Mykal
Regular Member
imported post
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=59576
posted from phone. hope it passes.
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=59576
posted from phone. hope it passes.
-
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.
-
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.
Loaded carry in National Parks
- Thread starter Mykal
- Start date
cato
Newbie
imported post
From the CFN discussion. It passed both houses of Congress. Now on to the POTUS. He said that he will sign it as is.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2507901&postcount=60
From the CFN discussion. It passed both houses of Congress. Now on to the POTUS. He said that he will sign it as is.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2507901&postcount=60
cato
Newbie
imported post
LOC will be lawful in Unincorporatedareas where there is no prohibition against discharge in that NP area. Otherwise it's UOC or lawful concealed carry.
The "Federal Building's firearm prohibition" will still stand however. I guess we get to pee in the parking lot. :banghead:
LOC will be lawful in Unincorporatedareas where there is no prohibition against discharge in that NP area. Otherwise it's UOC or lawful concealed carry.
The "Federal Building's firearm prohibition" will still stand however. I guess we get to pee in the parking lot. :banghead:
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Too bad the 2A issue rides on the back of such an ugly bill.
The passage of the "Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights" is just another nail in the coffin of liberty...
===========================
Now before explaining further, consider that I stand to benefit form the passage of this bill:
In the past month every card account my wife and I own have announced huge jumps in interest rates (most roughly doubled) - even though we both have 700+ credit ratings and have never missed a payment deadline and always pay more than the minimum due.
=======================
Now, back to why I'm opposed to it:
We need less government, not more! People have the right to choose not to accept the addendum, or to even get the card in the first place. This candy-coated cow dung is just more of the same government stepping in where it is not allowed to and trampling the right to contract.
I don't want to be the beneficiary of government thuggery any more than I want to be a victim of it.
Laissez faire!
Too bad the 2A issue rides on the back of such an ugly bill.
The passage of the "Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights" is just another nail in the coffin of liberty...
===========================
Now before explaining further, consider that I stand to benefit form the passage of this bill:
In the past month every card account my wife and I own have announced huge jumps in interest rates (most roughly doubled) - even though we both have 700+ credit ratings and have never missed a payment deadline and always pay more than the minimum due.
=======================
Now, back to why I'm opposed to it:
We need less government, not more! People have the right to choose not to accept the addendum, or to even get the card in the first place. This candy-coated cow dung is just more of the same government stepping in where it is not allowed to and trampling the right to contract.
I don't want to be the beneficiary of government thuggery any more than I want to be a victim of it.
Laissez faire!
bad_ace
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
+1 Laissez faire indeed. Education about bad contracts and raw deals made by the credit card companies would self correct the issues of "predatory lending"
My other passion (aside from firearms and being pro 2A) is being debt free.
https://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/new_to_dave_2926.htmlc?ictid=new_to_dave
"If you play with snakes you're gonna get bitten" ~ Dave Ramsey
P.S. All of a sudden I feel like camping
+1 Laissez faire indeed. Education about bad contracts and raw deals made by the credit card companies would self correct the issues of "predatory lending"
My other passion (aside from firearms and being pro 2A) is being debt free.
https://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/new_to_dave_2926.htmlc?ictid=new_to_dave
"If you play with snakes you're gonna get bitten" ~ Dave Ramsey
P.S. All of a sudden I feel like camping
cato
Newbie
imported post
Beware that this bill doesn't go in to effect until late Feb. 2010 (nine months from POTUS signature if he signs this month).
And if one is in a non-12031 Loaded ok area with longarms (rifles and shotguns)that Fish and Game Code 2006 prohibits a round in the chamber while thelongarmis in the vehicle.
Beware that this bill doesn't go in to effect until late Feb. 2010 (nine months from POTUS signature if he signs this month).
And if one is in a non-12031 Loaded ok area with longarms (rifles and shotguns)that Fish and Game Code 2006 prohibits a round in the chamber while thelongarmis in the vehicle.
imported post
My question: Once this law goes into effect, it seems like we will be able to carry in various parts of San Francisco, is this true (because if it is, that's totally rad)?
Here is the map of the Golden Gate National Recreational Area which I believe is a National Park: http://www.nps.gov/PWR/customcf/app...rkname=Golden Gate National Recreational Area
Here is the webpage for the same park: http://www.nps.gov/goga/
Here is the text for the bill where loaded carry is allowed in national parks (the relevant portions which I quote below): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-627
My question: Once this law goes into effect, it seems like we will be able to carry in various parts of San Francisco, is this true (because if it is, that's totally rad)?
Here is the map of the Golden Gate National Recreational Area which I believe is a National Park: http://www.nps.gov/PWR/customcf/app...rkname=Golden Gate National Recreational Area
Here is the webpage for the same park: http://www.nps.gov/goga/
Here is the text for the bill where loaded carry is allowed in national parks (the relevant portions which I quote below): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-627
So does all this add up to meaning that in 8 months, and 20ish days we will be able to carry loaded firearms sorta in San Francisco? According to the map it looks like we can walk from the Presidio across the Golden Gate even. Can't wait for that!
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
You will be able to carry in any national park in accordance with state law.
If your state has a law that requires a permit to carry either OC or CC, then that will apply.
If your state has a law that requires a permit to carry CC, but OC requires no permit, then that will apply.
If your state has a law that allows OC, but only if it's unloaded, then that will apply.
You will be able to carry in any national park in accordance with state law.
If your state has a law that requires a permit to carry either OC or CC, then that will apply.
If your state has a law that requires a permit to carry CC, but OC requires no permit, then that will apply.
If your state has a law that allows OC, but only if it's unloaded, then that will apply.
imported post
Maybe my question is better phrased as such:
Since it is legal in CA to carry loaded in unincorporated areas, does that mean any national park qualifies as an unincorporated area, and hence we are allowed to carry loaded there?
Maybe my question is better phrased as such:
Since it is legal in CA to carry loaded in unincorporated areas, does that mean any national park qualifies as an unincorporated area, and hence we are allowed to carry loaded there?
cato
Newbie
imported post
bigtoe416 wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
It's not quite that simple. Go to californiaopencarry.org and read the "what is loaded" link.
AB
Regular Member
imported post
cato wrote:
From Sen. Coburns Amendment:
(8)The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.
(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear Arms in Units of the National Park System and
the National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National
Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit
of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.
When a law doesn't define something within it-self, outside sources are used.
American Heritage Definition of Unit
NOUN: An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional constituent of a whole.
Merriam-Webster Definition of Unit
a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a whole.
Black's Law Dictionary no definition given for "Unit"
Looks like it could certainly be challenged to mean as buildings or structures within the park system, since they are part of the unit - as a whole.
cato wrote:
In my opinion, the way this law was writtenthe "building prohibition"could be challenged.
From Sen. Coburns Amendment:
(8)The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.
(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear Arms in Units of the National Park System and
the National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National
Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit
of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.
When a law doesn't define something within it-self, outside sources are used.
American Heritage Definition of Unit
NOUN: An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional constituent of a whole.
Merriam-Webster Definition of Unit
a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a whole.
Black's Law Dictionary no definition given for "Unit"
Looks like it could certainly be challenged to mean as buildings or structures within the park system, since they are part of the unit - as a whole.
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
There has always been the "other lawful purpose" exemption that could be challenged but the new law seems to add a more direct application of "right" and "self defense" to the "other lawful purpose". Time will tell.
There has always been the "other lawful purpose" exemption that could be challenged but the new law seems to add a more direct application of "right" and "self defense" to the "other lawful purpose". Time will tell.
imported post
cato wrote:
I believe I meet both the restrictions listed by the federal law, I am not a restricted person, and I am violating no state laws since California doesn't expressly restrict the carrying of loaded weapons (only in incorporated areas or on public roads).
12031(a) says carrying loaded is prohibited "in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory."
So is a national park both a prohibited area and unincorporated territory?
Well a prohibited area is "any place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon." Will is be unlawful to discharge a weapon in a national park in 9 months? This law doesn't say, so I'm not sure. If it is unlawful, then I'd argue that this federal law change doesn't affect us since we can't carry where we can't fire. If it is lawful then I'd argue that we can carry in the Presidio. If it is some mish-mash, and you can shoot some places and not others, then how can we find out where it is and is not lawful to shoot firearms?
cato wrote:
I still don't get it, maybe I have my stupid hat on today or something. I know I can't carry loaded in an incorporated area, which San Francisco most certainly is. But in the Presidio and other parts of the Golden Gate Recreational Area I'm not sure if I am still in San Francisco. It would seem to me that I am in a National Park, which is separate from San Francisco city and county.
I believe I meet both the restrictions listed by the federal law, I am not a restricted person, and I am violating no state laws since California doesn't expressly restrict the carrying of loaded weapons (only in incorporated areas or on public roads).
12031(a) says carrying loaded is prohibited "in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory."
So is a national park both a prohibited area and unincorporated territory?
Well a prohibited area is "any place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon." Will is be unlawful to discharge a weapon in a national park in 9 months? This law doesn't say, so I'm not sure. If it is unlawful, then I'd argue that this federal law change doesn't affect us since we can't carry where we can't fire. If it is lawful then I'd argue that we can carry in the Presidio. If it is some mish-mash, and you can shoot some places and not others, then how can we find out where it is and is not lawful to shoot firearms?
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
bigtoe416 wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
AFAIK, National Park status doesn't necessarily imply that it is unincorporated.
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Most National Park territory is unincorporated. Yes, some is incorporated, like the National Mall, and the like. But places like Yosemite and Yellowstone are unincorporated.
Currently there are no shooting restrictions, so the 12031 definition of prohibited area does not apply. I'm sure the Park Service will come up with some no-shooting rules, at which point, here in CA, those will be prohibited areas and thus loading is not allowed. You'll still be able to UOC. And since this is CA 12031, you will still be able to load in your own campsite, and in emergencies.
Most National Park territory is unincorporated. Yes, some is incorporated, like the National Mall, and the like. But places like Yosemite and Yellowstone are unincorporated.
Currently there are no shooting restrictions, so the 12031 definition of prohibited area does not apply. I'm sure the Park Service will come up with some no-shooting rules, at which point, here in CA, those will be prohibited areas and thus loading is not allowed. You'll still be able to UOC. And since this is CA 12031, you will still be able to load in your own campsite, and in emergencies.