Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Congressman Bishop Author's Pro-National Park Carry Commentary

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30284


    Telling the Second Amendment to Take a Hike
    by Rep. Rob Bishop

    01/15/2009
    On January 9, 2009, the National Park Service was tasked to live by the same rules that the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service and the rest of the nation use. On January 10, 2009, the earth rotated. The sun rose. The Constitution still worked. Law-abiding citizens were still, well, law-abiding. Apparently, we all survived.

    Starting in the 1980s, a significant number of states passed laws which allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. Most federal land agencies acknowledged these rights and respected the 2nd Amendment. But the National Park Service (NPS) failed to keep pace with these developments and for years banned firearms on NPS land -- in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. This occurred despite an executive order by President Clinton that reinforced the long-held understanding that federal regulations should be implemented in a manner that respects “state prerogatives and authority.” The Interior Department has finally responded with new regulations that, as of last week, now allow law-abiding Americans the same rights inside our national parks as they have outside the national parks.

    The old Park Service restrictions resulted in harassment of good people on roads or trails that may wind in and out of park service jurisdiction. A recent case on the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia illustrates the problem.
    Damon Gettier, a businessman, Army veteran and concealed weapons permit holder under Virginia law, was convicted of violating Park Service gun restrictions. The Blue Ridge Parkway, widely used as a highway in Virginia, also serves as a scenic overlook in the Shenandoah National Park. Some of the most heavily traveled roads in Virginia are managed by the Park Service. In fact, it would take a lot of careful planning to drive through the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. without crossing a Park Service road. No signs warn drivers, and given the volume of traffic on these roads, the regulations were essentially unenforceable except for an unlucky few. Mr. Gettier was one of the unlucky few. Oh, and he was a former law enforcement officer, too.

    I applaud the Department of Interior for updating the mindless, out-dated restrictions that resulted in the above travesty. Those who administer park lands must fully implement this new rule. This should not be onerous. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administer hundreds of millions of acres in which carrying a gun is essentially ruled by state law, and this causes no problem. Any recalcitrance and Congress must insist this change be established by law rather than mere rule.

    As the Ranking Republican member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and the first member in Congress to begin offering amendments to lift the ban on firearms, I agree that the Interior Department change is good, logical and needed. A few have who object to this rule have inaccurately analyzed data so I also feel duty-bound to refute a few silly criticisms of the new regulations.

    First, some erroneously contend that “allowing guns will bring violence and upset the tranquility” of the parks. Good grief! The Park Service claims that according to their data “only” 9 people were murdered and 49 people were raped on Park Service lands in 2007; however, NPS numbers may vastly under-represent the number of crimes on Park Service lands. The NPS excludes from their reports crimes handled by other agencies such as the FBI, DEA and state law enforcement. The Park Service has no clue how many crimes actually occur on their lands. Even if the Park Service claims about the numbers of crimes committed in national parks is correct, it is of little comfort to the 9 people murdered and 49 people raped.

    To borrow a phrase from the other side, our National Parks are “under assault,” but not from law-abiding concealed permit holders, but rather from criminals. Drug cartels have turned some parks and other federal lands in California into cannabis fields guarded by thugs with AK-47 rifles. Wildlife biologists must be escorted by armed Park Service rangers on some federal lands in Arizona. Criminals have targeted hikers along Park Service trails fully aware they were unarmed and far from help. Instead of acknowledging the crime problem we have in our National Parks, those who would again install a gun ban argue that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns will create a crime wave. One editorial writer assumed those packing heat will be ready to use it at “the first sign of unfriendliness, such as an argument over a camping space.” Sorry, but such a dark view of Americans doesn’t fit the research or reality. Thanks to brilliant research work by the likes of Dr. John Lott and Dr. Gary Kleck, we do know that states with right to carry laws have reduced crime rates and do not become the O-K Corral. Many of the safest parts of Forest Service and BLM lands are areas where guns are present because of hunting. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns will help us take back our National Parks.

    Second, there is no evidence to assume allowing guns will increase poaching. It hasn’t occurred on other similar federal lands.

    Third, some have claimed “lifting the ban will only cause confusion.” Before the new regulation was implemented, Americans legally carrying firearms committed a federal crime simply by turning onto a road managed by the National Park Service. Major roadways traveled, such as the George Washington Parkway in Virginia (a state that allows concealed weapons), made conflict unavoidable and restriction unenforceable. Courts ruled that warning signs need not be posted. None knew where the National Park Service took precedence over state law, and where the state law was again respected. Allowing state and local firearm laws to be the controlling factor is not only practical but easily understood by all.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently blasted (no pun intended) this new respect of legal concealed weapons by saying it will create a “dangerous environment.” I happen to believe that law abiding Americans with concealed weapons permits aren’t too different from Sen. Feinstein when she received her concealed weapons permit in the 1970s and carried a .38 for her safety.

    At least now she won’t be arrested for inadvertently walking on land administered by one branch of the federal government rather than land administered by a different branch of the federal government.Mr. Bishop, a Republican, represents Utah's 1st Congressional District.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    You don't have the "same rights inside National Parks as outside".... I wish they just copied the National Forest Service rules. But still is better then what we had.

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

    Post imported post

    Agreed, current is MUCH better than before....
    Now, just let us CARRY in the blasted outhouse/park service building... Especially after reading the comments of our esteemed Utah Congressman Rob Bishop.... The rule change didn't go FAR ENOUGH!

    Shame I don't live in HIS district so I could vote for him! Hope Utahs newest Congressman replacing Cannon does as well!!!!


    JoeSparky

    Edited to add last paragraph
    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!"

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Apparently the Park Service is not only very well aware of the fact that guns are still banned from buildings, they seem to be "taking what they have left" quite to heart.

    Some how I imagine the anti-gun folks are laughing at the thought of gun carriers miserably "holding it", in cases where the only restrooms are inside visitor centers.

    TFred


    http://mdislander.com/site/index.php...&Itemid=36

    Guns barred in buildings
    Written by Anne Kozak
    Friday, January 16, 2009

    ACADIA NAT’L PARK — Although recent changes in federal regulations allow visitors to take loaded, permitted concealed weapons into national parks and wildlife refuges, visitors cannot take guns into any building, except standalone rest rooms.

    Generally one expects a welcoming sign in a visitors’ center or at park headquarters, but those visiting buildings in Acadia or other parks are now greeted with a sign banning guns. The buildings on McFarland Hill in Bar Harbor, the home of the winter visitor center and park headquarters, now display signs banning guns. Before the park officially opens, the Hulls Cove visitor center and museums will display a similar sign, said deputy superintendent Len Bobinchock.

    Last Friday the rule allowing visitors to carry loaded, concealed weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges went into effect in 48 states, provided the visitor has a state-authorized permit to carry such a weapon. The ruling, issued in the last days of the Bush administration, reverses a 1983 ruling prohibiting guns in national parks.

    Only Illinois and Wisconsin prohibit carrying loaded, concealed weapons. In Maine, concealed weapons cannot be carried without a state permit.

    On Dec. 30, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence filed a suit in federal court in Washington, D.C. asking that the court strike down the December rule by the Department of Interior. The suit, which has not yet been scheduled for a hearing, also asked that the court impose an injunction. Mr. Bobinchock said that it is his understanding that the court cannot issue an injunction before a rule takes effect.

    On Jan. 7, the National Parks and Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees also filed suit. Those groups are basing their suit on the Department of Interior’s failure to conduct an environmental review of the harm the rule might inflict – this review is mandated by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act).

    On Jan. 9, the day the ruling took effect, members of three NPS employee organizations – organizations which include law enforcement and interpretive rangers – voiced their concerns but did not formally file a suit.

    “Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting,” said Scott McElveen, a retired chief park ranger and president of the Association of National Park Rangers.

    “Our members with over 20,000 years accumulated experience managing national parks can see absolutely no good coming from the implementation of this rule,” said Bill Wade, chair of the executive committee of the coalition of NPS retirees and a former superintendent of Shenandoah.

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

    Post imported post

    According to:

    Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 930


    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > §930
    Prev | Next

    §930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    [url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/HowCurrent.php/?tn=18&fragid=T18F00389&extid=usc_sec_18_0 0000930----000-&sourcedate=2008-07-07&proctime=Tue Jul 8 04:26:10 2008]How Current is This?[/url]


    1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
    (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.

    Sorry the above lost some formatting when I cut/pasted it... but,
    by my read....
    as indicated by the enlarged, bolded, and red text.... It SHOULD not be a violation of law for anyone otherwise lawfully with a concealed weapon to enter any federal facility. Self defense is certainly a "lawfulpurpose"!

    But this is just my read.... shame the FED PARK SERVICE servants of the people don't read english the same way I do!

    JoeSparky

    Tried several times to get Sec (a) to be included in my post but for some reason it wont'
    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!"

  6. #6
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    “Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting,” said Scott McElveen, a retired chief park ranger and president of the Association of National Park Rangers.
    Sorry to dissappoint you Scott McElveen,we have more sense than that.We're not park rangers.

    III
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    Sorry the above lost some formatting when I cut/pasted it... but,
    by my read....
    as indicated by the enlarged, bolded, and red text.... It SHOULD not be a violation of law for anyone otherwise lawfully with a concealed weapon to enter any federal facility. Self defense is certainly a "lawfulpurpose"!

    But this is just my read.... shame the FED PARK SERVICE servants of the people don't read english the same way I do!

    JoeSparky
    No worries, I'm just sure that clarifying this for one and all will be at the very top of Eric Holder's list of things to do...

    TFred

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    The article below provides a good insight.



    It's not a perfect world... it's why we have guns!



    [img]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/T/My%20Documents/Tibor's%20docs/Gun%20stuff/images/rkba-logo.jpg[/img]
    Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 930. - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities


    1. 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.
    2. Subsection (a) shall not apply to -


      1. the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    In order to fall within the exception to the law, two conditions have to be met. First, one has to be engaged in the "lawful carrying of firearms." This means you cannot be a "prohibited person" such as a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, or fall within any of the other categories that would prohibit one from lawfully purchasing or owning a firearm under federal law.

    It also means that it must be legal for you to carry the firearm under any applicable federal, state, and local laws. If, for example, it is illegal under state law to carry a firearm in a post office, the exception in section (d) (3) of 18 U.S.C. § 930 offers you no protection. The same is true about any local regulations or restrictions on the terms of your carry permit. In other words, if state or local law, or the terms of your carry permit, prohibit carry in a post office, then such carry is not "lawful," and the exception to the ban on carrying in federal facilities does not apply to you.

    The second condition that has to be met for one to fall within the exception to the ban on carrying a firearm in a federal facility is that one must be carrying in the facility "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." One cannot be in the facility with intent to commit a crime, or while committing a crime, and fall within the exception.

    A simple test of whether one may legally carry in a post office could involve answering four questions:


    1. Is it illegal for me to carry a handgun on the street outside the post office?
    2. Is there a state or local law prohibiting carry in a post office?
    3. Am I violating the terms of my CCW permit by carrying inside a post office?
    4. Am I going to commit a crime or engage in some unlawful activity once inside the facility?
    If one answers "no" to all four questions, it seems that one falls within the exception to the federal ban on carrying in a federal facility. The answer to the first three questions seeks to resolve whether one is engaged in the "lawful carrying" of a firearm. The answer to the final question seeks to resolve whether one is carrying "incident to ... lawful purposes."

    It is important to note that the term "Federal facility" does not include a federal court facility. Even with a valid concealed weapon or handgun license, it is a federal offense to bring a firearm into a federal court facility. Under this statute, the only persons who may lawfully carry in a federal court facility are federal, state, or local law enforcement officers on official duty, or a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if authorized to possess the firearm.

    Anyone with verifiable information about a CCW permit holder who was prosecuted for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 930 (or any other federal law), and who was also not allegedly committing, or attempting to commit, a crime (other than illegal firearm possession), should contact The Gun Zone or the author and provide details.


    AddendumThe Code of Federal Regulations contains the following regulation (excerpted in pertinent part; full text from link):


    39 C.F.R. 232.1 Conduct on Postal Property:

    (l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
    However, looking further down the regulation, we see the following:

    (p) Penalties and other law.

    (2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.
    Regulations in the CFR have to be based on laws in the United States Code, must be consistent with them, and cannot supercede them. Section (p)(2) of the 39 CFR 232.1 recognizes this fact. That is, the CFR cannot abrogate applicable Federal law.

    In so far as firearms are concerned, 18 U.S.C. § 930 (a) is essentially the same as 39 CFR 232.1 (l), except that the regulations do not contain the exception for lawful concealed carry contained in 18 U.S.C. § 930 (d) (3). But by its own terms, the regulations do not override the United States Code ("Federal law)", which does allows carrying a firearm in federal facility.

    In other words, the CFR cannot trump the U.S.C., and the U.S.C. allows lawful concealed carry in a federal facility.

    Disclaimer: The discussion above is not legal advice. It cannot, and does not purport to, apply to any individual's specific situation. If you have questions about whether your specific conduct is legal, consult a qualified, local attorney familiar with laws regulating firearms. You should also obtain specific information from the government agencies responsible for issuing firearm licenses and/or regulating firearm possession in your location. The author and The Gun Zone assume no responsibility for any actions taken in reliance on the information in this discussion.
    [img]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/T/My%20Documents/Tibor's%20docs/Gun%20stuff/images/rpf-head.jpg[/img] Rob Firriolo is an attorney in private practice in New York City. An Endowment Life Member of the NRA, he serves as NRA's Election Volunteer Coordinator for New York's Third Congressional District, located on Long Island. He is also a certified firearms instructor and range safety officer, and a member of the elite Lodge 1201, John Mattera Chapter of the Unspeakable Order of Serious Social Shotgunners.
    Notorious 911 Failures[img]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/T/My%20Documents/Tibor's%20docs/Gun%20stuff/images/molon-labe.jpg[/img]Legacy of Gun Control
    « Return to Top of Page »

    The Gun Zone is honored to be hosted by



    var now = new Date();
    var index=now.getTime();
    document.write('');


    Links 'n' Stuff
    The Gun Zone
    RKBA Directory

    [img]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/T/My%20Documents/Tibor's%20docs/images/bullet.gif[/img]CCW - USPS18 U.S.C. §930
    39 CRF 232.1
    U.S. v Mcarthur
    Text of Poster 158
    AmBack TGZ Forum
    [img]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/T/My%20Documents/Tibor's%20docs/images/tgz.gif[/img]
    The Second Amendment
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    - With original punctuation and capitalization intact.
    Ever see one of these posters in the Post Office lobby?
    [img]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/T/My%20Documents/Tibor's%20docs/Gun%20stuff/images/usps158s.jpg[/img]
    (click to enlarge poster)
    Possession of Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons on Postal Property is Prohibited by Law

    18 U.S.C. Section 930.

    Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities

    (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, 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.

    39 CFR 232.1(l).

    Weapons and Explosives

    No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.

    Report all firearms violations immediately to the Postal Inspection Service

    Poster 158, June 1999
    Valued E-mail Utility
    All E-mail to TGZ is screened by MailWasher Pro for spam and viruses. For a free trial download, click here. Stop unwanted E-mail before it reaches your machine. Strongest recommendation.
    Document History
    Publication: 08/27/2002
    Last Revised: 10/10/2003
    © 2000-2006 by
    The Gun Zone
    All Rights Reserved.
    The Great Outdoors Begins at Your American Backyard





    This page, as with all pages in The Gun Zone, was designed with CSS, and displays at its best in a CSS1-compliant browser... which, sad to relate, yours is not. However, while much of the formatting may be "lost," due to the wonderful properties of CSS, this document should still be readable.

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    I am aware of the Post Office Restrictions....don't nessarilly agree with them but I do abide by them.

    My comments were in the context of the NEWEST MOST RECENT CHANGE regarding LEGAL CONCEALED CARRY IN NATIONAL PARKS WHEN SUCH CARRY IS LEGAL IN THE STATE IN WHICH THE PARK IS LOCATED AND THE CARRIER DOES IN FACT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT.

    And by my read,with avalid concealled carry permit I SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE BATHROOM IN A NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BUILDING IN ANY NATIONAL PARK NATIONWIDE LOCATEDWITHIN A STATE THAT RECOGNIZES MY UTAH CONCEALLED CARRY PERMIT (unless specifically disallowed by that states law)WHEN I AM OTHERWISE LEGAL IN THE PARK!!!!!!

    I just don't want to be the test case!!!

    edited to correct spelling

    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!"

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Here is a copy of an email I just sent regarding all NATIONAL PARKS LOCATED IN UTAH.... I am waiting a response.

    "In light of the recent changes in the Regulations Restricting operable firearms within national parks--- What restrictions currently exist at Utah's National Parks with regard to the possession of a concealled operable firearm by a holder of a valid UTAH concealled Weapons permit within the confines of the Utah National parks and its buildings otherwise open to the public such as Visitors Centers and Restrooms?

    By my plain read of Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 930. - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities: Possession of an otherwise legal firearm by a holder of a valid Utah Concealed Weapons permit would fall under the "OTHER LAWFUL ACTIVITY" exemption with regard to ANY National Park located in the State of UTAH."
    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!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Good commentary by Rep. Bishop.

    I wonder if the NPS's legal beagles have noticed the small print: 18 USC 930 is unenforceable unless notice is posted conspicuously at entrances (18 USC 930 (h)).

    Knowing how picky NPS is about design aesthetics at their --our-- properties, I'm sure any signs posted will be small, obscure, and legall insignificant.


  12. #12
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Good commentary by Rep. Bishop.

    I wonder if the NPS's legal beagles have noticed the small print: 18 USC 930 is unenforceable unless notice is posted conspicuously at entrances (18 USC 930 (h)).

    Knowing how picky NPS is about design aesthetics at their --our-- properties, I'm sure any signs posted will be small, obscure, and legall insignificant.
    The rest of the fine print is unless they can prove that an individual KNEW about the prohibition even if it wasn't posted!!!!

    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!"

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Keep it concealed and you should be fine. Those restrooms are too dirty anyway.... A protected tree in a protected habitat should be just as good.... Then the EPA will jail you....

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Schertz, Texas, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    Just spoke to the park ranger at the Natchez Trace Parkway and at the Vicksburg National Military Park.The park ranger told me that Mississippi state CCW law says that you may not carry a concealed weapon in a "public park". Even though the new federal law says you may carry in the park under the new guidelines, they have decided to follow the state law which says that you may not carry in a public park, which they are now goingto consider all federal parks are "public". They are attempting to do an end around of the new federal laws.

    What I am saying is that the federal park service is now telling the park rangers to enforce the state laws, if they are any, against carrying in a park instead of the new federal law that allows it.

    David

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    dlofton wrote:
    Just spoke to the park ranger at the Natchez Trace Parkway and at the Vicksburg National Military Park.The park ranger told me that Mississippi state CCW law says that you may not carry a concealed weapon in a "public park". Even though the new federal law says you may carry in the park under the new guidelines, they have decided to follow the state law which says that you may not carry in a public park, which they are now goingto consider all federal parks are "public". They are attempting to do an end around of the new federal laws.

    What I am saying is that the federal park service is now telling the park rangers to enforce the state laws, if they are any, against carrying in a park instead of the new federal law that allows it.

    David
    OK, what is the MS statute in question? Ask them to cite. Let's look at teh text to see if they are correct.

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    dlofton wrote:
    Just spoke to the park ranger at the Natchez Trace Parkway and at the Vicksburg National Military Park.The park ranger told me that Mississippi state CCW law says that you may not carry a concealed weapon in a "public park". Even though the new federal law says you may carry in the park under the new guidelines, they have decided to follow the state law which says that you may not carry in a public park, which they are now goingto consider all federal parks are "public". They are attempting to do an end around of the new federal laws.

    What I am saying is that the federal park service is now telling the park rangers to enforce the state laws, if they are any, against carrying in a park instead of the new federal law that allows it.

    David
    OK, what is the MS statute in question? Ask them to cite. Let's look at teh text to see if they are correct.
    Looks like they are referring to Section (13) located here:

    http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/45/009/0101.htm

    There is only one instance of the word "park" in that statute. I added spacing, the long paragraph is a tough read!

    (13) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed pistol or revolver into

    any place of nuisance as defined in Section 95-3-1, Mississippi Code of 1972;

    any police, sheriff or highway patrol station;

    any detention facility, prison or jail;

    any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section shall preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his courtroom;

    any polling place; any meeting place of the governing body of any governmental entity;

    any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;

    any public park unless for the purpose of participating in any authorized firearms-related activity;

    any school, college or professional athletic event not related to firearms;

    any portion of an establishment, licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, that is primarily devoted to dispensing alcoholic beverages;

    any portion of an establishment in which beer or light wine is consumed on the premises, that is primarily devoted to such purpose;

    any elementary or secondary school facility;

    any junior college, community college, college or university facility unless for the purpose of participating in any authorized firearms-related activity;

    inside the passenger terminal of any airport, except that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal if the firearm is encased for shipment, for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft;

    any church or other place of worship; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

    In addition to the places enumerated in this subsection, the carrying of a concealed pistol or revolver may be disallowed in any place in the discretion of the person or entity exercising control over the physical location of such place by the placing of a written notice clearly readable at a distance of not less than ten (10) feet that the "carrying of a pistol or revolver is prohibited." No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize the participants in a parade or demonstration for which a permit is required to carry a concealed pistol or revolver.
    I think it's kind of cute that the Park Ranger thinks he (or even the state of Mississippi) gets to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. If you follow that logic, Virginia's open carry right should have prevailed over Federal Park land even before the rule change allowed concealed carry!

    TFred

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Yup, MS screws itself in it;s own National Parks - sounds like you all need to contact your legislators to strike this public park ban.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Yup, MS screws itself in it's own National Parks - sounds like you all need to contact your legislators to strike this public park ban.
    So you think that in this case, MS State Law trumps Federal jurisdiction over National Park land? Why would that be? Aren't the Feds uniformly heavy handed when it comes to jurisdiction on their property?

    TFred


  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    dlofton wrote:
    SNIP>>>
    any public park unless for the purpose of participating in any authorized firearms-related activity;

    ...SNIP
    I think it's kind of cute that the Park Ranger thinks he (or even the state of Mississippi) gets to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. If you follow that logic, Virginia's open carry right should have prevailed over Federal Park land even before the rule change allowed concealed carry!

    TFred
    Could you NOT CLAIM that since Federal law allows carrying concealed in Federal parks where NOT made illegal by state law and if state law allows weapons for SELF DEFENSE that the action of carrying a concealled firearm is an "AUTHORIZED FIREARMS-RELATED ACTIVITY in the context of this statute?

    IF a precedent can be set in MS to this effect then your should be good to go....

    But IANAL

    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!"

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Yup, MS screws itself in it's own National Parks - sounds like you all need to contact your legislators to strike this public park ban.
    So you think that in this case, MS State Law trumps Federal jurisdiction over National Park land?
    You ask the wrong question - concealed carry was made lawful on National Park land ONLY if such carry is lawful under the laws of the state.

  21. #21
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Yup, MS screws itself in it's own National Parks - sounds like you all need to contact your legislators to strike this public park ban.
    So you think that in this case, MS State Law trumps Federal jurisdiction over National Park land?
    You ask the wrong question - concealed carry was made lawful on National Park land ONLY if such carry is lawful under the laws of the state.
    Ah, of course. That makes sense. This is why you are going to one day be paid the big bucks! And the rest of us will continue to add "IANAL" to the ends of our posts...

    TFred


  22. #22
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    Could you NOT CLAIM that since Federal law allows carrying concealed in Federal parks where NOT made illegal by state law and if state law allows weapons for SELF DEFENSE that the action of carrying a concealled firearm is an "AUTHORIZED FIREARMS-RELATED ACTIVITY in the context of this statute?

    IF a precedent can be set in MS to this effect then your should be good to go....

    But IANAL

    JoeSparky
    +1. I had the same thought. I would think that somewhere in the state's statutes allows for firearms to be used in seld defense. Therefore, it is authorized firearms related activity. Who wants to be the test case and get a big win for the team?

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Yup, MS screws itself in it;s own National Parks - sounds like you all need to contact your legislators to strike this public park ban.
    HB 559(which actually eliminates a wide variety of no-carry zones and is the best alternative pending) and SB 2306 would do just that.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  24. #24
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Looks like I will be peeing in the same bathroom the bears, coyotes, and squirrels use. Less chance of getting cut or receiving an infection anyway.
    I aim to misbehave

  25. #25
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    opusd2 wrote:
    Looks like I will be peeing in the same bathroom the bears, coyotes, and squirrels use. Less chance of getting cut or receiving an infection anyway.
    Sure makes iteasier to avoid the Airport Bathroom sex-sting operations also!!!!

    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!"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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