Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: National Park Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772

    Post imported post

    Let's not make this an argument from the start. There is an actual problem I see with the confusion that I see in the law; similar to post office carry. This may not be an issue if the new law defining "Lawful Purpose" is made to be more definitive.

    1. Carry of firearms in parks will follow state law in which the park is located.
    2. It has been noted the firearms will not be allowed in any federal buildings or
    where park employees are present in the area performing their daily duties.
    All buildings are supposed to posted with signage prohibiting weapons.

    Now we have the exception to the federal building rule:

    (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.

    My question is:
    If you ignore the signs, would this be a trespass civil infraction?
    Or would it possibly constitute felony charges because it was a violation on federal property?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    WARCHILD wrote:
    Let's not make this an argument from the start. There is an actual problem I see with the confusion that I see in the law; similar to post office carry. This may not be an issue if the new law defining "Lawful Purpose" is made to be more definitive.

    1. Carry of firearms in parks will follow state law in which the park is located.
    2. It has been noted the firearms will not be allowed in any federal buildings or¬*
    ¬*¬*¬* where park employees are present in the area performing their daily duties.
    ¬*¬*¬* All buildings are supposed to posted with signage prohibiting weapons.

    Now we have the exception to the federal building rule:

    (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.

    My question is:
    If you ignore the signs, would this be a trespass civil infraction?
    Or would it possibly constitute felony charges because it was a violation on federal property?
    Nobody knows. As far as I know, there's no precedence set, so the first to try it and get caught, who otherwise is legal (not a convicted felon ect) will get to be the guinea pig.
    Rand Paul 2016

  3. #3
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290

    Post imported post


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    TheSzerdi wrote:
    SNIP
    Yeah, no kidding.

    1. Carry of firearms in parks will follow state law in which the park is located.
    2. It has been noted the firearms will not be allowed in any federal buildings or
    where park employees are present in the area performing their daily duties.
    All buildings are supposed to posted with signage prohibiting weapons.



  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    I think that Heller would start coming into play on this.

    The government must show a compelling reason to restrict a right. I am having trouble with the idea that the government can show this to be a "sensitive area".

  6. #6
    Guest

    Post imported post

    IANAL, nor a first year law student, but in Michigan signs carry no legal weight. So until i am asked to leave, I will disregard the signs. No crime.

    I have also started carrying in post offices.

    I believe I can do so for other lawful purposes.

    If you don't see me post anymore, you'll know what happened.





  7. #7
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772

    Post imported post

    Have you been OC or CC in the PO Pat? Any Challenge yet?
    When we get old we tend to have mental blocks or suffer from cranal rectal inversion. I now understand your point where the "other lawful purpose" comes into play. Since we are exempt from the statute the worst they can do is ask us to leave. Sign or no sign.

  8. #8
    Guest

    Post imported post

    I am in a open carry prohibited state. So I am required to conceal without allowing the weapon being discernible by the "average" citizen.

    Once in a OC state I will be less "prudent" about my concealment.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    IANAL, nor a first year law student, but in Michigan signs carry no legal weight. So until i am asked to leave, I will disregard the signs. No crime.

    I have also started carrying in post offices.

    I believe I can do so for other lawful purposes.

    If you don't see me post anymore, you'll know what happened.



    The postmaster here knows I carry and has no problem with it. I have picked up large packages and the gun showed and not a word was said. It all depends on the Person or Idiot who is the Postmaster.

    Although I don't "always" agree with you, this one you hot a home run on for me. My rights shall NOT be infringed.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    IANAL, nor a first year law student, but in Michigan signs carry no legal weight. So until i am asked to leave, I will disregard the signs. No crime.

    I have also started carrying in post offices.

    I believe I can do so for other lawful purposes.

    If you don't see me post anymore, you'll know what happened.



    I wonder what constitutes "legal notification"? Do "No Hunting" or "No Trespassing" or "No Firearms Allowed" signs carry no weight?

    Not addressing the Post Office "lawful purposes" quagmire issue and not jerking you around... just curious what the legal definition of "legal notification" entails. For some odd reason I suspect signage, especially conspicuous signage, does hold legal weight.

    Just tried my google fu on MCL.... and have far to go before attaining the level of "grasshopper".....
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  11. #11
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Bailenforcer wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    IANAL, nor a first year law student, but in Michigan signs carry no legal weight. So until i am asked to leave, I will disregard the signs. No crime.

    I have also started carrying in post offices.

    I believe I can do so for other lawful purposes.

    If you don't see me post anymore, you'll know what happened.



    The postmaster here knows I carry and has no problem with it. I have pciked up large packages and the gun showed and not a word was said. It all depends on the Person or Idiot who is the Postmaster.
    I expect national park buildings to be the same.

  12. #12
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    IANAL, nor a first year law student, but in Michigan signs carry no legal weight. So until i am asked to leave, I will disregard the signs. No crime.

    I have also started carrying in post offices.

    I believe I can do so for other lawful purposes.

    If you don't see me post anymore, you'll know what happened.



    I wonder what constitutes "legal notification"? Do "No Hunting" or "No Trespassing" or "No Firearms Allowed" signs carry no weight?

    Not addressing the Post Office "lawful purposes" quagmire issue and not jerking you around... just curious what the legal definition of "legal notification" entails. For some odd reason I suspect signage, especially conspicuous signage, does hold legal weight.

    Just tried my google fu on MCL.... and have far to go before attaining the level of "grasshopper".....
    No hunting and no trespassing signs do have legal weight.

    They are defined and described by statute specifically.

    Not "no firearms" though.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mm11bqimj5ljyj45uzlp1yzv))/mileg.aspx?page=Home

  13. #13
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    IANAL, nor a first year law student, but in Michigan signs carry no legal weight. So until i am asked to leave, I will disregard the signs. No crime.

    I have also started carrying in post offices.

    I believe I can do so for other lawful purposes.

    If you don't see me post anymore, you'll know what happened.



    I wonder what constitutes "legal notification"? Do "No Hunting" or "No Trespassing" or "No Firearms Allowed" signs carry no weight?

    Not addressing the Post Office "lawful purposes" quagmire issue and not jerking you around... just curious what the legal definition of "legal notification" entails. For some odd reason I suspect signage, especially conspicuous signage, does hold legal weight.

    Just tried my google fu on MCL.... and have far to go before attaining the level of "grasshopper".....
    No hunting and no trespassing signs do have legal weight.

    They are defined and described by statute specifically.

    Not "no firearms" though.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mm11bqimj5ljyj45uzlp1yzv))/mileg.aspx?page=Home
    Thank you PAT... your google fu far exceeds mine... I erred by looking for something that wasn't specifically there.

    However....

    Sec. 73102.
    -snip-
    (5) Consent to enter or remain upon the property of another person pursuant to this section may be given orally or in writing. The consent may establish conditions for entering or remaining upon that property. Unless prohibited in the written consent, a written consent may be amended or revoked orally. If the owner or his or her lessee or agent requires all persons entering or remaining upon the property to have written consent, the presence of the person on the property without written consent is prima facie evidence of unlawful entry.

    Now.... is a sign with explicit conditions therein constitute written consent to enter or remain upon the property of another person as long as that person abides by the conditions established in the sign? Including a "No firearms allowed" condition?

    Would a court see it that way?

    Or has my google fu sent me to the wrong section of MCL?

    Just realized.... I am guilty of a thread hijack... my apologies Warchild......

    National Parks carry? Perhaps I'm an old wuss but I'd say to go slowly and not push any of the gray areas until carry in the parks isn't in the forefront being watched carefully by all the anti nuts... and once carry in the parks is no longer a hot button issue then explore those gray areas.



    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    I guess I'll have to carry a camp shovel for my facitilic(new word?) needs when visiting the NPS. There are a lot of trees handy in most of the ones I frequent any way. I may know someone that didn't give a rats back end about carring there before the law changed Monday anyway.springerdave.

    edit: What do you say to the Ranger when the question of that shovel on your belt next to your gun comes up?

  15. #15
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Just tell him it's a pooper scooper :what:
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

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

    Post imported post

    WARCHILD wrote:
    or where park employees are present in the area performing their daily duties.
    nope - see 18 USC 930

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    WARCHILD wrote:
    or where park employees are present in the area performing their daily duties.
    nope - see 18 USC 930
    What Subsection makes this invalid? Subsection (d) and/or (h)?

  18. #18
    Guest

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    WARCHILD wrote:
    or where park employees are present in the area performing their daily duties.
    nope - see 18 USC 930
    What Subsection makes this invalid? Subsection (d) and/or (h)?
    d(3) and h

    Outside of Washington D.C. I have never seen posting in accordance with "h" in any location other than the Federal courthouse.

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

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    WARCHILD wrote:
    or where park employees are present in the area performing their daily duties.
    nope - see 18 USC 930
    What Subsection makes this invalid? Subsection (d) and/or (h)?
    its not "invalid," the offense of carrying generally "where park employees are present in the area performing their daily duties" does not exst - please read 18 USC 930.

Posting Permissions

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