imported post
Well this is long awaited good news. I agree with most of what has been said here. Whether it's OC or CC is not as big an issue as the section regarding facilities. I agree with Utbagpiper that this presents a SIGNIFICANT problem to anyone who is carrying and I believe the NPS knows it.
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.
What is the definition of a Federal Facility? I take that to be any inhabitable or traversable structure on "Federal Property". If that's the case, it would include everything from restrooms in remote locations to gift shops, motels/hotels, campground buildings, etc. What about PARKING LOTS? That just won't do as it creates an unnecessary burden on those who choose to carry to constantly arm/disarm and leave a firearm in a vehicle where it is subject to theft.
It's entirely plausible that these NPS Rangers would be 'laying for us' in any one of these places, especially an OC'er. Any unsightly bulge or print from a concealed carry could be seen as 'reasonable suspicion' and result in a pat-down. -I'm just sayin...
And is a National Park/Refuge officially FEDERAL Property? Or is it still owned by the respective state and simply ADMINISTERED by the NPS. AFIK, it is actually Federal property.
So it would appear we have a
MAJOR sticking point in this proposal with the faciliity issue. Sadly, I don't see this being easily overcome. Other than letter writing by us serfs, it will likely take another round of signatures by the same Senators that signed the firstletter specifically stating an objection to the ban on 'facilities' carry. The NPS CAN make an exception, they just don't want to at this point.
If we are not careful, this will drag into 2009 and get swept away by newly elected anti-gunners. That won't do either. The iron is hot, we need to be able to take advantage of this somehow.
Like I said, NPS has done what the Senators wanted but the NPS has hobbled the effort (I believe intentionally) by leaving the facilities ban in place.
The establishment of a firearm ban really is an example of the NPS exceeding it's authority in the first place and they've gotten away with it for so long, it's not been challenged by anyone, at least until now. Congress should have gotten on the ball with this and told the NPS, by US Code, or a simple ACT confirming that NPS does not in fact have the authority to restrict in the first place and the authority on such matters is the sole pervue of the respective STATES.
That's my .02 for now.
