Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Firearms in National Parks

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=266215

    Everyone here will love this particular Q/A in the FAQ:

    Q. Can I openly carry my firearm in a national park?

    A. If it is allowed by applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.
    Another gem:

    Congress was clear that its intent was to permit firearms in national parks in the circumstances outlined in the legislation and we have an obligation to implement the laws enacted by Congress. Unlike the regulatory provisions in the previous Administration that were subsequently judicially vacated, the statute is not limited to the possession of only concealed firearms, but generally looks to applicable state law to control the possession of both concealed firearms as well as “open” carry.
    Emphasis theirs.


  2. #2
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Everyone needs to remember that due to California's penal code 12031 (which applies anywhere within CA's borders), unless one possesses a California CCW permit, it is only legal to carry a loaded firearm in an unincorporated area where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited. Expect all of the CA national parks to enact discharge bans if they don't have them already. So that will basically leave us with UOC (unloaded open carry) as the only legal method of carry in the NPs until PC 12031 can be struck down. I hope I am wrong and we will be able to LOC in the NPs but I'm not holding my breath.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    Out of curiosity I went to the Yosemite National Park website and found this:


    Weapons/Firearms
    The possession, use, or discharge of a firearm in Yosemite National Park is prohibited, to include pellet and BB guns. Weapons may be transported through the park, provided that they are unloaded, broken down or cased, with ammunition kept separate from the weapon, and securely stored in a car or hotel room.
    You may not carry the weapon.

    Firearms As of February 22, 2010, a new federal law allows people who can legally possess firearms under applicable federal, state, and local laws, to legally possess firearms in this park. It is the responsibility of visitors to understand and comply with all applicable state, local, and federal firearms laws before entering this park. As a starting point, visit the California Attorney General's website. Federal law also prohibits firearms in certain facilities in this park; those places are marked with signs at all public entrances.

    So it would appear that the prohibition against discharge of firearms will stand. This means that, generally, loaded open carry will be prohibited according to state law.
    UOC will still be the rule and we'll have a whole new class of law enforcement officer to educate.

  4. #4
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    12031 (f) As used in this section, "prohibited area" means any place
    where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon.

    This leaves us in the same boat as any other incorporated area.

    Mike has indicated many times that this only applies to restrictions imposed by the county. I've not yet understood his train of reasoning for this distinction, but maybe he can chime and and we can go over it again. I hate to ask him to beat a theortically dead horse, butI've been exempt from 12031 via 12031(b)(6) until the recent change to that section, so I'm sort of new to this aspect.


  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    12031 (f) As used in this section, "prohibited area" means any place
    where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon.

    This leaves us in the same boat as any other incorporated area.

    Mike has indicated many times that this only applies to restrictions imposed by the county. I've not yet understood his train of reasoning for this distinction, but maybe he can chime and and we can go over it again. I hate to ask him to beat a theortically dead horse, butI've been exempt from 12031 via 12031(b)(6) until the recent change to that section, so I'm sort of new to this aspect.
    See 51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 197 (1968), People v Knight, People v Segura

    It's a bit confusing, but Mike may very well be correct. However, it all hinges on the AG opinion, which itself is confusing and incomplete, and I don't know how legally binding an AG opinion is anyway.

    Another problem I have with the AG opinion is it repeatedly contradicts itself, it uses flawed logic, and it cites laws that do not exist (maybe they did in 1968?).

    Setting aside the bizarre 374c/roads/streets confusion, and just focusing on whether or not a federal shooting prohibition in the NP would trigger "prohibited area" language in 12031, it all boils down to this sentence in the opinion:

    Penal Code section 12031 does not prohibit the carrying of a rifle or shotgun with unexpended shells or cartridges in the magazine on a public road in an unincorporated area where there are no local ordinances or other laws or regulations prohibiting the discharge of firearms.
    Now it would seem that those that argue that to trigger "prohibited area" requires only a local law believe that the word "local" in that sentence modifies the entire phrase "ordinance or other laws and regulations". That may or may not be correct. The "or" could just as well separate "local ordinances" from "other laws or regulations" which would then include state or federal laws.




  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    In an abundance of caution,I think open carriers in California should probably carry unloaded unless absolutely sure they are not traveling in a "prohibited area."

    Whether or not a foreign (e.g., federal sovereign's) shooting ban creates a "prohibited area" within the meaning of 12031's load ban is yet to be decided - as we know, the domestic state statute banning shooting on all state roads, 347(c)does not create prohibited area under 12031, see People v. Knight & People v. Segura, so it strains my aging brain to think that while a locality's own state sovereign's shooting ban does not create a load ban, a federal sovereign's shooting ban would - after all, as Governor Schwarzenegger wrote in his 2008 veto message accompanying his quashing of SB 1171's ban loaded open carry,he vetoed teh bill becase the bill would have removed a"local" optionto ban loaded open carry.

    In any event, for purposes of NP Rule 2.4, it sure would see very odd indeed, and in contravention to Congress recent action,if national park authorities were to enact shooting bans just to make loaded carry unlawful in Caifornia National Park.

    And if the Park Service were to enforce Reg. 2.4 (for violating load ban in 12031), or 12031 via the assimilated crimes act doctrine, the Defendant can at least assert a Second Amendment claim in her defense against the park service without regard to possible future incorporation of the Second Amendment against state power

  7. #7
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    In an abundance of caution,I think open carriers in California should probably carry unloaded unless absolutely sure they are not traveling in a "prohibited area."

    And of the Park Service were to enforce Reg. 2.4 (for violating load ban in 12031), or 12031 via the assimilated crimes act doctrin, the Defendant can at least assert a Second Amendment claim in her defense against the park service without regard to possible future incorporation of the Second Amendment against state power
    Thank you for chiming in Mike, I appreciate it!

    Oh ya, for some reason I completely forgot...we actually have a 2nd Amendment while in a National Park!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •