Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Examiner.com: National Park Service to educate public on gun rights

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d13-National-Park-Service-to-educate-public-on-gun-rights

    SNIP


    According to National Park Spokesperson Phil Selleck, the Park Service is not going to go through any formal rulemaking process for each park. Instead said Selleck, the Service is going to work to "educate the public" and park employees on the gun carry rights in each park. Selleck said that federal law at 18 U.S.C. 930continues to ban gun carry in "federal facilities," but advised that the Park Service does not consider unattended structures such as "outhouses" to be federal facilities because "employees are not regularly present there to perform official duties."

  2. #2
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Now, if we could ONLY get the Feds on record stating that SELF DEFENSE is PART of "OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSE" in 18 USC 930 highlighted above!

    THEN I could carry within the other buildings in a national park or forest other than "an unattended outhouse!"

    Edited to add ending " after purpose and the "18" in front of 'US' and the "C" after 'US'.
    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!"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Open carry is something of a political movement, so perhaps 'political statement' could be the 'other lawful purpose'.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    Well, it's gratifying to know thatI can protect myself while taking a dump at Yellowstone! :celebrate
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    370

    Post imported post

    Yeah, and if only police would stop harassing open carriers, blah blah blah.

    The feds deliberately omit (d) on the signs they post. The law even allows them to deceive the public in this way. They're not going to change their ways until they're backed into a corner in a courtroom.

  6. #6
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    However, employees ARE there to performofficial "doodies".



    ...sorry, it just begged to be said

  8. #8
    Regular Member altajava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    Would the State Capitol Building qualify as an unattended outhouse?
    It could be argued the Federal Capitol Building has become one!

  9. #9
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    I don't know about any of you, but when I am performing duties in an outhouse they are indeed "official".

    And growing up with an outhouse (yes, very simple roots) even as a kid I was encouraged to carry at least a shotgun out there with me. Of course I was raised rurally.
    I aim to misbehave

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    opusd2 wrote:
    And growing up with an outhouse (yes, very simple roots) even as a kid I was encouraged to carry at least a shotgun out there with me. Of course I was raised rurally.
    There's nothing scarier than a cornered outhouse rodent!

  11. #11
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Spoken like someone who has been there!

    But there is something a little scarier, an unseen crack on the outhouse seat that is discovered after sitting down. I won't go into specifics.
    I aim to misbehave

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    wouldn't it be better if they'd forget about educating the public and concentrate on educating their employees instead. Just thinking out loud here. Any problems that arise will most likely be by uninformed/untrained "employees" rather than from a citizen.



    I expect that most of the problems that occur will be from a ranger/employee trying to violate the rights of a citzen by harassing the citizen for lawful carry.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    So, are they saying the outhouses are not regularly serviced? Ewww...

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    Well, it's gratifying to know thatI can protect myself while taking a dump at Yellowstone! :celebrate
    Not just yourself and your loved ones, but your turds, too.... :-P
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  15. #15
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    If you read subsection H of 930 you will see

    (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

    Kind of looks like they have to have it posted. I wonder if they do....AT EVERY ENTRANCE....(like the one I will use won't be)...... I think I'll talk to a lawyer about just what that last part says though. The part beginning "unlles such person had....". Is that their way of saying "he read it on the internet and so he had notice?"




    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    January is coming soon!

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    January is coming soon!
    It is January !

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    It's FEBRUARY 22nd for the "active" date is it not?

    Also, in reading section 512 of the amendment, I see no prohibition against carrying inside the facilities located in National Parks. In fact, it says:

    (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.

    Now that seems to me to be saying that we can carry, PERIOD, so long as we are in compliance with state law and not prohibited from posessing a firearm (i.e. prohibited individual).

    Also, it doesn't make any restrictions on open or concealled, in or out of vehicle, ONLY that it must be in compliance with state law.

    Here in Oregon, it's perfectly legal to have a loaded rifle in the window of your truck (or slung on your shoulder if you want)or a handgun carried openly on your side. No permit is required for either so it will be interesting when I make my first trip up to the "local" NP to see just how things go.

    Anyone else care to weigh in on what the LAW is really saying about where we can carry on the NP's? I don't think 930 really applies as a restriction but I've seen some saying that it does and therefore prohibits carry in the buildings. I disagree but this is certainly new ground and I'm not a lawyer.




    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    we can carry, PERIOD, so long as we are in compliance with state law and not prohibited from posessing a firearm (i.e. prohibited individual).
    Wrong, you must also comply with all federal law, including 18 USC 930.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern Prince William Co. VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    I thought that the new "regulation" says that the State Law governs the rules regarding carrying, depending on where the National Park is located.

    Thus, in California with strict laws, one could not defend themselves while in the "head" at say, Yosemite National Park; whereas, if we were lucky enough to have that urge at say, Shenandoah Park in Virginia, we could: "Shoot Back".

  21. #21
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    An 18 USC 930 says "incidental to hunting or OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSE" and self defense, by section 512 of the Coburn amendment, is a lwful purpose by the way I'm seeing it.

    I'm pretty sure the feds will interpret it differently but it sure seems that the intent and language tells us that and here is the "FLOW" that takes me there......

    512.a.8 says:

    (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.

    And 512.b says:

    (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 possessingthefirearm; 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.

    Since we're assuming the individual is not a prohibited person we can ignore B.1 -- B says SHALL NOT......ANY REGULATION THAT PRHOBITS....POSSESSING...... --



    In 18 USC 930.D.3 it says: (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.



    Since the Coburn Amendment makes it clear that the intent of Congress is to emphasize and reinforce the right of the people in the second amendment AND 930.D.3 says "lwful purposes"...... as of Feb 22nd, 2010, the peoples lawful exercise of their 2nd amendment right (in states that don't usurp it) IS a lawful purpose and therefore 930 does not prohibit such carry.



    AGAIN....not a lawyer, just how I'm reading it.










    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    if--

    (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessingthefirearm;
    The above section does not abrogate 18 USC 930 which does prohibit generally firearm possession in federal facilities.

    You are aware that the National Park Service contends that 18 USC 930 remains a valid bar to weapons possession in federal facilities in National Parks so let's not get others confused into thinking they can break the law and make gun owners look bad.

  23. #23
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    We-the-People wrote:
    if--

    (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessingthefirearm;
    The above section does not abrogate 18 USC 930 which does prohibit generally firearm possession in federal facilities.

    You are aware that the National Park Service contends that 18 USC 930 remains a valid bar to weapons possession in federal facilities in National Parks so let's not get others confused into thinking they can break the law and make gun owners look bad.
    I'm not trying to get anyone confused but is sure isn't hard considering the inability of our federal task masters to comply with written law and the Constitution. The same problem exists at every level of government within this country and any perusal of the stories of law abiding OCers being unlawfully harassed, that are here on this site in probably every states forum, will quickly prove the fact of this failure of our system.

    The law certainly appears to a reasonable person to say (which we all know doesn't mean that's the way it's applied) that if you're carrying for a lawful purpose you're okay. Since Congress has said, quite clearly, that self defense is a lawful purpose then the current interpretation of the law by the feds needs to come in line with Congressional law.

    I suppose, some day, we'll have a test case that doesn't get plead out and we will end up with a case law decision. It just sickens me that our government is so out of control, out of touch, and immune from complying with the law that they can destroy the lives of honest citizens through unlawful use of force and coercion........

    The same issues that anyone carrying openly and lawfully faces each time they step out into public. It only takes one bad(or justignorant of the law)cop or departmental policy to destroy a citizens entire life. Thankfully, it's getting better by the month and we are making headway across the country.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern Prince William Co. VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Now, I like to ride my bicycle down the George Washington Parkway, which is part of the National Park Service. I always have carried concealed, but is it now going to be legal?

    What about carrying at that little soccer field at the end of Ronald Reagan National Airport? That is National Park property also. Can we carry there? It is in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

  25. #25
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    rugerdon wrote:
    I thought that the new "regulation" says that the State Law governs the rules regarding carrying, depending on where the National Park is located.

    Thus, in California with strict laws, one could not defend themselves while in the "head" at say, Yosemite National Park; whereas, if we were lucky enough to have that urge at say, Shenandoah Park in Virginia, we could: "Shoot Back".
    Don't be too quick to jump on the anti-California band-wagon. It is perfectly legal, in California, to openly carry a side-arm without a permit*. And after February it will be legal to carry in Yosemite.


    *Every state has restrictions and requirements concerning carry, know yours.

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
  •