Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Ban on National Parks EASED!!!

  1. #1
    Guest

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Heber, Utah, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    Great News!!



    I wonder how long it will be before Pres Obama will repeal the change to the law!

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    Good news indeed.

    http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

    I know some who upset over the lack of an open carry provision or permit-less carry provision or even "castle doctrine" provision for campsites. I understand. But still consider this a huge step in the right direction.

    And in a State like Utah, this effectively opens up millions of acres to lawful self defense for all those who valid CCW permits.

    It appears that only concealed firearms may be had in a workable condition under this new rule and only if the person is specifically authorized to carry a concealed firearm under State law.

    The limitation of being authorized to carry on "similar State lands" has been dropped and so those authorized to carry generally in a State (including on out-of-State permits recognized by the State) can carry in the national park. If a State wishes to specifically ban concealed carry in national parks within their borders they may do so via statute and the new regulation will also respect that.

    Rifles and Shotguns, as not generally authorized for concealed carry, will have to remain unloaded and un-usable during transport through the parks except in those rare conditions where their possession or use is otherwise authorized.

    Possession of any firearm inside a federal building remains a crime under federal law so visitor centers and perhaps even portable toilets are still off limits.

    But for those who drive or hike through, camp in, or otherwise have occasion to pass through or visit national parks (either as a destination, as the best route to drive, or even inadvertently while hiking or camping on other lands) will now enjoy an increased ability to legally defend themselves.

    The rule is far from perfect, as are most laws governing guns in a nation with anything close to our Second Amendment. But it is a step in the right direction.

    Furthermore, the answers to FAQs and other reasoning provided by the DoI for the rule change are generally very friendly to RKBA. Not perfect. But generally pretty darn good IMO in terms of official policy on issues such as self defense, lack of problems caused by law abiding gun carriers, police protection, and any presumed right not to be around people with guns.

    Let's try to avoid losing this ground over the next few years as Pres Obama appoints new Secretaries.

    Charles

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication and is available to the public on www.doi.gov.

    Existing regulations regarding the carrying of firearms remain otherwise unchanged, particularly limitations on poaching and target practice and prohibitions on carrying firearms in federal buildings.

    “America was founded on the idea that the federal and state governments work together to serve the public and preserve our natural resources,” Laverty said. “The Department’s final regulation respects this tradition by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so under state law. This is the same basic approach adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS), both of which allow visitors to carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.”

    On February 22, 2008, Interior Secretary Kempthorne responded to letters from 51 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, urging him to update existing regulations that prohibit the carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. In his response, the Secretary directed Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty “to develop and propose for public comment by April 30 Federal regulations that will update firearms policies on these lands to reflect existing Federal laws (such as those prohibiting weapons in Federal buildings) and the laws by which the host states govern transporting and carrying of firearms on their analogous public lands.”

    Changes in the final regulations from those originally proposed in April were developed as the result of public comments. In particular, comments expressed concern about the feasibility of implementing regulations which directly linked the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges to the ability of an individual to carry a concealed firearm on analogous state lands. The final regulations remove that potential logistical hurdle.

    The existing regulations, as currently in effect, were adopted in 1981 for national wildlife refuges and in 1983 for national parks. Since that time many states have enacted new firearms policies. Currently, 48 states have passed legislation allowing for the lawful possession of concealed weapons.

    “The Department believes that in managing parks and refuges we should, as appropriate, make every effort to give the greatest respect to the democratic judgments of State legislatures with respect to concealed firearms,” said Laverty. “Federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize the expertise of the States in this area, and federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects state prerogatives and authority.”


    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    thoughtpolice wrote: VERY good news, Great Post!

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    Possession of any firearm inside a federal building remains a crime under federal law so visitor centers and perhaps even portable toilets are still off limits.
    SNIP
    As Posted by JMELVIN in "Whither the National Park Gun Ban Repeal?" page 4 under "HOT TOPICS" on this forum... sorry don't know how to "link"

    18 USC 930

    a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

    (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    (c) A person who kills or attempts to kill any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.
    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to -


    (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

    (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    (e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

    (e)(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

    (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
    (g) As used in this section:



    (1) The term ''Federal facility'' means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

    Apparently even this does not provide any potential relief since the PDF clearly indicates that the rule does not provide for the carrying of concealed weapons in Federal facilities as defined in 18 USC 930.

    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to -

    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    End quoted portion

    My reading of this statute leads me to believe that as a Lawful CFP holder I would be authorized under "other lawful purposes." Refering to the bolded portions.


    Am I missing something?

    JoeSparky

    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

Posting Permissions

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