National Park Open Carry

imported post

I've searched high and low for the text of the recently passed Credit Card Reform Act. As most of you are probably aware it contains a provision allowing loaded firearms in National Parks.

Does anybody know if this will be concealed carry only (with a permit), or will the "normal" laws of Utah apply.

imported post

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h627_eas.xml


SEC. 512. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

• (a) Congressional Findings- Congress finds the following:

• • (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that `the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.

• • (2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that `except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net'.

• • (3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not `possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges' of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

• • (4) The regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals while at units of--

• • • (A) the National Park System; and

• • • (B) the National Wildlife Refuge System.

• • (5) The existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

• • (6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009--

• • • (A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and

• • • (B) the new regulations--

• • • • (i) are under review by the administration; and

• • • • (ii) may be altered.

• • (7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

• • (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.

imported post

combatcarry wrote:

I've searched high and low for the text of the recently passed Credit Card Reform Act. As most of you are probably aware it contains a provision allowing loaded firearms in National Parks.

Does anybody know if this will be concealed carry only (with a permit), or will the "normal" laws of Utah apply.

Click to expand...

According to the sarge above, it appears the text reads that the State laws will apply because it does not mention concealed or open carry; just legality of possession.

Kevin

imported post

Sounds good to me... After February I will need to renew my annual parks pass and do some hiking.

imported post

so we will be able to OC (without a permit) in all natl parks in UT? FREAKIN COOL! when does this take affect?

imported post

Currently, it takes effect in February of 2010. Senator Coburn has pledged to push to attach a revised version to another bill to make it take effect sooner.

This is one of the things that shows how the congressworms and the leach in chief (don't) think. This bill to "protect the rights of credit card holders" to stop arbitrary and monumental interest rate hikes was so urgent to get passed, but then they don't make it take effect for nine months.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

This is one of the things that shows how the congressworms and the leach in chief (don't) think. This bill to "protect the rights of credit card holders" to stop arbitrary and monumental interest rate hikes was so urgent to get passed, but then they don't make it take effect for nine months.

Click to expand...

That was actually both intentional and sensible.

The credit card regulation changes are going to require significant work on the part of the banks to accommodate. They have to compare their existing policies, processes, software, contracts, customer communications, etc. to the requirements of the new law, then make all of the appropriate changes, test and validate the new systems, and have everything reviewed again for compliance by their attorneys.

They set the effective date well into the future to give the banks time to do all of this stuff.

imported post

swillden wrote:

rpyne wrote:

This is one of the things that shows how the congressworms and the leach in chief (don't) think. This bill to "protect the rights of credit card holders" to stop arbitrary and monumental interest rate hikes was so urgent to get passed, but then they don't make it take effect for nine months.

Click to expand...

That was actually both intentional and sensible.

The credit card regulation changes are going to require significant work on the part of the banks to accommodate. They have to compare their existing policies, processes, software, contracts, customer communications, etc. to the requirements of the new law, then make all of the appropriate changes, test and validate the new systems, and have everything reviewed again for compliance by their attorneys.

They set the effective date well into the future to give the banks time to do all of this stuff.

Click to expand...

It also gives the banks time to find excuses to jack everyone's interest rates to the max before it takes effect.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

It also gives the banks time to find excuses to jack everyone's interest rates to the max before it takes effect.

Click to expand...

I've never much worried about what interest rate my cards carry. In 20+ years of carrying a credit card I've never carried a balance more than a month or two. Can't remember the last time it happened. Indeed, I don't even think of my cards as "credit" cards. I think of them as "convenience" cards, "security" cards, and cards with various benefits and features. I don't spend more on my card each month than I can pay in full.

With all due respect, it is pretty foolish and shortsighted to carry a balance on a credit card. Indeed, short of bookie or payday lender it is hard to imagine a more expensive line of credit. Almost impossible to imagine a line of credit more difficult to manage.

Individually and collectively we all need to live within our means.

And as someone who doesn't carry a balance on his cards, I'm not looking forward to the loss of some rewards as cards have to make up for lost revenue by not being able to appropriately charge interest based on the risk of non-payment the borrower presents.

And all off topic. But since you felt compelled to mention credit card companies raising rates as if it were some kind of bad thing, I figured a response might be in order.

Charles

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

I don't even think of my cards as "credit" cards. I think of them as "convenience" cards, "security" cards, and cards with various benefits and features. I don't spend more on my card each month than I can pay in full.

Click to expand...

When I bought my NGV,I borrowed cash from my bank to buy the car, and then paid the bank back with my credit card. :shock:

They were offering 0% interest for a full year on balance transfers! Only paid a $50 transfer fee! :celebrate

Then I made back the cost of the NGV a few months later with theState tax credit, and fuel savings. :dude:

Credit cards can be useful. Or dangerous. I've been there too. :banghead:

Hooray Park Carry!

imported post

Just FYI for everyone interested in going to any National Parks:

June 20-21

July 18-19

August 15-16

"Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced that the National Park Service will offer three fee-free weekends this summer to encourage Americans seeking affordable vacations to visit these national treasures. There are 391 national parks located across the country in 49 states".

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=649&sid=6685800


Just so I am clear, there is no oc in National Parks until Feb 2010? If I have my permit I'm perfectly fine to conceal when I'm in the park andgo about my business but if I don't have my permit just keep it in the vehicle (probably a secure container)?

imported post

As far as I know, there is no loaded carry in national parks, period, until February 2010.

imported post

bmeldrum wrote:

Just so I am clear, there is no oc in National Parks until Feb 2010? If I have my permit I'm perfectly fine to conceal when I'm in the park andgo about my business but if I don't have my permit just keep it in the vehicle (probably a secure container)?

Click to expand...

Under currently enforced rules, there is NO CARRY period inside National Parks for us mere taxpaying citizens.

Not open, not concealed, not loaded, not unloaded, not readily accessible in the car, nada.

The only currently legal way to have a firearm inside most National Parks (there are a few exceptions in some parks in Alaska, I understand) is for the gun to be unloaded, and not readily accessible for use. I hate to quibble over nomenclature too much, but so far as I'm concerned, that is not "carrying" a gun. The best one might call it is "transporting" a gun.

And so far as I understand--and someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong--even when the Coburn amendment becomes law in Feb 2010, it will STILL be illegal to take a firearm into any federal building including National Park Visitor Centers. Not sure whether remote toilets will fall under that ban or not. Also not sure how the ever increasing use of shuttle buses inside parks plays into this. But certainly give some thought to how you will handle the legalities of using the toilet at a Visitor Center before striking off on that all day hike with your gun following Feb 2010.

Charles

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

bmeldrum wrote:

Just so I am clear, there is no oc in National Parks until Feb 2010? If I have my permit I'm perfectly fine to conceal when I'm in the park andgo about my business but if I don't have my permit just keep it in the vehicle (probably a secure container)?

Click to expand...

Under currently enforced rules, there is NO CARRY period inside National Parks for us mere taxpaying citizens.

Not open, not concealed, not loaded, not unloaded, not readily accessible in the car, nada.

The only currently legal way to have a firearm inside most National Parks (there are a few exceptions in some parks in Alaska, I understand) is for the gun to be unloaded, and not readily accessible for use. I hate to quibble over nomenclature too much, but so far as I'm concerned, that is not "carrying" a gun. The best one might call it is "transporting" a gun.

And so far as I understand--and someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong--even when the Coburn amendment becomes law in Feb 2010, it will STILL be illegal to take a firearm into any federal building including National Park Visitor Centers. Not sure whether remote toilets will fall under that ban or not. Also not sure how the ever increasing use of shuttle buses inside parks plays into this. But certainly give some thought to how you will handle the legalities of using the toilet at a Visitor Center before striking off on that all day hike with your gun following Feb 2010.

Charles

Click to expand...

You have a frim grasp of the situation. Well put!

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

And so far as I understand--and someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong--even when the Coburn amendment becomes law in Feb 2010, it will STILL be illegal to take a firearm into any federal building including National Park Visitor Centers. Not sure whether remote toilets will fall under that ban or not. Also not sure how the ever increasing use of shuttle buses inside parks plays into this. But certainly give some thought to how you will handle the legalities of using the toilet at a Visitor Center before striking off on that all day hike with your gun following Feb 2010.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I fear that it will be a matter for the courts since the language of the bill is too vague.

(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.

Click to expand...

The question is what constitutes a "unit" of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System?

The plain language would seem to indicate that would include buildings, but we all know that bureaurats and lawyers will twist otherwise plain language to fit their own purposes.


Edit: grammar

imported post

rpyne wrote:

The question is what constitutes a "unit" of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System?

Click to expand...

Actually, the question is what constitutes a federal facility. The law that makes this illegal is this one:

18 USC Sec. 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.

Click to expand...

The exception in subsection (d) includes this clause, which would seem to protect someone carrying for self-defense, but it's unclear:

(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.

Click to expand...

It certainly seems like lawfully carrying for self-defense is a "lawful purpose", but nobody wants to be the one to go to court to find out. And, as for the definition of "Federal facility", this is what it has to say:

(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.

Click to expand...

I think you're safe going to the bathroom in one of the parking lot bathrooms (I doubt Federal employees regularly perform their official duties there), but if you go into a visitor center you're clearly at risk.

Basically, we have the exact same issue here as with post offices and other federal buildings.

rpyne wrote:

Unfortunately, I fear that it will be a matter for the courts since the language of the bill is too vague

Click to expand...

I doubt the courts will ever address it, just as they've never dealt with it for post offices. It won't be enforced, so there will be no chance to test it in the courts, but cautious and law-abiding gun owners will have to stress about it.

imported post

swillden wrote:

I think you're safe going to the bathroom in one of the parking lot bathrooms (I doubt Federal employees regularly perform their official duties there), but if you go into a visitor center you're clearly at risk.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've written except perhaps exactly what constitutes the "official duties" of far too many federal employees.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

swillden wrote:

I think you're safe going to the bathroom in one of the parking lot bathrooms (I doubt Federal employees regularly perform their official duties there), but if you go into a visitor center you're clearly at risk.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've written except perhaps exactly what constitutes the "official duties" of far too many federal employees.

Click to expand...

Zing! I am a "federal employee, and far too many of my "official duties" take place inthis sh!thole. :?

Unfortunately, there is no toilet in here.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

swillden wrote:

I think you're safe going to the bathroom in one of the parking lot bathrooms (I doubt Federal employees regularly perform their official duties there), but if you go into a visitor center you're clearly at risk.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've written except perhaps exactly what constitutes the "official duties" of far too many federal employees.

Click to expand...

:lol:

I stand corrected! The good thing is that the federal cops, attorneys and judges who would have to argue that are also federal employees.