• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National Park Carry

WARCHILD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,768
Location
Corunna, Michigan, USA
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?
 

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
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.
 

TheSzerdi

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Melvindale, Michigan, USA
imported post

Admiral-Ackbar-trap.jpg
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

TheSzerdi wrote:
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.
 

Phoenixphire

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
396
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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".
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.;)
 

WARCHILD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,768
Location
Corunna, Michigan, USA
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
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.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
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".....
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
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.



 

springerdave

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
665
Location
Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
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:uhoh: 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?:D
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
 
Top