• 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.

Congressman Bishop Author's Pro-National Park Carry Commentary

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

sccrref

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
741
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
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?
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
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.
 

opusd2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
453
Location
Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

JoeSparky

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

opusd2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
453
Location
Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Trust me, if I see a badger or bear tapping it's foot as I use the privvy, I will sh!t-n-git quicker than a politician can stuff a C note in his/her pocket.
 

tito887

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
146
Location
, ,
imported post

I know it's just ranting to the choir but may I say that I find all these different rules and specifics for every little situation completely ridiculous. We have to spend hours and hours researching and consulting just to make sure we're legal. while the wild animals (both human and furry) that we're trying to defend ourselves from don't give a damn. It makes me sick that we have to beg and placate the political class to make the rules less confusing so we don't turn into criminals. :cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss:
 

JoeSparky

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

tito887 wrote:
I know it's just ranting to the choir but may I say that I find all these different rules and specifics for every little situation completely ridiculous. We have to spend hours and hours researching and consulting just to make sure we're legal. while the wild animals (both human and furry) that we're trying to defend ourselves from don't give a damn. It makes me sick that we have to beg and placate the political class to make the rules less confusing so we don't turn into criminals. :cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss:

I certainly had the same thoughts as I sat for >5minat a signal light that REFUSED to turn green for me and there was absolutely NO OTHER TRAFFIC TO BE SEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, is the light there primarily for safety,or to regulate the traffic flow, or as a method in increase revenue for the municipality/schools????

(HINT-- the above is a Rhetorical Question!)

JoeSparky
 

smallmansyndrome

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
63
Location
, ,
imported post

JoeSparky wrote:
tito887 wrote:
I know it's just ranting to the choir but may I say that I find all these different rules and specifics for every little situation completely ridiculous. We have to spend hours and hours researching and consulting just to make sure we're legal. while the wild animals (both human and furry) that we're trying to defend ourselves from don't give a damn. It makes me sick that we have to beg and placate the political class to make the rules less confusing so we don't turn into criminals. :cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss:

I certainly had the same thoughts as I sat for >5minat a signal light that REFUSED to turn green for me and there was absolutely NO OTHER TRAFFIC TO BE SEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, is the light there primarily for safety,or to regulate the traffic flow, or as a method in increase revenue for the municipality/schools????

(HINT-- the above is a Rhetorical Question!)

JoeSparky
U KNOW IS JUST FOR REVENUE
 

JoeSparky

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

JoeSparky wrote:
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."

Here is the reply...

Sir or Madam:

The change in regulation was intended to allow the normal flow of traffic
of persons carrying a concealed firearm with a valid CCW permit through the
parks, but not into the facilities. In the preamble to the regulation
change, it was noted that this new regulation was not intended to permit
the carrying of concealed firearms into federal facilities and that 18 USC
930 would still apply.

The current interpretation by the office of policy and regulation
interprets the lawful carrying of a concealed firearm not to be a lawful
purpose, but a lawful priviledge. Therefore, carrying a firearm in a
federal facility is still prohibited by 18 USC 930 by citizen with no other
lawful purpose. They have also further ruled that federal facilities
include only those structures where federal employees, volunteers and
partners report to work. In essence, most restrooms would not be included
in this definition.

I would urge you not to attempt to carry your firearm into a federal
facility as identified above. Also, be mindful of any private businesses
(such as the Bryce Canyon Lodge, General Store, etc.) where the current
owner/operator has posted signs prohibiting the possession of firearms. As
each park in Utah is managed individually, I would caution that you look
for any information posted on structures, or call ahead to obtain
information from private businesses. Do not assume that because one lodge
does not prohibit firearms that another lodge will not have that
restriction in place.

I hope this has answered your question.

Dave Fox
Chief Ranger
Bryce Canyon National Park


IT IS OFFICIAL.... YES, YOU CAN CARRY ANYWHERE IN THE NATIONAL PARK THAT YOU WANT TO RISK BEING ARRESTED!!!!!!!!!!!!:cuss::cuss::cuss:
 
Top