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

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.

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

if--

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessingthefirearm;

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Mike wrote:

We-the-People wrote:

if--

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessingthefirearm;

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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".

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

While it's "perfectly legal", there are so many restrictions these days that it's very difficult to do so without inadvertently entering any of a myriad of areas where it's not legal.

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

While it's "perfectly legal", there are so many restrictions these days that it's very difficult to do so without inadvertently entering any of a myriad of areas where it's not legal.

Click to expand...

1. School zones
2. Government buildings

Not exactly "a myriad of areas".

"Every state has restrictions and requirements concerning carry." Why are you criticizing California's?

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

We-the-People wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

While it's "perfectly legal", there are so many restrictions these days that it's very difficult to do so without inadvertently entering any of a myriad of areas where it's not legal.

Click to expand...

1. School zones
2. Government buildings

Not exactly "a myriad of areas".

"Every state has restrictions and requirements concerning carry." Why are you criticizing California's?

Click to expand...

I am a political refugee from the PRK (Peoples Republic of Kalifornia), had one of it's covetedConcealed Weapons Permits, and the PRK's firearms regulations are one major reason we chose to immigrate to the United States.

Be within 1000 feet of school property and you're in violation right? A city block is about 300 feet wide so you can be two to three blocks over from a school, not know it, and get arrested. I'll take Oregons simple and non voluminous firearms regulations along with it's SHALL ISSUE CHL requirement.



EDITED TO ADD:

There are 9,898 schools in Kalifornia. With a land area of 163,696 square miles that means an average of 1 school for every 16.5 square miles. However, considering the vast expanses of forest, desert, etc., there are far more schools in non "wilderness" areas making it very dicey to carry openly in any developed area.

Number of schools in Kalifornia: http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/navigation/fstwopanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile.asp%3Flevel%3D04%26reportnumber%3D16

Land mass of Kalifornia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

We-the-People wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

While it's "perfectly legal", there are so many restrictions these days that it's very difficult to do so without inadvertently entering any of a myriad of areas where it's not legal.

Click to expand...

1. School zones
2. Government buildings

Not exactly "a myriad of areas".

"Every state has restrictions and requirements concerning carry." Why are you criticizing California's?

Click to expand...

I am a political refugee from the PRK (Peoples Republic of Kalifornia), had one of it's covetedConcealed Weapons Permits, and the PRK's firearms regulations are one major reason we chose to immigrate to the United States.

Be within 1000 feet of school property and you're in violation right? A city block is about 300 feet wide so you can be two to three blocks over from a school, not know it, and get arrested. I'll take Oregons simple and non voluminous firearms regulations along with it's SHALL ISSUE CHL requirement.

Click to expand...

I agree, Oregon gun laws are better than California's. But hundreds of us here open carry on a daily basis, interact with the police AND sleep in our own bed at night. It's not that hard.
But the post is about carry in National Parks. There are very few NPs in "incorporated areas" and even fewer public schools in national parks. So, open carry in national parks in California. (Wait 'til March, though.)

Oh, and by leaving the state you took one more conservative, pro-gun vote with you, thanks.

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

Oh, and by leaving the state you took one more conservative, pro-gun vote with you, thanks.

Click to expand...

Well the firearms laws weren't the reason we immigrated to the United States but Diane Frankenstein and Babs Boxer with their anti gun agenda certainly didn't go into the "stay" column of our decision making.

imported post

I am a PRK native, born in LA county, grew up in the OC and SF. I made my money and got out at the end of 1999, just over 10 years ago. Conveniently, I moved just next door to Washoe County, Nevada.

I was tired of being vilified by liberals for having the audacity to create jobs for hundreds and wealth for thousands of people (ironically many of them liberals) and wanting to for the first time in my life enjoy the 2A rights that most other Americans take for granted. Wanting to get on to the business of enjoying rights CA suppressed my entire life, I gave up and left. The lack of a state income tax in Nevada didn't hurt, either.

With me, my pro-2A vote did leave as well but with my I move to Nevada I now get to vote against Dingy Harry so there are silver linings. Also, with all the money I no longer pay to CA in confiscatory income taxes, I have plenty to give to 2A rights groups and I do.

I look forward to Supes hopeful positive decision about incorporation of the 2A later this year and eventual shall issue and reciprocity of CCW permits with California. If that doesn't happen in too long I'm buy a vacation home in Modoc County and apply for a CCW there.

Those still in California, keep fighting the good fight because things haven't looked this good for gun rights in California in my lifetime and I remain optimistic for the future there in that regard.

imported post

Ok, I read this whole thread, and I still don't know what is going on!

One law seems to contradict the other if Im reading it right. Usually when I read a law, I wind up more confused than I started.

The US Constitution says the right of the people, and to keep and bear, and shall not be infringed. This, I am absolutely clear on. I also read that 18 thing, and it runs contradictory to A2 in every respect, so why is it enforceable.

imported post

How about a simple sign on their website, at park entrances and maps which state, "The National Park Services respects your right to carry firearms in accordance with federal and state laws. For those who choose not to carry a firearm, don't give us any lip!"

Or, "...there are many other fine countries out there..."

Ok, that's a bit over the top...

Perhaps: "For those who choose not to carry a firearm, please respect the rights of those who do."

imported post

since9 wrote:

Perhaps: "For those who choose not to carry a firearm, please respect the rights of those who do."

Click to expand...

I would prefer to see something along the lines of:

For those who choose not to carry a firearm don't go looking for someone who did choose to carry when you need one.

imported post

LoL!

Desparate non-carrier: "How many bullets do you have in that gun?"

Grim Carrier: "Just enough for me and my family."

On a more serious note, I agree with their efforts to educate the public, though I suspect that's mostly because they don't want to deal with 100 wrongful complaints a week. As for their educating their employees, good! They dang well better, as failure to do so would be negligence contributory to any incident or misunderstanding involving open carry.

imported post

since9 wrote:

LoL!

Desparate non-carrier: "How many bullets do you have in that gun?"

Grim Carrier: "Just enough for me and my family."

On a more serious note, I agree with their efforts to educate the public, though I suspect that's mostly because they don't want to deal with 100 wrongful complaints a week. As for their educating their employees, good! They dang well better, as failure to do so would be negligence contributory to any incident or misunderstanding involving open carry.

Click to expand...

Yeah but you ever try to sue the Federal Government for "ignorance" or "negligence"? It just won't fly. Probably because they're afraid we'd start suing our elected "representatives" next. LOL

imported post

The good thing about the Park Service educating the public on gun laws is that the Park Services will kept up todate with gun laws (hopefully).

imported post

What about NPS employees who have a CCW? Can they carry on the job???

imported post

"Oh, and by leaving the state you took one more conservative, pro-gun vote with you, thanks."


We left the DPRK in 1992. It was obvious that the gun rights situation was only going to get worse and my one vote was inundated by the hoardes in L.A., San Francisco, etc. It was not worth living where I could not own the guns I wanted or get a CCW. In WA my 1 vote may actually make some difference in a close election, I have a CCW, and can own a homeland defense rifle. It is a shame and I resent having to leave a state with all of the natural beauty and cultural assets available in the DPRK to live in Free America.

I am looking forward to visiting Olympic N.P. Now that it is no longer an unarmed victim zome.

imported post

We left the PRK for multiple reasons. We were looking to get out of the state due to the confiscatorial taxes,we didn't like the firearms laws though I did have a CCWand carried except at work due to it being local government (county) and prohibiting employees, through an employee policy ( apply it to non employees with CCW), from carrying, even with a CCW, on any county property whether on or off work. They were trying to apply this to ALL property including that county property which the employee had no work connection to (i.e. parks, small airport, sheriffs search and rescue vehicles etc.). They had no legal authority to dictate off duty carry other than at the work place but were trying to enforce it.

We ended up moving to Oregon because of aging parents who needed some help. We immediately BOTH got our concealed licenses and we've since purchased some very nice, banned in California so we can't move back, firearms.

We took our money with us though we were unable to sell our house before the housing crash so we do have to pay the PRK's extortion on property taxes and file a state tax return because of the rental income though they don't get any tax on that income (always a loss and Oregon has a reciprocal agreement of some sort so it goes to Oregon anyway).

Now, we both carry daily. I open carry, she conceals. When we go to California we bring our PRK legal sidearms for self defense. I'll also be UOC there on future trips and am considering talking to the Sheriff and City PD about obtaining a CCW due to business needs in the area. Not sure how that will go.

Freedom, it's delicious.