• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Proposed Rule for National Park Gun Carry Plays Cruel Hoax on Americans Expecting to Carry Handguns

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648064bab5:

SUBJECT: Proposed rule repealing DOI gun ban should be changed to follow proven model of 36CFR261.8 which simply assimilates state gun laws onto federal
land

Executive Summary:

OpenCarry.org requests that the proposed rule governing gun carry in National
Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and certain other public lands be replaced by
incorporation of the proven rule on other federal public lands at 36CFR261.8 to
simply assimilate state gun laws. The grounds for this recommendation is our
strenuous objections to the proposed rule’s (1) unconstitutional ban on the open
carry of handguns, (2) unconstitutional and unworkable vagueness of the proposed
rule and its associated criminal sanctions, (3) failure of the proposed rule to
achieve the purported policy objective of obtaining uniformity in gun carry rules
across federal lands generally, and (4) trap it sets for otherwise law abiding gun
owners. In essence, the proposed rule plays a cruel hoax on Americans
expecting to carry handguns as they visit DOI lands around the United States.

Please see our attached comments in full.

Mike Stollenwerk
co-founder, OpenCarry.org
 

BillMCyrus

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
118
Location
Lancaster County, PA
imported post

So they sabotaged the rule itself? I don't get it. I thought that the suggestion made was exactly what they were supposed to be doing. What happened?!?
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I wonder when we are going to see some more press on this issue?Seems like After Heller repealing gun carry bans on federal lands ought to be pretty straightforward idea.
 

RichardR

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
40
Location
, Texas, USA
imported post

I think that slowly we Americans are waking up and realizing that we don't have to accept the status quo anymore. I am 67 and now more active in the pro-gun-owner arena than ever before in my lifetime. I think that this in large part due to the feeling that we can make a difference. Organizations like OCDO contribute greatly to this feeling.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
I wonder when we are going to see some more press on this issue?Seems like After Heller repealing gun carry bans on federal lands ought to be pretty straightforward idea.


My issue is the fact that the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has DIFFERENT standards for different pockets....:cuss::cuss:

National Forest -- goes by STATE requirements that the National Forest is in.

National Park Service--- there OWN set of rules

National Parks within the confines of a National Forrest is a MAJOR gottcha... for the poor hiker minding his own business hiking in the woods with his legally own, possesseed, and carried firearm now becomes a criminal because he crosses an invisible border in the forest that he CAN'T see or know where it is.....
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

They are both parts of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
imported post

JoeSparky wrote:
Mike wrote:
I wonder when we are going to see some more press on this issue?Seems like After Heller repealing gun carry bans on federal lands ought to be pretty straightforward idea.


My issue is the fact that the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has DIFFERENT standards for different pockets....:cuss::cuss:

National Forest -- goes by STATE requirements that the National Forest is in.

National Park Service--- there OWN set of rules

National Parks within the confines of a National Forrest is a MAJOR gottcha... for the poor hiker minding his own business hiking in the woods with his legally own, possesseed, and carried firearm now becomes a criminal because he crosses an invisible border in the forest that he CAN'T see or know where it is.....
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

They are both parts of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I don't think that carrying a handgun (OC or CC) for self defense should be one of the activities restricted in National Parks, but I don't think your specific argument holds water. National Parks are managed for different purposes than National Forests and have lots of more restrictive rules. In many parks you can't hunt, use a wheeled vehicle off road, camp other than in designated spots, have open fires, lots of stuff. You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.
 

LostCoast

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
49
Location
Ventura County, California, USA
imported post

You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.

Self defense should be allowed anywhere period, I don't care if its a School Zone, Forest, City, Federal, State properties, Six Flagsamusementpark or Disney property.. did I mention loaded cocked and locked....
 

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
imported post

I agree. It is a badly written law. But what do you expect from the Feds? The N.R.A. was way to timid reference this issue. I expect gutsy lobbying for the Constitution, instead of creating confusing laws that will intimidate most from exercising their rights. Obama sure thinks the old ban of having it loaded and in working condition in National Parks completely upholds people's right to bear arms..... Keep up the good fight Mike!!!
 

jarodm20

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
98
Location
West Texas, , USA
imported post

It is ridiculous that a federal law does not apply to federally owned land. The 2nd Amendment is a part of the United States Constitution.

Article VI says that "This Constitution... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

That means that there cannot be laws made on any level of government within these united states that contradict the US Constitution. So, one might ask, "how have we strayed so far?" Corrupt, agenda-driven politicians have led us to our current place. And we are to blame for putting up with it.

Article VI also says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." If they supported the Constitution, they would restore our gun rights completely. It's too bad so many of our senators and other reps obviously did not take this oath very seriously. Thank God for the ones that did.
 

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
imported post

You are making too much sense....NOT QUALIFIED FOR OFFICE! When public schools make a mockery of education this is the result: NOBODY WITH A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA KNOWS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!Pink Floyd's"we don't need no education...." should be our theme song!
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

I have to transit thru or along the border of the (name withheld)National Park to go 'anywhere'. I OC... 'n have a CCW. The roads are maintained by the County... but are under the jurisdiction of the Park. Everybody carries here... or has somethin' in the vehicle. This 'disassembly' of firearms is a crock. Nobody does that... 'n 'far as I know has never been enforced. This is Arizona!!!!:cuss: The goofy part is... one side of the road maybe in the Park... 'n the opposite side is not. :banghead: The Park Rangers are biologists with guns... They're decent enuff people... but their bosses are in la-la land. The one who runs this operation is based in Oklahoma... so she don't even come here much. When she did... at the community meeting (this is an unincorporated area) she evaded the question... just mumbled that it wasn't 'legal'... put on her little Smokey bear hat 'n left (quickly).
 

Phoenixphire

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
396
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
imported post

LostCoast wrote:
You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.

Self defense should be allowed anywhere period, I don't care if its a School Zone, Forest, City, Federal, State properties, Six Flagsamusementpark or Disney property.. did I mention loaded cocked and locked....
I agree with you, in a 90% kind-of-way.

No government agency should be able to regulate the possession of firearms, in regard to location of possession.

A private company and/or landowner (Six Flags, Disney being the listed in the examples) should be able to do so. I don't think that they should, but they do have a right to control what happens on their land. Private land is private land, and the government should keep their paws off.
 

LostCoast

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
49
Location
Ventura County, California, USA
imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:
LostCoast wrote:
You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.

Self defense should be allowed anywhere period, I don't care if its a School Zone, Forest, City, Federal, State properties, Six Flagsamusementpark or Disney property.. did I mention loaded cocked and locked....
I agree with you, in a 90% kind-of-way.

No government agency should be able to regulate the possession of firearms, in regard to location of possession.

A private company and/or landowner (Six Flags, Disney being the listed in the examples) should be able to do so. I don't think that they should, but they do have a right to control what happens on their land. Private land is private land, and the government should keep their paws off.
.............................................................................................................................


I enjoy rights on private land that we don't have on public land, like conceal carry without a permit and I agree private land owners should be able to say guns or not. I just hate to be defenseless out in public places crowded with people. Figure if a private land is mainly used as a business to serve the public it is somewhat actually public domain.

In case law my front yard is a public place if it is accessible by the public. If I stand in my front yard with an open container of beer I can be arrested or sited for drinking in public.

Could I be arrested for concealing a loaded weapon without a permit then? We for sure have to many laws and its confusing as hell.

:banghead:
 

DJBiker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
22
Location
Middle, Tennessee, USA
imported post

LostCoast wrote:
You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.

Self defense should be allowed anywhere period, I don't care if its a School Zone, Forest, City, Federal, State properties, Six Flagsamusementpark or Disney property.. did I mention loaded cocked and locked....
+1
 

Phoenixphire

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
396
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
imported post

LOST COAST: We for sure have to many laws and its confusing as hell.


Amen.

It is amazing how deviating from the Constitution has created so many problems.

The untold number of criminal laws is one of these results.



The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



There is a reason for the requirement of a jury trail. They are expensive, annoying, and generally a pain in the ass, creating a great burden on the government.

This is a GOOD thing. It is designed as a check against the Congress going willy-nilly, and passing laws that criminalize any and every thing.

The only thing that should be criminal is an action so serious that the people are willing to finance and partake in the effort necessary to give that person a fair trial. Things such as murder, rape, theft, fraud.

Instead, the courts have decided to say that "In all criminal prosecutions" doesn't REALLY mean ALL, but just the ones that may require 6 months in jail.

And now, we have laws like this:

The Lacey Act

(a) Offenses other than marking offenses [/b] It is unlawful for any person— 7 of title 18)— (A) to possess any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law or Indian tribal law, or (B) to possess any plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State; or (4) to attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) through (3).


Basically, this makes it illegal to possess, transport, or aquire any fish, plant or wildlife, that is prohibited by Federal Law, ANY State Law, ANY other Country's law, any Tribal Law, or any treaty.

So, if the Navajo Band in New Mexico has a tribal ordinance prohibiting the possession of a tabacco plant, and you buy a cigarette in New York, you have violated federal law.



Vote Libertarian, and let's get back to the Constitution.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
imported post

HI All,

It is Impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid.

Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, 1803.

And: Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

And: Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442.

And: 16 AM Jur 2d,sec 177 late 2d Sec 256.

Robin47
 
Top