Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: National Park gun ban repeal announcement in federal register appears to ban open carry!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    For those of us who can't access the link, please post the information.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Sa45auto wrote:
    For those of us who can't access the link, please post the information.
    The link comes in for me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    1
    4312-52-M
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    National Park Service
    36 CFR Part 2
    Fish and Wildlife Service
    50 CFR Part 27
    RIN 1024-AD70
    General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National Park Service and the Fish
    and Wildlife Service
    AGENCIES: Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, Interior.
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service and the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, proposes to amend regulations presently codified in 36 CFR Part 2 and 50
    CFR Part 27, which provide guidance and controls for the possession and transportation of
    firearms in national park areas and national wildlife refuges. The proposed amendments would
    update the regulations to reflect current state laws authorizing the possession of concealed
    firearms, while maintaining the existing regulatory provisions that ensure visitor safety and
    resource protection such as the prohibitions on poaching and limitations on hunting and target
    practice.
    DATES: Written comments will be accepted through [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE
    DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number 1024-AD70 by any of the
    following methods:
    2
    - Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
    submitting comments.
    - Mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1024-AD70; Division of Policy and
    Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222;
    Arlington, VA 22203
    - Hand-deliver: 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203
    Public Availability of Comments
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal
    identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment –
    including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time.
    While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from
    public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Lawyer, (202) 208-3181,
    Mark_Lawyer@ios.doi.gov.
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background
    A core tenet of our system of government is that States have the prerogative to develop their own
    policies and standards in many areas, and this principle has long been honored with respect to
    policies governing the possession of firearms. Recognizing the importance of this long-standing
    tradition, we believe that federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize the competence of
    the States in this area, and that federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a
    manner that respects “state prerogatives and authority.” Cf. Executive Order 13132 of August
    10, 1999 (“Federalism”).
    3
    This proposed regulation is intended to give greater effect to these principles. As discussed
    below, forty-eight States authorize citizens to carry concealed weapons for the purpose of selfdefense.
    Existing federal regulations governing firearms in national parks and national wildlife
    refuges, promulgated before many of these State laws were in effect, properly limit poaching and
    target practice, but unnecessarily disable or limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess,
    carry, and transport a concealed firearm. The Department believes that Federal regulations
    should be amended to defer to this development in State law, particularly where, as in this case,
    the deference can be achieved without harm to the visitors or resources the regulations are
    designed to protect.
    The existing regulations contained in Part 2 of Title 36, and Part 27 of Title 50 of the Code of
    Federal Regulations are used by the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) to protect the natural and cultural resources of park areas and refuges, and to
    protect visitors and property within those lands. In their current form, these regulations generally
    prohibit visitors from possessing an operable and loaded firearm in areas administered by these
    bureaus unless the firearm is used for lawful hunting activities, target practice in areas designated
    by special regulations, or other purposes related to the administration of federal lands in Alaska.
    The regulations also allow visitors to transport firearms through parks and refuges subject to
    limitations that generally require the firearm to be unloaded and rendered inoperable or
    inaccessible.
    The current FWS and NPS regulations were last substantively updated in 1981 and 1983,
    respectively. Forty eight States now provide for the possession of concealed firearms by their
    citizens. In many States, the authority to carry loaded and operable concealed firearms extends
    4
    to State park and refuge lands, whether expressly or by operation of law. Since the Federal
    regulations have remained unchanged during this time, the provisions fail to distinguish between
    firearms used by the general public for recreational purposes and the concealed and loaded
    weapons a limited number of citizens may now carry pursuant to state authorities. This restricts
    fundamental freedoms without yielding the benefits the regulations were promulgated to achieve.
    It also results in unnecessary limitations on the applicability of state law.
    The Department’s intent in undertaking this rulemaking process is to better respect the ability of
    states to determine who may lawfully possess a firearm within their borders while preserving the
    Federal government’s authority to manage its lands, buildings, and facilities. Mindful of that
    objective, the Department proposes to amend existing regulations in order to allow individuals to
    carry concealed weapons in park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so on
    analogous state-administered lands. In this regard, the proposal is not designed to authorize
    firearms possession in federal facilities, or when otherwise forbidden by state or federal law.
    Rather, the Department’s proposed rule is intended to respect state authority in a similar manner
    to that adopted in existing regulations by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
    Service. Each of these agencies authorizes the possession of loaded and concealed weapons
    consistent with the applicable authorities of the state in which the lands are located.
    By adopting state law in this manner, the Department continues a tradition of managing federal
    lands in cooperation with states. This often includes the adoption of non-conflicting state
    authorities. For example, the FWS and NPS have adopted state laws and regulations in the areas
    of hunting, fishing, and boating.
    5
    Under the proposed amendment, visitors must have authority to possess loaded and concealed
    firearms on analogous state lands before they will be allowed to carry firearms in Federal park
    areas and refuges. In practice, this will mean that two conditions must be met in order for this
    proposed regulatory change to permit the possession of firearms on federal parks and refuges.
    First, the state in which the park or refuge unit is located must have laws that allow the
    individual to possess concealed and loaded firearms. And second, the authorization to carry a
    concealed and loaded firearm must be applicable on the analogous state lands in the State in
    which the park or refuge is located. Where these conditions are present, the proposed
    amendments will accommodate State prerogatives with respect to recognition of licenses issued
    by other States, including reciprocity agreements. Individuals authorized to carry firearms under
    this rule will continue to be subject to all other applicable state and federal laws. Accordingly, as
    stated above, this rule does not authorize the carrying of concealed firearms in federal facilities
    in national parks and wildlife refuges.
    The Department recognizes that national park areas and wildlife refuges may present resource
    management obligations that differ from those of state park units and wildlife areas. National
    park areas and refuges are often located in close proximity to state parks or refuges, and visitors
    to these sites may frequently travel through a combination of federal and state lands during the
    course of a visit. In these circumstances, we believe that adopting the state standards for the
    possession of firearms on federal lands will promote uniformity of application, better visitor
    understanding of the requirements, visitor safety, resource protection, and increased cooperation
    between state and federal law enforcement officials.
    6
    The Department believes that the proposed amendments give greater effect to principles of
    Federalism while maintaining protection of visitors and the values that have led to the
    establishment of park areas and wildlife refuges. We note that a number of individuals
    throughout America have obtained permits to carry firearms under state laws, most of which
    require background screening and some form of training or certification in gun safety.
    Moreover, a number of states also allow individuals to carry operable and concealed firearms in
    state park areas or wildlife refuges. We strongly endorse the principle that States have the
    prerogative to develop appropriate policies and standards in this area, and believe that our
    management of parks and refuges should give the greatest respect to the democratic judgments of
    State Legislatures.
    Section-by-Section Analysis
    36 CFR Part 2
    Section 2.4 - Weapons, traps, and nets.
    Current Section 2.4 generally prohibits visitors from possessing an operable and loaded firearm
    in park areas unless the firearm is used for lawful hunting activities, target practice in areas
    designated by special regulations, or other purposes related to the administration of federal lands
    in Alaska. Under the proposed amendment, an individual will be able to possess, carry, and
    transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in the same
    manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport
    concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park in the state in which the federal park,
    or that portion thereof, is located. Possession of concealed firearms in national parks as
    authorized by this section must also conform to applicable federal laws.
    7
    50 CFR Part 27
    Section 27.42 - Firearms
    The current regulation in Section 27.42 generally prohibits visitors from possessing an operable
    and loaded firearm in a national wildlife refuge unless the firearm is used for lawful hunting
    activities. Under the proposed amendment, an individual will be able to possess, carry, and
    transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national wildlife refuge in the same
    manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport
    concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state wildlife refuge, or any functionally similar
    unit of state land, in the state in which the national wildlife refuge, or that portion thereof, is
    located. Functionally similar state lands will include, but not be limited to State wildlife
    management areas and state game areas. Possession of concealed firearms in national wildlife
    refuges as authorized by this section must also conform to applicable federal laws.
    COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND DEPARTMENT POLICY
    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
    This document is a significant rule and is subject to review by the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
    (1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not
    adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
    environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
    (2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
    taken or planned by another agency.
    (3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
    programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
    8
    (4) This rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act
    The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant
    economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
    U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory
    Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,
    Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
    productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
    enterprises.
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or
    the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or
    unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
    Takings (Executive Order 12630)
    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings
    implications.
    Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
    9
    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not require the preparation of a
    federalism assessment.
    Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
    This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
    Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform.
    Paperwork Reduction Act
    This regulation does not require an information collection under the Paperwork
    Reduction Act.
    National Environmental Policy Act
    We are required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental
    guidelines in 516 DM 6, (49 FR 21438) to assess the impact of any Federal action significantly
    affecting the quality of the human environment, health, and safety. We are currently working to
    determine the appropriate level of NEPA assessment and documentation that will be required for
    promulgation of this regulation.
    Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
    In accordance with Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian
    Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249), the President’s memorandum of April 29, 1994,
    “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR
    22961), and 512 DM 2, the Department will consult with federally recognized tribal
    governments throughout the development of the regulation to jointly evaluate and address the
    potential effects, if any, of the proposed regulatory action.
    10
    Clarity of This Regulation
    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential
    Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we
    publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the
    methods listed in the "ADDRESSES" section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments
    should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or
    paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections
    where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
    List of Subjects
    36 CFR Part 2
    National Parks
    50 CFR Part 27
    Wildlife Refuges
    In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend part 2 of title 36 and part 27 of
    title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
    11
    Title 36--Parks, Forests, and Public Property
    CHAPTER I—NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DOI
    PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION
    1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
    AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 17j-2, 462.
    2. Amend § 2.4 by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets.
    * * * * *
    (h) A person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms
    within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may
    lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park,
    or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is
    located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with
    applicable federal and state law
    12
    Title 50--Wildlife and Fisheries
    CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DOI
    PART 27--PROHIBITED ACTS
    1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
    AUTHORITY: Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 614, as amended (16 U.S.C. 685); Sec. 5, 43 Stat. 651 (16 U.S.C.
    725); Sec. 5, Stat. 449 (16 U.S.C. 690d); Sec. 10, 45 Stat. 1224 (16 U.S.C. 715i); Sec. 4, 48 Stat.
    402, as amended (16 U.S.C. 664); Sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270 (43 U.S.C. 315a); 49 Stat. 383 as
    amended; Sec. 4, 76 Stat. (16 U.S.C. 460k); Sec. 4, 80 Stat. 927 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) (5 U.S.C.
    685, 752, 690d); 16 U.S.C. 715s).
    Subpart D -- Disturbing Violations: With Weapons
    2. Amend § 27.42 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 27.42 Firearms.
    * * * * *
    (e) Persons may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms
    within a national wildlife refuge in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may
    lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state
    wildlife refuge, or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the national wildlife refuge,
    or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting
    otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.
    _______________________
    Dated
    ___________________________________
    Lyle Laverty
    Assistant Secretary of the Interior
    for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
    13
    [FR Doc. 2008-9606 Filed 04/29/2008 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 04/30/2008]

  5. #5
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    There is nothing in the document referencing open carry. Since it is not prohibited by law, then it is probably safe to assume it is a legal activity.

    Generally laws are written to prohibit something. This one is interesting in it is written to allow something.


    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    The repeal announcement allows for the concealed carry of weapons in National Parks under the same guidelines as in State Parks.

    The repeal does not ban open carry, but it does not say it is allowed, either.

    Technically, that which is not banned is allowed, but applying that principle is a bit different than expected. Technically, you're innocent until proven guilty, but you'll still be incarcerated unless you post bail, neither of which is required of society at large.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Sorry j2l3, we were posting at the same time--didn't mean to step on your toes.

  8. #8
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    No worries POintman... nice to see us all on the same page!
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Also - the proposed reg assimilates state concealed carry rights from analogous lands - in other words, it also is not a blanket use of state concealed carry laws - the state concerned has to allow for concealed carry in it's State Parks and
    Wildlife Refuges or similarly situated lands.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Yes, it is written vaguely... It specifically doesn't mention OC. However, I believe the whole premise was to change National Parks to adhere to state law and in places like where I live, there are no distincions between open and concealed carry on state lands.

    It does say that this is a proposed change and they previously said theyare looking for public comment, so we should probablylet them know we would like clarification on this issue.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Thank you for posting the whole document. I post about 90% of the time from my phone and it does not access all links.

    I agree with what has been said so far with one caution.

    If I remember correctly, the folks in Utah had a similar problem with open carry.

    It wasn't spacifically forbidden if you have a prermit, so thus it is legal.

    They tried to get a law expressly allowing it and some anti's twisted their new law into one banning opencarry in many places it is now allowed.

    I think we need to be careful what we ask for or it might bite us in the butt.

    You can research what happened in Utah on this forum, but as I remember, they had to work hard to get that thing killed.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Sa45auto wrote:

    If I remember correctly, the folks in Utah had a similar problem with open carry.

    It wasn't spacifically forbidden if you have a prermit, so thus it is legal.

    They tried to get a law expressly allowing it and some anti's twisted their new law into one banning opencarry in many places it is now allowed.

    I think we need to be careful what we ask for or it might bite us in the butt.

    You can research what happened in Utah on this forum, but as I remember, they had to work hard to get that thing killed.
    We did have a simple clarification law run to make expressly clear that OC pursuant to a permit (such as in a school zone, or a fully loaded weapon, neither of which is permissible without a permit) is legal and the bill was hijacked to make OC illegal in some locations, all institutions of higher learning.

    We were able to kill the bill leaving us with status quo.

    Ideally, federal regs for national parks would simply reference possession of self defense firearms pursuant to State law without making any distinction between OC and CC. Still, even if only CC were allowed, that is a HUGE step in the right direction and is not to be looked down upon. You eat an elephant one bite at a time.

    And in that vein, I am mostly disappointed that facilities (I presume this means buildings) will remain off limits. This presents a problem for those who arrive at a visitor center, lodge, or even in-park hotel or restroom alone and via some method other than private car (park shuttle, on foot, bike, etc) with no place to safely store a firearm. But again, maybe one step at a time.

    My thanks to those who worked to spearhead this long overdue effort.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998

    Post imported post

    I don't think that it can be said enough. . . PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE send a comment or suggestion to the Department of the Interior! There are over 5,300 registered users on OCDO; if even half of us sent emails to the DOI, all asking them toremove the concealed language and simply reference state firearms laws generally, it would make a huge difference. They specifically give 60 days for input from the public, so it reasonable to assume they arewilling to act on reasonable proposed amendments. And, if we don't act now, it will be a hell of a lot harder to make sure open carry is O.K. later down the road.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    VApatriot wrote:
    I don't think that it can be said enough. . . PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE send a comment or suggestion to the Department of the Interior! There are over 5,300 registered users on OCDO; if even half of us sent emails to the DOI, all asking them toremove the concealed language and simply reference state firearms laws generally, it would make a huge difference. They specifically give 60 days for input from the public, so it reasonable to assume they arewilling to act on reasonable proposed amendments. And, if we don't act now, it will be a hell of a lot harder to make sure open carry is O.K. later down the road.
    Right - when you comment, just say you support the general intent, but that they need to keep it simple and just assimilate state gun laws onto parks the way the nat forest already does!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    VApatriot wrote:
    I don't think that it can be said enough. . . PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE send a comment or suggestion to the Department of the Interior!* There are over 5,300 registered users on OCDO; if even half of us sent emails to the DOI, all asking them to*remove the concealed language and simply reference state firearms laws generally, it would make a huge difference.* They specifically give 60 days for input from the public, so it reasonable to assume they are*willing to act on reasonable proposed amendments.* And, if we don't act now, it will be a hell of a lot harder to make sure open carry is O.K. later down the road.
    Right - when you comment, just say you support the general intent, but that they need to keep it simple and just assimilate state gun laws onto parks the way the nat forest already does!
    I agree. That is the best way to go. If we keep it simple, there is kess chance for them to mess it up.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998

    Post imported post

    This is what I will be sending tothem:

    To whom it may concern,

    I am writing in reference to proposed rules change 1024-AD70 by the Department of the Interior, governing the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens in national parks and wildlife refuges. The proposed amendment to current regulations states, "States have the prerogative to develop their own policies and standards. . . with respect to policies governing the possession of firearms." I feel that the DOI is correct in making this statement, and regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks should mirror those of the regulations governing the state parks in which a national park is located. However, there is one area in which myself and others would like to see the Department of the Interior’s rules change further amended.

    The current proposal notes that, "Forty-eight State authorize citizens to carry concealed weapons for the purpose of self-defense." The proposal goes no to recommend that the NPS and FWS should develop firearms policies that reflect those governing the carry of concealed weapons in the individual States. However, in addition to the carrying of concealed weapons, forty-four States also allow the carry of unconcealed weapons.

    By only specifically referencing the possession and carry of concealed weapons, the DOI’s newly proposed regulation may create confusion in States where the carry of unconcealed weapons in state parks is not prohibited by state or federal law. Therefore, as a concerned citizen, I would respectfully recommend that the Department of the Interior amend its rule change by removing language referring only to concealed weapons, and instead develop new wording that fully respects all the individual regulations of the States, governing the carry of weapons for personal defense, both those legally carried concealed and unconcealed.



    Most Sincerely,





    Stephen J. Peter



    Burke, Virginia






    I also had a thought for John or Mike, ifyou haven't already acted on it. Could you senda recommendation to DOI that could serveas an officialrepresentation of the wishes ofthe 5,300 members of opencarry.org?

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    VApatriot wrote:
    I also had a thought for John or Mike, ifyou haven't already acted on it. Could you senda recommendation to DOI that could serveas an officialrepresentation of the wishes ofthe 5,300 members of opencarry.org?
    Sure give us a few days to let this percolate.

    When does comment period start/end?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    VApatriot wrote:


    I also had a thought for John or Mike, ifyou haven't already acted on it. Could you senda recommendation to DOI that could serveas an officialrepresentation of the wishes ofthe 5,300 members of opencarry.org?
    Sure give us a few days to let this percolate.

    When does comment period start/end?
    Awesome!

    60 daysafter the date of publication in the federal register, which would be 60 days from today(04/29/08).

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    So this means that I can go to Yellowstone in 2 Months ??? Zions ??? and CC for sure, but since OC is legal here in UtahI can do that too ???

    Please help and UNconfuse me !!!

    TJ

    (I know...I'm a little bit slow)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Hmm, I am a bit disapointed. Afterall, when I hike into the back country, I hardly intend on CC but instead OC with a drop-leg holster. I sincerely hope that they modify the rules to allow either. Heck I would even be happy if the limited it to CC permit holders carrying OC (I know blasphemy!).



    Ron



  22. #22
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    So this means that I can go to Yellowstone in 2 Months ??? Zions ??? and CC for sure, but since OC is legal here in UtahI can do that too ???

    Please help and UNconfuse me !!!

    TJ

    (I know...I'm a little bit slow)
    These are proposed rule changes. They will hear public comments for 60 days. Nothing is set-in-stone quite yet somore changes can stillbe made and depending on how much pressure they get, they reserve the ability toscrap the whole thing. I don't know how long the process goes until the changes actually take effect.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    So this means that I can go to Yellowstone in 2 Months ??? Zions ??? and CC for sure, but since OC is legal here in UtahI can do that too ???

    Please help and UNconfuse me !!!

    TJ

    (I know...I'm a little bit slow)
    These are proposed rule changes. They will hear public comments for 60 days. Nothing is set-in-stone quite yet somore changes can stillbe made and depending on how much pressure they get, they reserve the ability toscrap the whole thing. I don't know how long the process goes until the changes actually take effect.
    I have only been to Zion's once, and that was about at the end of Aug '98. Haven't been back due to the Carry Laws. Hope to be able to visit Yellowstone. Never been there.

    TJ

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    I'm going to do anything until I hear from VCDL

  25. #25
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    I'm going to do anything until I hear from VCDL
    Will you please post VCDL's response when you do hear something?
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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