Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: National Park Question......

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stanwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,587

    National Park Question......

    We all know, or should know:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1a-7b
    (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.
    Now here's my question. In a state such as Missouri, where the state does not prohibit the open carry of firearms; but, by state law, grants authority to municipal governments to regulate open carry, does that mean that the municipal ordinances banning open carry would be applicable on NPS land located within the boundaries of that municipality?

    My opinion is that the municipal ordinances are not valid within the National Park, only the state laws. Consensus?

  2. #2
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    "(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." If it meant municipality then it might say municipality?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,560

    Question

    With the language about "not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing," it would seem that municipal ordinances, having the force of law, would be technically covered. However, the next part about "in compliance with the law of the state" would indicate that you are correct. However, since the two parts are joined with "and," I could see an Eric Holder-esque federal prosecutor causing mischief...

    However, I honestly wonder if there are any municipalities which contain NPS land within the city limits? Wouldn't they be prohibited from incorporating such federal land, and if the NP was founded after incorporation, wouldn't the municipal land be excluded from NPS jurisdiction? IANAL, yet, so I don't know...

    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stanwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,587
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    However, I honestly wonder if there are any municipalities which contain NPS land within the city limits? Wouldn't they be prohibited from incorporating such federal land, and if the NP was founded after incorporation, wouldn't the municipal land be excluded from NPS jurisdiction? IANAL, yet, so I don't know...
    http://www.nps.gov/jeff/planyourvisit/directions.htm

    "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is located in the heart of downtown St. Louis on the Mississippi River."

    This argument is going on in the Missouri forum, but I would like opinions from my fellow internet law experts here :-)
    Last edited by NavyLCDR; 03-19-2012 at 06:02 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    http://www.nps.gov/jeff/planyourvisit/directions.htm

    "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is located in the heart of downtown St. Louis on the Mississippi River."

    This argument is going on in the Missouri forum, but I would like opinions from my fellow internet law experts here :-)
    Hmmm...do you know if city police officers patrol the memorial, or only NPS?

    I guess I am thinking about NPS land within city limits as a sort of federal enclave where municipal code doesn't apply...

    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,209
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is located in the heart of downtown St. Louis on the Mississippi River."
    The nps.gov website for Jefferson National Expansion Memorial explicitly says that firearms are allowed.

    Also, the superindendent has to release closures, permits and other restrictions information which (dated 2/6/12) only lists firearms off limits in buildings (Page 15).

    I would believe that the NPS would have a lawyer verify these before release. Of course, they say nothing about open carry. I would like to believe that given the way the federal law is written that the local municipals code does not apply, but I am uncertain.

    Edit: Now that I think about this some more... I would say its dependent on if the NPS property is considered part of the local municipals jurisdiction, I don't know of any case law/federal law and my quick search did not yield anything. If NPS property is considered part of the local municipal then I would think, if the state gives authority to local municipals to regulate open carry, then any regulation would apply. If the NPS property is not considered part of the local municipal then that municipals code would not be relevant.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 03-19-2012 at 07:07 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,802
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    http://www.nps.gov/jeff/planyourvisit/directions.htm

    "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is located in the heart of downtown St. Louis on the Mississippi River."

    This argument is going on in the Missouri forum, but I would like opinions from my fellow internet law experts here :-)
    Does Missouri have an "Assimilative crimes" statute
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 03-20-2012 at 11:36 AM. Reason: spelling

  8. #8
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,024
    Why does any of this matter? This is the Washington State forum... Maybe if you have a question about Missouri you should be asking this in the Missouri forum.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Does Missouri have an "Assimilative crimes" saute?
    No, but I think they have a stir-fry.



    I'm sorry, I tried but I just couldn't help myself.

    (Lord, I apologize for that, and be with the pygmies down in New Guinea)

    :-)
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    The nps.gov website for Jefferson National Expansion Memorial explicitly says that firearms are allowed.

    Also, the superindendent has to release closures, permits and other restrictions information which (dated 2/6/12) only lists firearms off limits in buildings (Page 15).

    I would believe that the NPS would have a lawyer verify these before release. Of course, they say nothing about open carry. I would like to believe that given the way the federal law is written that the local municipals code does not apply, but I am uncertain.

    Edit: Now that I think about this some more... I would say its dependent on if the NPS property is considered part of the local municipals jurisdiction, I don't know of any case law/federal law and my quick search did not yield anything. If NPS property is considered part of the local municipal then I would think, if the state gives authority to local municipals to regulate open carry, then any regulation would apply. If the NPS property is not considered part of the local municipal then that municipals code would not be relevant.
    No time to research this but my gut agrees with your edit. The key concept is that the municipal ordinances are allowed under state law and would thus be part of the law of the state. Just a hunch for now.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Does Missouri have an "Assimilative crimes" saute?
    Thanks Trigger Dr, I was not aware of the Assimilative Crimes Act, (18 U.S.C. § 13).

    I have been reading an instance in MT where an individual had been charged by the state for Murder. On appeal, it was determined that MT state did not have jurisdiction because it occurred on Federal property. The case was picked up by the federal courts and the individual was acquitted because the feds did not have criminal jurisdiction to prosecute under state law and they were not able to prosecute the individual under any federal law.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 03-19-2012 at 08:53 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,209
    Quote Originally Posted by SpyderTattoo View Post
    Why does any of this matter? This is the Washington State forum... Maybe if you have a question about Missouri you should be asking this in the Missouri forum.
    While the original question was specific to NPS property in another state, I think the overall conversation is more wide spread. We have federally owned property in WA.

    The question as I read it is more in regards to if local municipals have jurisdiction on Federal property. The short answer appears to be they don't however its likely that the federal agents (rangers) have authority given by 18 U.S.C. § 13, to enforce state laws. The only remaining question I had was if the act covers local municipal codes as authorized by the state to enact those laws. The USC does include district, a municipal I believe is considered a district. So it would appear to me as if federal agents likely have authority to under this act but I am not sure of the likelihood of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by 18 U.S.C. § 13
    (a) Whoever within or upon any of the places now existing or
    hereafter reserved or acquired as provided in section 7 of this
    title, or on, above, or below any portion of the territorial sea of
    the United States not within the jurisdiction of any State,
    Commonwealth, territory, possession, or district
    is guilty of any
    act or omission which, although not made punishable by any
    enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted
    within the jurisdiction of the State, Territory, Possession, or
    District in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in
    force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a
    like offense and subject to a like punishment.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 03-19-2012 at 09:10 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    Edit: Now that I think about this some more... I would say its dependent on if the NPS property is considered part of the local municipals jurisdiction, I don't know of any case law/federal law and my quick search did not yield anything. If NPS property is considered part of the local municipal then I would think, if the state gives authority to local municipals to regulate open carry, then any regulation would apply. If the NPS property is not considered part of the local municipal then that municipals code would not be relevant.
    This would make sense, as the municipality is granted its powers and authority at the pleasure of the state, rather than possessing them as a right under a constitutional separation of powers.

    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    We all know, or should know:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1a-7b


    Now here's my question. In a state such as Missouri, where the state does not prohibit the open carry of firearms; but, by state law, grants authority to municipal governments to regulate open carry, does that mean that the municipal ordinances banning open carry would be applicable on NPS land located within the boundaries of that municipality?

    My opinion is that the municipal ordinances are not valid within the National Park, only the state laws. Consensus?

    A unique circumstance. But nonetheless if the state delegates the authority down then what's the problem? It's like a son saying , "Dad, can I have a cookie?" And the dad replies, "I don't care but ask your mom"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,802
    Quote Originally Posted by lammo View Post
    no, but i think they have a stir-fry.



    I'm sorry, i tried but i just couldn't help myself.

    (lord, i apologize for that, and be with the pygmies down in new guinea)

    :-)
    lmao

  16. #16
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    No, but I think they have a stir-fry.



    I'm sorry, I tried but I just couldn't help myself.

    (Lord, I apologize for that, and be with the pygmies down in New Guinea)

    :-)
    Name:  1093.gif
Views: 176
Size:  2.2 KBName:  th_disdain28.gif
Views: 175
Size:  13.5 KBName:  semarrefort.gif
Views: 175
Size:  1,010 Bytes

    Thread was worth the read just for that. And I lernt something too. Like stay the hell out of Missouri.

    Assimilative saute? Sounds like a Borg dish.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  17. #17
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Assimilative saute? Sounds like a Borg dish.
    Or something one makes when cleaning out a refrigerator
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bellingham, Wa. city of Subdued Excitement
    Posts
    2,354
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    However, since the two parts are joined with "and," I could see an Eric Holder-esque federal prosecutor causing mischief......
    Oh the vagaries of language. Ambiguity in the language of law is like a carrot and stick. You can see the carrot but you cannot really have it. This sounds like it could be a "roll of the dice" in court. Transparency, what a load of manure.
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Washi...66874943419858

    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  19. #19
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,343
    I would assume that the City Of St. Louis would have no juristiction in that NP because the title to that land would have been ceeded to the Nation Government before the Park could be put in place.

    MO state law allows OC, I cannot see how the NPS would go against that state law, the NP is no longer part of the City Of St. Louis in any way shape or form...just like an inholding in a national wilderness area. There are several patented mining claims in the Pasayten and Glacier Peak wilderness areas, the owners can (and do) use modern mining equipment and do land helicopters on those claims...they may be completely enclosed by the wilderness area, but they are exempt from wilderness area restrictions because they are private property.

    I would assume the NP inholding in the city would be treated the same way.
    Last edited by hermannr; 03-20-2012 at 12:55 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    No, but I think they have a stir-fry.



    I'm sorry, I tried but I just couldn't help myself.

    (Lord, I apologize for that, and be with the pygmies down in New Guinea)

    :-)

    That's pretty funny right there.....
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •