Carry in the National Parks - Poll

imported post

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/gun-toting-visitors-heading-to-national-parks/19353107

The article contains 2 poll questions. Hit em.

"What do you think of the new rule allowing guns in national parks?"

"Do you plan to carry a gun at national parks?"

imported post

Thanks, voted in favor of pro-gunon both.

imported post

Looking forward to Monday!

imported post

voted and look forward to be carrying in the National Parks

oh I carried last year for the few weeks we had

sprat

imported post

We are behind in the poll! We need to get more activity on this.

imported post

I wouldn't worry too much about the question, "Do you plan to carry a gun...."

Right now the yes's are at 35%, that'smost likelyhigher than the precentage of people that actually carry everyday, anywhere else.

imported post

Voted:It's a good idea& Yes

imported post

This poll is based on browser cookies and is of horrid programming. I can't stand polls like this, but I went ahead and voted appropriately anyway.

imported post

What do you think of the new rule allowing guns in national parks?

It's a bad idea53% It's a good idea44% Not sure3% Total Votes: 5,070

Do you plan to carry a gun at national parks?

No54% Yes36% Undecided5% I don't visit national parks5% Total Votes: 4,789

imported post

I am always amazed when folks assert the notion that it is important to "feel safe" as opposed to actually being safe. Could it be a left-over effect of being the 31st-place winner in a class of 30 kids?

I know that there is no absolute guarantee that I will "be safe" in a National Park or anywhere else, but I prefer to tilt the odds a bit more in my favor.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

I didn't notice any provision for comments, could that be so that you can't point out the lies in the article?

imported post

Lameness is afoot...

To Hell With Not Being Armed

I have just as much right to defend myself against bears and wolves as I do another human being.

imported post

The Washington Post is already on this with for one a bunch of retired Park Service employees kvetching and moaning and various sources predicting a bloodbath - just as they did with the CHP "Shall Issue" laws.

One thing we here in the Virginia part of the DC Metro Area have to deal with is that the United States Park Police patrol all the Federal parkland around here, and they are pretty darn authoritarian. There are going to be a BUNCH of run-ins wherein they will demand a "permit" for even OC and/or go for an illegally concealed weapons charge for a hip holster in a car without a CHP. And in that case, state precedent about what is "open" vs "comcealed" may not hold up in Federal court.

Another thing is the "felony furlong"; that part of the GW parkway that crosses Boundary Channel and runs briefly through D.C. Plus, there are the Metropolitan Airports Authority Police, many of whom take a large view of their jurisdiction over "adjacent roadways" to an airport. Dollars to donuts one or two of these Barney Fifes try to apply "airport law" to the GW Parkway.

This may get very interesting....

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

One thing we here in the Virginia part of the DC Metro Area have to deal with is that the United States Park Police patrol all the Federal parkland around here, and they are pretty darn authoritarian. There are going to be a BUNCH of run-ins wherein they will demand a "permit" for even OC and/or go for an illegally concealed weapons charge for a hip holster in a car without a CHP. And in that case, state precedent about what is "open" vs "comcealed" may not hold up in Federal court.

Click to expand...

Interesting indeed. Aren't you still open for prosecution under the state? Since the crime occured in the state, the Feds may know that an open vs concealed will not hold up in court and ask the State Attorney General to prosecute. I don't know, but I assume this is possible.

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

One thing we here in the Virginia part of the DC Metro Area have to deal with is that the United States Park Police patrol all the Federal parkland around here, and they are pretty darn authoritarian. There are going to be a BUNCH of run-ins wherein they will demand a "permit" for even OC and/or go for an illegally concealed weapons charge for a hip holster in a car without a CHP. And in that case, state precedent about what is "open" vs "comcealed" may not hold up in Federal court.

Click to expand...

Interesting indeed. Aren't you still open for prosecution under the state? Since the crime occured in the state, the Feds may know that an open vs concealed will not hold up in court and ask the State Attorney General to prosecute. I don't know, but I assume this is possible.

Click to expand...

As the federal park carry law, to my understanding, punts to state law by saying that carry in federal parks must be in compliance with state law, the federal district court will (I imagine) have to apply state law (including state court precedents) to make the determination as to whether one violated the federal park carry law. Federal courts frequently have to apply state law and state court precedents (for example, when bringing a case in federal district court based upon diversity of jurisdiction - i.e., citizens from two different states suing one another).

I'm not a litigator though.

imported post

Talking about Federal charges in Federal Court. Example: Larry Lawful is driving near Fort Marcy Park in Virginia and carrying his Bersa in a holster on his right hip. He is yanked over by USPP Officer Haywood Jablomi and his partner Officer Jack Hoff, for having a dirty license plate. Jablomi and Hoff approach from opposite sides, Hoff notices the weapon, shouts GUN, PARTNER! and both cops draw down and order Larry out of the car. After handcuffing Lawful "for your safety and ours" and assuring him he is not "at this time under arrest"; they then ask if he can produce a "pernit for that weapon".

When Lawful informs Jablomi and Hoff that in Virginia no permit is needed for Open Carry, Jablomi responds that since they couldn't see the weapon before they approached, it was in their opinion "concealed by the car" and inform him that he is under arrest.

When the case goes to trial, Lawful tries to cite Virginia precedent and common Virginia understanding as to what "open" vs "concealed" is, ONLY TO BE TLD BY THE JUDGE THAT ALTHOUGH STATE STATUTES ARE GUIDELINES AS TO WHAT IS PERMITTED WEAPON-WISE, VIRGINIA PRECEDENT AND PRACTICE ARE NOT BINDING ON THE FEDERAL COURTS :shock:

Lawful is convicted of a felony and faces all the hardships that "scarlet letter" entails.

You can bet something like this will happen sooner rather thn later. If you plan on driving the GWP heeled, get a CHP. I have been here since 1973, and believe me I know what the USPP are like.

imported post

Alexcabbie,

Per the line of cases including and following Erie RR v. Tompkins, state court precedents are supposed to be binding upon federal district courts when determining issues of substantive state law. That was a diversity jurisdiction case, but I imagine the same principle should apply to any application of substantive state law. Some appellate circuits have undermined this by declaring that they don't have to follow anything but state supreme court precedents (and not lower state courts). Where there is no state precedent, the federal courts typically try to make an educated guess as to how the state courts will come down on the issue... but don't always get it right.

imported post

VA Lawyer wrote:

Alexcabbie,

Per the line of cases including and following Erie RR v. Tompkins, state court precedents are supposed to be binding upon federal district courts when determining issues of substantive state law. That was a diversity jurisdiction case, but I imagine the same principle should apply to any application of substantive state law. Some appellate circuits have undermined this by declaring that they don't have to follow anything but state supreme court precedents (and not lower state courts). Where there is no state precedent, the federal courts typically try to make an educated guess as to how the state courts will come down on the issue... but don't always get it right.

Click to expand...

No &^%*, Sherlock. That is exactly what I am worried about.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Talking about Federal charges in Federal Court. Example: Larry Lawful is driving near Fort Marcy Park in Virginia and carrying his Bersa in a holster on his right hip. He is yanked over by USPP Officer Haywood Jablomi and his partner Officer Jack Hoff, for having a dirty license plate. Jablomi and Hoff approach from opposite sides, Hoff notices the weapon, shouts GUN, PARTNER! and both cops draw down and order Larry out of the car. After handcuffing Lawful "for your safety and ours" and assuring him he is not "at this time under arrest"; they then ask if he can produce a "pernit for that weapon".

When Lawful informs Jablomi and Hoff that in Virginia no permit is needed for Open Carry, Jablomi responds that since they couldn't see the weapon before they approached, it was in their opinion "concealed by the car" and inform him that he is under arrest.

When the case goes to trial, Lawful tries to cite Virginia precedent and common Virginia understanding as to what "open" vs "concealed" is, ONLY TO BE TLD BY THE JUDGE THAT ALTHOUGH STATE STATUTES ARE GUIDELINES AS TO WHAT IS PERMITTED WEAPON-WISE, VIRGINIA PRECEDENT AND PRACTICE ARE NOT BINDING ON THE FEDERAL COURTS :shock:

Lawful is convicted of a felony and faces all the hardships that "scarlet letter" entails.

You can bet something like this will happen sooner rather thn later. If you plan on driving the GWP heeled, get a CHP. I have been here since 1973, and believe me I know what the USPP are like.

Click to expand...

If Hoff can see the weapon, it isn't concealed. Case is thrown out of court, twoofficers haveCivil Rights violations cases on their heads, and the Court, in an effort to avoid a heavier workload, decrees that requiring permits to conceal is Unconstitutional.

Hey, a guy can dream, right?



IANAL