FIRE MISSION - submit comments on National Park Carry

imported post

FIRE MISSION - submit comments on National Park Carry

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648053d497

My comments:

Dear Sir or Madam.

Please support the proposed amendment of 50 CFR Part 27, Section 27.42—Firearms, as reported in the Federal Register at 73 FR 23389.

I strongly encourage you to take all possible steps to ensure that persons be permitted to lawfully carry firearms on federal property as proposed by the National Park Service in the Proposed Rule cited above.

imported post

So, you are OK with banning open carry and hinging your carry rights on a vague requirement that carry be allowed on "analogous" state lands? really?

imported post

No.

But I'll take a dollar over nothing any day.

You are free to tell them its a bad idea.

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

No.

But I'll take a dollar over nothing any day.

You are free to tell them its a bad idea.

Click to expand...

i think it's so bad, it will have no practical effect of provding carry rights, and people will argue over the issue for decades to come.

Stand by for OCDO fire mission later today.

imported post

My reading of it makes me very confident that the change would allow a person with a concealed handgun permit to carry a loaded and concealed handgun on roads and lands within the National Parks system.

If this passes, I'm confident that the federal agency will come forward with specific clarification of any areas of uncertainty. There is no reason to believe that they will engage in a system of subterfuge and "gotcha."

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

There is no reason to believe that they will engage in a system of subterfuge and "gotcha."

Click to expand...

:what: We are talking about the current, 2008, federal bureaucracy which I guess still loosely resembles a functioning government. We are talking about administrators and enforcement personnel within that bureaucracy. We are generally talking about brain-dead bureaucrats we pay a lot of money to make up stuff that matches their political agenda whatever that may be. We are talking about a government that regularly punishes unintentional, accidental infractions with bankrupting fines and prison sentences no matter how many other citizens are harmed by said over the top sentencing for the accidental, unintentional, non-violent infraction. We are talking about a government that has bankrupted citizens to protect toads and insects in the name of environmentalism. This is a gov't that has arrested people for getting lost and in trying to find their way out of a national park accidentally wandered into a "pristine" restricted area set aside where no non-gov't human is allowed to tread.

I think there is every single reason in the world to believe that they would engage in a system of "gotcha".

imported post

Let me be sure I follow you.

You are saying that when this passes, the Park Police will not be very clear (stated in writing) on what they believe it means?

Is that what you mean?

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

Let me be sure I follow you.

You are saying that when this passes, the Park Police will not be very clear (stated in writing) on what they believe it means?

Is that what you mean?

Click to expand...

National Park authorities have no authority to opine on what the state law is on analogous lands and (2) even if they did, these opinions do not bind a trial judge.

imported post

Mike wrote:

W.E.G. wrote:

Let me be sure I follow you.

You are saying that when this passes, the Park Police will not be very clear (stated in writing) on what they believe it means?

Is that what you mean?

Click to expand...

National Park authorities have no authority to opine on what the state law is on analogous lands and (2) even if they did, these opinions do not bind a trial judge.

Click to expand...

That pretty much covers it without the sarcasm.

And yes, I could see them not be very clear on what it means and their clarity not withstanding, their enforcement not matching their clarity, and their enforcement not withstanding, a federal judge using the ambiguity to issue a judgment based on personal opinion/judicial activism in lieu of clear, inarguable law. There really is a great amount of precedent for this concern.

imported post

You guys really are playing the fear-margin on this issue.

When the Park Police announce their take on this, I'm prepared to take them at their word, and without fear of some sort of anomalous incident.

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

You guys really are playing the fear-margin on this issue.

When the Park Police announce their take on this, I'm prepared to take them at their word, and without fear of some sort of anomalous incident.

Click to expand...

Without any sarcasm, I have two honest questions:

What's your take on the occurrences of police officers stopping or harrassing someone who is open carrying and asking for ID, even though it's perfectly legal. (I can provide links to posts in this and in other forums of this happening).

What's your take onthe arrest of Chet Szymecki who was arrested for legally open carrying at Norfolk Days and his wifebeing threatened with arrest for video taping the incident.

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

You guys really are playing the fear-margin on this issue.

When the Park Police announce their take on this, I'm prepared to take them at their word, and without fear of some sort of anomalous incident.

Click to expand...

OK, but even beyond the issue of collateral law of analogous lands, the rule would ban carry in some national parks where, if they adopt the forest service rule, carry would not be banned.

You are OK with this?

imported post

What National Park can you now carry in?

Maybe I don't understand your question.

As for Chet and the Norfolk PD, I think Chuck is gonna OWN them when the dust settles. I won't run around in fear that some cop might do something in clear contravention of the letter of the law.

(edited for spelling of Chet's name)

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

What National Park can you now carry in?

Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, the carriage of loaded firearms for ready-use is specifically allowed in cartain National Parks in Alaska. OC and CCis not differentiated, but this proposed rule change may alter this already legal right into only allowing concealed carry. This special rule for Alaska is designed for bear protection in the wild and it is often very difficult to CC a .480 Ruger sized handgun, not to mention the inaccessability that comes with CC in the field.

An example would be Kenai Fjords National Park.

http://www.nps.gov/kefj/planyourvisit/firearms.htm

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

When the Park Police announce their take on this, I'm prepared to take them at their word, and without fear of some sort of anomalous incident.

Click to expand...

You are using the term Park Police a lot and I just wanted to clear something up. Park Police are indeed responsible for policing parklands and other federal lands, but they are mainly focusedin thethree key areas of Washington D.C., New York City, and San Fransisco. They may augment Park Rangers in those areas as well as some others, but for the purposes of accuracy, Park Rangers have the mainresponsibility for policing and protection duties in most National Parks in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_ranger

imported post

Mike wrote:

Stand by for OCDO fire mission later today.

Click to expand...

Mike, what is this?

imported post

I profess to know nothing of the rules regarding carry anywhere in Alaska. It sounds like an exotic place I am quite sure I will never visit.

I am aware that the Park Rangers are responsible for policing most of the federal park lands outside major metropolitan areas.

I am personally most-concerned about the United States Park Police, whom I am likely to encounter on the George Washington Parkway in the Virginia counties of Arlington and Fairfax, and including the City of Alexandria.

I also have some concerns about the MWAA Airport Police.

Rest assured, if this change is enacted, VCDL will be ALL OVER requiring the relevant authorities to be very specific about how the changes are to be applied and enforced. Monkey business will not be condoned.

imported post

Here are Phillip's concerns:

The problems that I initially see with the proposed rule change are:

* It does not allow for carry in a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge buildings even if the state allows carry in its state park andstate refuge buildings. Federal law currently allows for carry infederal buildings unless they are posted. And even then you areallowed to carry for "other lawful purposes."

* It does not allow for open carry, without or without a permit, evenif the host state allows for such carry in a state park or refuge area.

* It requires that the state allow the person to be able to carry in astate park or a refuge before they can carry in a National Park or Refuge. It seems to me that you should be allowed to carry in aNational Park or Refuge unless the state prohibits carry or saysspecifically that you cannot carry in a National Park or Wildlife Refuge.

One good thing about this proposed rule change is that it will allowfor reciprocity. Thus people from other states who can carry in Virginia will be able to carry in National Parks and Wildlife Refugeswithin Virginia when they visit here.

Click to expand...

imported post

:?

You lost me at hello...