Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: If this doesn't justify National Park carry I don't know what does...

  1. #1
    Regular Member Miss Black Rifle Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ronaoke, VA
    Posts
    52

    If this doesn't justify National Park carry I don't know what does...

    Hiker sexually assaulted and stabbed..Story Here.

    At least the NPS has decided that forest lands can be dangerous and the carrying of weapons has an unfortunate justification..If we can just get this right extended to NFS land now..

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    There are NFS restrictions?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Miss Black Rifle Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ronaoke, VA
    Posts
    52
    Yes, for some reason Dept of Agriculture National Forests defer to the laws of their relative state v.s having any standardized rules governing firearms. And it seems the majority of states do not allow open carry in National Forests. Virgina is where I live and oddly, you can OC in State Parks, State Forests and State Wildernesses but not in National Forests. Makes sense huh...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Miss Black Rifle Disease View Post
    Yes, for some reason Dept of Agriculture National Forests defer to the laws of their relative state v.s having any standardized rules governing firearms.
    This is far better than having to worry about crossing USFS boundaries without knowing it. Chances are good you know what state you're in while hiking, but even large national forests are full of holdouts and inclusions that are private property.

    And it seems the majority of states do not allow open carry in National Forests. Virgina is where I live and oddly, you can OC in State Parks, State Forests and State Wildernesses but not in National Forests. Makes sense huh...
    Cite? Virginia is the only state I'm aware of with this odd restriction. Even if there are some others, it's certainly not the majority of states.

    And by the way, NPS is the same as USFS: the rules for both are the same as the surrounding state (except for the federal law that applies to "federal facilities").
    Last edited by KBCraig; 06-13-2012 at 09:51 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Miss Black Rifle Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ronaoke, VA
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    This is far better than having to worry about crossing USFS boundaries without knowing it. Chances are good you know what state you're in while hiking, but even large national forests are full of holdouts and inclusions that are private property.


    Cite? Virginia is the only state I'm aware of with this odd restriction. Even if there are some others, it's certainly not the majority of states.

    And by the way, NPS is the same as USFS: the rules for both are the same as the surrounding state (except for the federal law that applies to "federal facilities").
    The same in what way? Could you clarify? The National Park Service, hence National Parks falls under the Department of the Interior. National Forests are managed by the National Forest Service which falls under the Department of Agriculture. Though both are considered federal lands they fall under completely different previews and are subject to different sets of regulation. I'm not seeing the correlation beyond persons being subjected to state laws in both types of area. Is that what you meant?

    As for the law: Here ya go!

    Game: In General.
    Hunting with dogs or possession of weapons in certain locations during closed season.

    Summary:

    The proposal is to (i) include crossbow in the list of weapons in subsections A, B, D, F, and H, (ii) remove the word gun and replace it with firearm throughout the subsections of the regulation, (iii) prohibit possession or transportation of a loaded firearm or loaded crossbow in or on any vehicle at any time on national forest and Department owned lands, (iv) add language to the definition of a loaded muzzleloading firearm to include a primer or battery, and (v) define a loaded crossbow.

    It's also backed up here on page 4 for Jefferson National Forest: NFS REGS

    There is a "big game" hunting season exception in the law, but according to more than one NFS Law Enforcement Ranger I spoke with...you better be hunting.
    Last edited by Miss Black Rifle Disease; 06-14-2012 at 12:06 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    You posted a Virginia wildlife regulation; your NFS Regs link is faulty.

    Until the NPS was forced to change via the Credit Card Reform Act of 2009, they banned all guns on all NPS properties that weren't "broken down, unloaded, and securely cased". Since that change was forced on them, they're exactly like USFS when it comes to guns.

    The USFS has always assimilated the laws of the surrounding state when it comes to firearms, with the exception of (usually) banning loaded firearms in campgrounds, and establishing special rules based on specific local conditions (like banning steel-core ammo in rocky areas where there is a high fire danger from sparks).

    Again, I ask for any cite to other states that ban carry in national forests. Even if there are some besides Virginia, it's far from a majority.
    Last edited by KBCraig; 06-14-2012 at 04:20 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Miss Black Rifle Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ronaoke, VA
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    You posted a Virginia wildlife regulation; your NFS Regs link is faulty.
    No it isn't..you just didn't read it so I'll post it again this time the specific Amendment vs. the summary:

    4VAC15-40-60. Game: In General. Hunting with dogs or possession of weapons in certain locations during closed season.

    A. Department-owned lands west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and national forest lands statewide. It shall be unlawful to have in possession a bow, crossbow, or a gun any firearm which is not unloaded and cased or dismantled on all national forest lands statewide and on department-owned lands and on other lands managed by the department under cooperative agreement located in counties west of the Blue Ridge Mountains except during the period when it is lawful to take bear, deer, grouse, pheasant, quail, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel, turkey, or waterfowl on these lands.
    Last edited by Miss Black Rifle Disease; 06-14-2012 at 12:54 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Miss Black Rifle Disease View Post
    No it isn't..you just didn't read it so I'll post it again this time the specific Amendment vs. the summary:

    4VAC15-40-60. Game: In General. Hunting with dogs or possession of weapons in certain locations during closed season.

    A. Department-owned lands west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and national forest lands statewide. It shall be unlawful to have in possession a bow, crossbow, or a gun any firearm which is not unloaded and cased or dismantled on all national forest lands statewide and on department-owned lands and on other lands managed by the department under cooperative agreement located in counties west of the Blue Ridge Mountains except during the period when it is lawful to take bear, deer, grouse, pheasant, quail, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel, turkey, or waterfowl on these lands.
    You have again cited the Virginia Administrative Code, but I believe KBCraig was asking for the USC(s) comparing OC of firearms in National Parks vs those governing National Forests. Of course, I could be wrong (as I have often been accused):
    16 USC Sec. 1a-7b 01/03/2012 (112-90)
    TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION

    CHAPTER 1 - NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES

    SUBCHAPTER I - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    Sec. 1a-7b. Protecting Americans from violent crime


    (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.


    -SOURCE-

    (Pub. L. 111-24, title V, Sec. 512, May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1764.)

    However, there is no mention of the National Forest Service, per se, but one would expect that - by extension - the same Congressional ruling would apply. Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 06-14-2012 at 02:02 PM.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  9. #9
    Regular Member Miss Black Rifle Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ronaoke, VA
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    You have again cited the Virginia Administrative Code, but I believe KBCraig was asking for the USC(s) comparing OC of firearms in National Parks vs those governing National Forests. Of course, I could be wrong (as I have often been accused):
    16 USC Sec. 1a-7b 01/03/2012 (112-90)
    TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION

    CHAPTER 1 - NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES

    SUBCHAPTER I - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    Sec. 1a-7b. Protecting Americans from violent crime


    (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.


    -SOURCE-

    (Pub. L. 111-24, title V, Sec. 512, May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1764.)

    However, there is no mention of the National Forest Service, per se, but one would expect that - by extension - the same Congressional ruling would apply. Pax...
    I never disagreed with the National Park Service rules as you cited as the Credit Card reform act is pretty clear on this count. He was asking for a cite to a law concerning OC in National Forests. They are two different animals. A National Forest is not the same thing as National Park. They share some legal traits but not all. Both areas are subject to Federal and State laws but both are treated as separate entities. In Virginia, insofar as state law is concerned, OC in a National Park is okay, but not in a National Forest. The law I cited above shows this clearly. I'm not even sure why we are debating this. We're all on the same side. Some people just need to be right I guess. I would love to be wrong about OC in a NF in Virginia, but I clearly am not. Not to mention the fact that I have had multiple conversations with NFS Rangers confirming no OC in NF in Virginia. CC is legal with a permit.

    This sounds wrong because it absolutely makes zero sense. But it's unfortunately correct. My guess is the state wants something to prosecute on if a Marijuana cultivator or Bootlegger is arrested and those charges don't stick, but that is only my assumption. I can't think of any other rationale behind it.
    Last edited by Miss Black Rifle Disease; 06-14-2012 at 02:30 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. Under federal law, USFS and NPS are the same so far as guns go; both assimilate the laws of the surrounding state. The Army Corps of Engineers do not, although there's a bill pending to make ACOE and all other recreational federal land the same as USFS and NPS.

    When I asked for a cite, I was asking for the source of your claim that "the majority of states do not allow open carry in National Forests."

    I already knew Virginia had their own restriction; I said so. You don't need to cite Virginia law since no one has disagreed about it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Miss Black Rifle Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ronaoke, VA
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. Under federal law, USFS and NPS are the same so far as guns go; both assimilate the laws of the surrounding state. The Army Corps of Engineers do not, although there's a bill pending to make ACOE and all other recreational federal land the same as USFS and NPS.

    When I asked for a cite, I was asking for the source of your claim that "the majority of states do not allow open carry in National Forests."

    I already knew Virginia had their own restriction; I said so. You don't need to cite Virginia law since no one has disagreed about it.
    Understood, thanks for the clarification. Apologizes for the misunderstanding. I stand corrected on my majority comment. I thought that was the case and was talking out my ass due to my own frustrations over Virginia law. But I used a little Google Fu and I think VA is one of the few OC states with such a stupid rule.
    Last edited by Miss Black Rifle Disease; 06-14-2012 at 07:45 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Sounds like a VA law that needs ammendment. WA has a lot of little "vehicle" problem with unlicensed OC, but, there are a lot of little exemptions too...some of them read "when carring for self defence".

    Game laws are a pain, they assume anyone with a gun is a poacher, and like firearms laws, they need exemptions.

Posting Permissions

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