carrying in US National Parks

imported post

Does this : http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=11895

Allow residents of Tennessee to carry firearms in the Smoky Mountains National Park as well? I'm aware that

under 39-17-1311 (a) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any weapon prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a), not used solely for instructional, display or sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes.

will prohibit the carry of firearms on public recreation areas and state parks--but what about the US National Park here? Are we now allowed to carry in the Smoky Mountains?

imported post

The wayI read it we are out of luck in Tennessee.

imported post

My first reaction was to agree with steamnsteel. Since park carry is illegal in TN it would still be illegal per state law.

But...39-17-1311 does only address parks owned by municipal, county or state governments, NOT the federal government.

I'm still hopefully with the changes in the state legislature park carry is one of the laws we can change which would make this moot. But if that doesn't happen or until then I'm really not sure.

imported post

DOI’s move will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands, and

will make federal law consistent with the state law in which these public lands are located



This part doesn't sound good for us

imported post

Look at the final rule again. The initial proposal conditioned carry on "similar state lands" but the final proposal does not. They changed this based on feedback given during the rule-making process. If you are licensed to carry by the State of Tennessee (including reciprocity), you are good to go in national parks in Tennessee even if TN law doesn't allow carry in its parks.

Why? The final language deleted the "similar to" requirement because it would be very difficult for federal authorities to determine what "similar lands" were. Parks, vs. grasslands, vs. wilderness, etc. could all be regulated differently.

The final rule seems to say -- and if you think I'm wrong, please correct me -- that if you are legal authorized to carry in the state (not necessarily on lands, parks, etc.), you can carry in a national park in that state.

imported post

After reading the final ruling a little bit (Which can be read here) I agree with SA-TX.

It basically says if you are authorized to carry in the state that the national park is in, then you can carry in the national park. If a state had a specific law that prohibited carry in a national park then you could not carry in the national park.

As SA-TX said the language about "similar state lands" was removed to remove possible confusion in some states (just like TN).

Surely this has to help our cause on carry in state and local parks now, I mean if the federal government trust us to carry in the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, it doesn't make must sense for TN not trust us at Paris Landing State Park.

imported post

We'll have to do some checking to get clarification concerning OC.

imported post

Everything I've read in the ruling only allows concealed carry.

imported post

But if it's supposed to be consistent with state law, wouldn't you still be able to oc

since you can oc with a ccp?

imported post

marine77 wrote:

But if it's supposed to be consistent with state law, wouldn't you still be able to oc

since you can oc with a ccp?

Click to expand...

It is not consistent with state law in that regard.

In the original version the consistent with state law had to do with if carry was allowed in state parks...the actually wording was "similar lands" but that part was removed from the final version.

Hey...CC is better than not at all!!

imported post

Very True!!!

imported post

Will this also applyfor National Forests and WMA's? These are Federal Lands as well.

imported post

steamnsteel wrote:

Will this also applyfor National Forests and WMA's? These are Federal Lands as well.

Click to expand...

No. This is a rule change for the National Park System, which is part of the Dept. of Interior. National Forests are part of the Dept. of Agriculture, and they already conform to state law.

imported post

But in Tennessee you can only carry rim fire legally unless it is big game season, or amI completely missing something here?

imported post

steamnsteel wrote:

Will this also applyfor National Forests and WMA's? These are Federal Lands as well.

Click to expand...

As stated above it does not cover National Forrest.

But it does appear to allow carry in a National Wildlife Refuge(as well as National Parks)
See pages 24 & 25 of the Final ruling

imported post

Gonna read it again......... Okay I have it in my thick flu stuffed head now.



Fallguy,I really appreciate all of your informative posts on this board and others.

imported post

Hey, guys. Been visiting here off and on for over a year, but never bothered registering since I subscribe to the concealed carry mindset. Anyways, I've been studying the law about carrying in parks, and while I'm no lawyer, I'm not so sure it applies to us.

This was taken from Mitchie's - http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

"(a) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any weapon prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a), not used solely for instructional, display or sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes."

And weapons that are prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a):

"39-17-1302. Prohibited weapons. —
[align=justify](a) A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs or sells:
[/align][align=justify] (1) An explosive or an explosive weapon;
[/align][align=justify] (2) A device principally designed, made or adapted for delivering or shooting an explosive weapon;
[/align][align=justify] (3) A machine gun;
[/align][align=justify] (4) A short-barrel rifle or shotgun;
[/align][align=justify] (5) A firearm silencer;
[/align][align=justify] (6) Hoax device;
[/align][align=justify] (7) A switchblade knife or knuckles; or
[/align][align=justify] (8) Any other implement for infliction of serious bodily injury or death that has no common lawful purpose."
[/align]
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anything about it being illegal to carry a handgun. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

imported post

I agree with you...nothing in 39-17-1311 mentions handguns. But there are two AG opinions that say different. 07-148 and 08-26

I still hope with the new legislature we won't have to worry about come July 1, 2009 though.

imported post

but once the changes are official with the DOI regarding carry in US National Parks--nothing in Tennessee law should prohibit anyone from carrying in any US national park--not even the Smoky Mountains, or for example--into the Big South Fork, or even the Stones River National battlefield--correct?

After all, the national parks here in the state are controlled by the DOI, not the state of Tennessee.

imported post

Yeah, I found his interpretation after I posted. At first I was pretty ticked off, but after thinking about it for a while and rereading his 2nd statement, I do believe he came to a logical conclusion. Assuming the precedent he cites in the 2nd paragraph on page 2 means what I think it means, courts have decided that the statutes are all one piece and shouldn't be read in sections. If I weren't biased towards the 2nd Amendment, there's a good chance I would have said the same thing.

The only possible loopholes that I can see are:

1. In the first paragraph (continued) on the 2nd page, he says that the legislature intended for it to be read as a whole. However, unless this law was passed after 2004 (when the precedent was set), the legislature couldn't have known whether or not the statute would be read as a whole or in parts.

2. In the 2nd paragraph, page 3, he states that the items listed as prohibited are not used in the course of hunting. I know that somewhere out there is someone who hunts and is able to afford a silencer and uses it to prevent hearing loss. Finding someone who does this (preferably more than one) would prove his interpretation wrong and possible open the statute up to looser interpretations.

3. It all depends on the definition of public parks - whether or not that's considered to be all-encompassing or if it only applies to state and local lands. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the word public - Webster's defines it as:

1. of, belonging to, or concerning the people as a whole; of or by the community at large
2. for the use or benefit of all, especially supported by government funds

- I seriously doubt this we're going to be allowed to. :banghead::cuss: