideas, not party affiliation.

That's why you look at their whole record, not just the letter after their name.

[castle key]

The carrying of firearms in National Parks HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED as of this writing.

Simply put, the President has not yet signed the legislation. As such, firearms are still not allowed.

Note well.

This bill will allow the carrying of concealed firearms pursuant to local statute. IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR OPEN CARRY.

Firearms will not be allowed in "Federal Facilities" which is generally defined as a building where federal employees routinely work. This could get interesting as it could easily include such things as Ranger Stations, but does it include rest rooms, or how about concessionaire run lodging facilities in National Parks?

Regarding NPS employees carrying firearms concealed pursuant to the local statutes, likely this would be precluded, as the NPS employee would likely enter a "Federal Facility" in the course of his or her duties.

[makattak]

The carrying of firearms in National Parks HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED as of this writing.

Simply put, the President has not yet signed the legislation. As such, firearms are still not allowed.

Note well.

This bill will allow the carrying of concealed firearms pursuant to local statute. IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR OPEN CARRY.

Firearms will not be allowed in "Federal Facilities" which is generally defined as a building where federal employees routinely work. This could get interesting as it could easily include such things as Ranger Stations, but does it include rest rooms, or how about concessionaire run lodging facilities in National Parks?

Regarding NPS employees carrying firearms concealed pursuant to the local statutes, likely this would be precluded, as the NPS employee would likely enter a "Federal Facility" in the course of his or her duties.

It also doesn't take effect for nine months even after the president signs it.

[charby]

It also doesn't take effect for nine months even after the president signs it.

So much for carrying at Glacier this summer. I wanted to carry in Yellowstone but currently Wyoming doesn't recognize an Iowa CCW.

[vaskidmark]

This bill will allow the carrying of concealed firearms pursuant to local statute. IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR OPEN CARRY.

Castle Key -

Where did you get that info.  My reading of the bill's amendment is that it allows carry pas per the state law where the NPS/NWR is located; if state law allows OC then OC in NPS/NWR is OK.  How do you see it as different?

stay safe.

skidmark

[Ben]

This open carry part is confusing. Is it open carry for the state, or open carry in wilderness areas? Here in CA we can open carry in most all National Forests, but I don't think any State Parks allow it. And I think this is where Gunsmith is coming from talking about carrying in Yosemite. If we can open carry in a National Forest here, can we now open carry in a National Park?

[castle key]

Castle Key -

Where did you get that info.  My reading of the bill's amendment is that it allows carry pas per the state law where the NPS/NWR is located; if state law allows OC then OC in NPS/NWR is OK.  How do you see it as different?

stay safe.

skidmark

This information is from a Park Service memorandum disseminated to regional directors and superintendants.

[makattak]

This information is from a Park Service memorandum disseminated to regional directors and superintendants.

Hmmm... that might lead to interesting lawsuits given how the bill is written.

[Boomhauer]

Ah, well, no carry for me then.

I'll try and snag a copy of that memo if I can. It'll probably be passed around sooner or later at work and directed to be posted on the bulletin boards.

[gunsmith]

This information is from a Park Service memorandum disseminated to regional directors and superintendants.

Just because some Elmer Fudd at NPS HQ says that, doesn't mean its a legally binding rule.
Also the memorandum, was it written for the new law or the old one signed by Bush 43?

The Bush admin law is written differently then the new one, you wouldn't happen to have a link to this memo, would you?

[gunsmith]

Just because some Elmer Fudd at NPS HQ says that, doesn't mean its a legally binding rule.
Also the memorandum, was it written for the new law or the old one signed by Bush 43?

The Bush admin law is written differently then the new one, you wouldn't happen to have a link to this memo, would you?

Mr. Coburn and his allies in both parties say the provision is less about guns than it is states’ rights. Under the proposal, people who are otherwise authorized under state law to have firearms would be entitled to have them in national parks and wildlife refuges unless a state law prohibited it. Currently, firearms must be unloaded and secured on those national lands, creating what backers of the bill say is a situation where someone passing through a park with a firearm can be charged with a violation.

Under the proposal, people who are otherwise authorized under state law to have firearms would be entitled to have them in national parks and wildlife refuges unless a state law prohibited it

CA law allows open loaded carry in NF/BLM wilderness area's hence, Yosemite would have to as well.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yeah, I would think it depends on local state law.  If open carry is legal in the state, then open carry is legal in parks in the state.

[lone_gunman]

The balance of power should be between ideas, not party affiliation.

While I agree with that in theory, it does not do much good in practice.  Party affiliation is very important.  The majority party controls committee chairmanships, and therefore controls what agend will be brought forward.

The worst situation we have for freedom is when one party (Rep or Dem) control all facets of government.

[RevDisk]

While I agree with that in theory, it does not do much good in practice.  Party affiliation is very important.  The majority party controls committee chairmanships, and therefore controls what agend will be brought forward.

Hrm, somewhat true.  But, notice the current prevailing attitude amongst the fed Dems towards the 2A?  They may not love the 2A, but they're not poking at it.   The Dems were the first ones the meaningfully respond to the AG's AWB idea, pretty universally rejecting it.  Dems passed this measure.   It's not perfect, but so far, we've done ok   

We have the stick part down pretty decent.  2A groups are pretty organized and 2A individuals don't have a problem swarming whoever threatens us.  The amazing thing about Zumbo was how first the entire thing went down.  Fear is good.  Very good.  But you have to offer a carrot occasionally if you are thinking long term.  That means tossing a couple of bucks or votes to pro 2A dems.

If you remain solely loyal to Repubs, they will (as they have) give you the HK treatment.   If you want to be effective and you want politicians to stay bought, you want bribe the politcians based on actual results. 

The worst situation we have for freedom is when one party (Rep or Dem) control all facets of government.

Absolutely!

[CNYCacher]

No, the worst situation is when one type of people control both parties, and the electorate is too concerned with identifying with one party or the other to bother actually caring about what is going on.

[gunsmith]

Good news ( I hope ) Calguns.net  folks are pretty sure open loaded carry in states like California, due to State law.
I can't wait, I've never been to yosemite and have always wanted to go, not being able to carry has made me put it off.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186272&page=8

[lone_gunman]

So is everyone happy that we never gavet the President the power of the line item veto?
 
The Republicans were big fans of the line item veto when Reagan was in office and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.

[Jamisjockey]

So is everyone happy that we never gavet the President the power of the line item veto?
 
The Republicans were big fans of the line item veto when Reagan was in office and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.

I'm still a fan.  An item in a bill should be able to stand on its own.  Amendments and riders should be outlawed.  Anything to put a brakes on the runaway pork, usually added into bills as line items.

[lone_gunman]

Amendments and riders should be outlawed.

Amendments are often part of  compromises so that a bill can be passed.  If you outlaw amendments, you weaken the minority party.

[Ben]

Good news ( I hope ) Calguns.net  folks are pretty sure open loaded carry in states like California, due to State law.

Not to turn this into a Calif carry thread (though I think the questions can apply to other states with crappy, ambiguous laws), but Gunsmith, I followed your link and got confused. The Calguns thread had a link to: http://californiaopencarry.org/faq.html

That site states that LOADED open carry is legal in National Forests, and UNLOADED open carry is NOT allowed in State Parks. I've never gotten more than a "hey how's it going" wave from uniformed employees when I've open carried loaded in National Forests here.

EDIT: Oops, read it wrong, unloaded carry is NOT allowed in State Parks. Modified my post.

So will the National Parks follow the State Park or National Forest guidelines? It sounds like they could follow either one. And when I read this from Parks Association Spokesmouth Bryan Faehner, I get the impression the Parks here will attempt to follow the most restrictive interpretation. There's some National Parks here, like Death Valley, where I'd be much less worried about carrying. I can see Yosemite rangers spending a lot of time stopping and questioning anyone who carries, and doing stuff like running firearm serial numbers just to hassle anyone with a firearm.

Spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the Interior Department will follow Congress' directive and put the new firearms law into effect in late February 2010.

Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, praised the Interior Department's decision.

"We are pleased, because that provides more time that our parks will remain safe and free from shotguns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons," Faehner said.

"We hope that the American public and members of Congress will have more time to understand the far-reaching repercussions of this outrageous and disturbing law that has nothing to do with credit cards and will only put park visitors at risk," Faehner said.

Until February, rules adopted during the administration of President Ronald Reagan will remain in place. They severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring that they be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.

"As Interior prepares to implement the new law, the department will work to understand and interpret its implications for our national parks and wildlife refuges, with public safety and the safety of our employees as our foremost consideration," Barkoff said. "For the time being, the current Reagan administration regulations governing possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges remain in place."

[Jamisjockey]

Amendments are often part of  compromises so that a bill can be passed.  If you outlaw amendments, you weaken the minority party.

If the bill sucks that badly that the only way to get it to pass is to attach pork....trash it, rewrite it, try again.  That, too, is part of compromise. 
Your thinking is sound in theory, but in practice its just a cash-pig for the idiots inside the beltway.

[Matthew Carberry]

Ben,

Here's my opinion based on watching multiple seasons of Boston Legal. 

Looking at the California statute, it appears the only reason carry in National Parks is banned is due to Federal restrictions, the state references the CFR, not any state code I can find.

Since the Fed. codes are gone (yes, yes, picky people... in 9 months) there doesn't seem to be anything remaining in the law that applies.

After all, it explicitly says National Parks and BLM lands are okay and they are also Federal land.  "State park" rules aren't applicable.

[vaskidmark]

From The Firearms Coalition: …Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is pledging to attach his National Park gun ban repeal amendment to every bill that comes through the Senate until the repeal is enacted.  This after President Obama and the Interior Department declared that the repeal passed and signed into law this week will not go into effect for another 9 months.  The delay is based on the fact that the underlying bill, a credit card reform measure, has a delay built into it to allow credit card companies to adapt to the new rules.  The National Park Service need no such adjustment period, particularly since a similar regulation was adopted last year and then set aside by a federal judge.  It is clear that the Obama administration is forcing the delay out of spite toward gunowners and the "gun lobby."  The Coburn amendment is actually a substantial improvement over the regulatory reform adopted by the Bush administration late last year.  Under the Bush administration regulations only licensed concealed weapons were permitted in the parks, but under the Coburn amendment National Parks and Wildlife Refuges fall under the laws of the states in which they are located just as Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands have done for decades…

If at first you can't get it right, try, try again.  A "new" amendment will probably also have to nullify the one currently pending the implementation delay, or clarify that the amendment is to go into effect immediately.  In either case, you end up with legislation scattered across the USC.  (I know that's nothing new - I'm just upset that it happens.)

stay safe.

skidmark

[Matthew Carberry]

20/20 hindsight.  They should have written in an "effective by" date of July 4th to go with the "Freedom" theme.

Give Interior a sop of a month and a half to get used to it.

But February does let it drop off the radar and sneak in during a lull in vacations and such.  By the time the next Spring/Summer camping season started it will have been in place for a while without fanfare.