Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Open Carry in George Washington National Forest

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Yorktown, ,
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    This past weekend, i took advantage of some good camping weather (besides one freak hail storm).

    Had my P345 on me the whole time. Never had it run out of the holster and go on a shooting spree or anything. I guess the liberals were wrong? *gasp*



    anywho... heres some fun photos and impromptu winch cable zip line fun
    enjoy!









  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Herndon, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    So open carry is legal is GW Forest now? That's Awesome. Man I got to keep up. Nice jeep by the way.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Jeepindon wrote:
    So open carry is legal is GW Forest now? That's Awesome. Man I got to keep up. Nice jeep by the way.
    Except for hunting season...only with a CHP!

    But Bob's gonna fix it

  4. #4
    Newbie W.E.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    all over VA, ,
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    That wire-thing looks like a lot of work.

    You should have gotten the guy who anchored it on the other side to pull you across.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Yorktown, ,
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    haha, it took about 2 minutes to set up.

    I love the outdoors, getting dirty, etc. Its what i live for and love.

    It was a blast. i wish you guys could have experienced it, haha

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings; but the Virginia Administrative Code is not yet fixed. If you have a CHP, you can carry CONCEALED on National Forest lands. Open carry is not yet available. As pointed out, Governor Bob needs to get on this for us. (I have cut out non-pertinent sections of the regulations to shorten this post)

    4VAC15-40-60. Hunting with dogs or possession of weapons in certain locations during closed season.
    A. Department-owned lands west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and national forest lands statewide. It shall be unlawful to have in possession... any firearm that is not unloaded and cased or dismantled on all national forest lands statewide …except during the period when it is lawful to take bear, deer, grouse, pheasant, quail, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel, turkey, or waterfowl on these lands.
    D. Shooting ranges and authorized activities. The provisions of this section shall not prohibit the conduct of any activities authorized by the board or the establishment and operation of archery and shooting ranges on the lands described in subsection A ..of this section. The use of firearms… in such ranges during the closed season period will be restricted to the area within the established range boundaries. Such weapons shall be required to be unloaded and cased or dismantled in all areas other than the range boundaries. The use of firearms… during the closed hunting period in such ranges shall be restricted to target shooting only and no birds or animals shall be molested.
    F. It shall be unlawful to possess or transport any loaded firearm... in or on any vehicle at any time on national forest lands or department-owned lands.
    G. The provisions of this section shall not prohibit the possession, transport and use of loaded firearms by employees of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries while engaged in the performance of their authorized and official duties, nor shall it prohibit possession and transport of loaded concealed handguns where the individual possesses a concealed handgun permit as defined in § 18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia.
    H. Meaning of "possession" of… firearm and definition of… "loaded firearm." For the purpose of this section, the word "possession" shall include, but not be limited to, having any …firearm in or on one's person, vehicle or conveyance. For the purpose of this section, a "loaded firearm" shall be defined as a firearm in which ammunition is chambered or loaded in the magazine or clip when such magazine or clip is engaged or partially engaged in a firearm. The definition of a loaded muzzleloading firearm will include a muzzleloading firearm that is capped, or has a charged pan, or has a primer or battery installed in the firearm….

    I'm still trying to figure out the grammatical construction that forbids having any firearm "in one's person". Not a pretty mental picture...


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Yorktown, ,
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    im not so sure where you might have found this... but im pretty sure Feb24th of this year, the law went into effect for open carry in a NP

    what about this:
    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d13-National-Park-Service-to-educate-public-on-gun-rights

    forgot the important quote:

    "Coburn Amendment permits both concealed and open carry of firearms, including long guns, on National Park property."

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    DJEEPER wrote:
    im not so sure where you might have found this... but im pretty sure Feb24th of this year, the law went into effect for open carry in a NP

    what about this:
    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d13-National-Park-Service-to-educate-public-on-gun-rights

    forgot the important quote:

    "Coburn Amendment permits both concealed and open carry of firearms, including long guns, on National Park property."
    National Park. National Forest. Two different sets of rules. Very frustrating.

    TFred

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    DJEEPER wrote:
    im not so sure where you might have found this... but im pretty sure Feb24th of this year, the law went into effect for open carry in a NP

    what about this:
    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d13-National-Park-Service-to-educate-public-on-gun-rights

    forgot the important quote:

    "Coburn Amendment permits both concealed and open carry of firearms, including long guns, on National Park property."
    National Parks and the National Forest are two entirely different things DJEEPER.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    National Parks and Wildlife Refuges were covered by the Coburn Amendment. National Parks are part of the Department of the Interior.

    National Forests were NOT covered by the change in NPS regulations; they are part of the Department of Agriculture. State laws on firearms generally hold sway in National Forests, and Governor Bob has yet to get around to telling his employees to fix the Admin Code in Virginia that I cited.

    Be careful out there....

  11. #11
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    johnfenter wrote:
    National Parks and Wildlife Refuges were covered by the Coburn Amendment. National Parks are part of the Department of the Interior.

    National Forests were NOT covered by the change in NPS regulations; they are part of the Department of Agriculture. State laws on firearms generally hold sway in National Forests, and Governor Bob has yet to get around to telling his employees to fix the Admin Code in Virginia that I cited.

    Be careful out there....
    When was this supposed to have been done? I'm having no luck at all finding the thread where the actual rule change was discussed and *cited*.

    According to the Virginia Register web page, this is the regulatory process. Since I am in the dark on when (technically, if) the rule change was made, I can't do the math to figure out if sufficient time has passed.

    Here's the Virginia Register publication schedule from Dec. 2009 thru Oct. 2010.

    I looked through Volume 26 of the Virginia Register on-line and haven't seen it there either.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    johnfenter wrote:
    National Parks and Wildlife Refuges were covered by the Coburn Amendment. National Parks are part of the Department of the Interior.

    National Forests were NOT covered by the change in NPS regulations; they are part of the Department of Agriculture. State laws on firearms generally hold sway in National Forests, and Governor Bob has yet to get around to telling his employees to fix the Admin Code in Virginia that I cited.

    Be careful out there....
    When was this supposed to have been done? I'm having no luck at all finding the thread where the actual rule change was discussed and *cited*.

    According to the Virginia Register web page, this is the regulatory process. Since I am in the dark on when (technically, if) the rule change was made, I can't do the math to figure out if sufficient time has passed.

    Here's the Virginia Register publication schedule from Dec. 2009 thru Oct. 2010.

    I looked through Volume 26 of the Virginia Register on-line and haven't seen it there either.
    It wasn't a regulatory change. It was passed in congress as an attachment to the credit card reform bill.
    http://news.oldva.org/?p=3711
    http://news.oldva.org/?p=19061







  13. #13
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    johnfenter wrote:
    National Parks and Wildlife Refuges were covered by the Coburn Amendment. National Parks are part of the Department of the Interior.

    National Forests were NOT covered by the change in NPS regulations; they are part of the Department of Agriculture. State laws on firearms generally hold sway in National Forests, and Governor Bob has yet to get around to telling his employees to fix the Admin Code in Virginia that I cited.

    Be careful out there....
    When was this supposed to have been done? I'm having no luck at all finding the thread where the actual rule change was discussed and *cited*.

    According to the Virginia Register web page, this is the regulatory process. Since I am in the dark on when (technically, if) the rule change was made, I can't do the math to figure out if sufficient time has passed.

    Here's the Virginia Register publication schedule from Dec. 2009 thru Oct. 2010.

    I looked through Volume 26 of the Virginia Register on-line and haven't seen it there either.
    It wasn't a regulatory change. It was passed in congress as an attachment to the credit card reform bill.
    http://news.oldva.org/?p=3711
    http://news.oldva.org/?p=19061





    Ok, just a little confused now. I'm not asking about National Parks. I'm asking about National Forests. Has my memory gotten so bad? I remember the credit card reform bill amendment only applied to the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System. I thought National Forests were neither of those.

    Aren't we talking about National Forests here?

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    johnfenter wrote:
    Ok, just a little confused now. I'm not asking about National Parks. I'm asking about National Forests. Has my memory gotten so bad? I remember the credit card reform bill amendment only applied to the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System. I thought National Forests were neither of those.

    Aren't we talking about National Forests here?
    Now you have me confused...You asked about the rule change.

    There is no rule change in the works for National Forests that I know of. The rule change was for National Parks.

    It's a little more complicated in National Forests.
    That rule is the result of a Multi State agreement to make hunting regulations more comparable. Since DGIF bans firearms (NON CHP Holders) except during hunting seasons in WMA's, the National Forest does also. (Readers Digest explanation)

    Now Bob McDonnell in his famous AG opinion said in essence, that none of the departments had the authority to regulate firearms.

    His secret plan is to correct all of them at once (I won't hold my breath)
    When that happens, The National Forest should change to conform just like they did with CHP's.

  15. #15
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    Ok, just a little confused now. I'm not asking about National Parks. I'm asking about National Forests. Has my memory gotten so bad? I remember the credit card reform bill amendment only applied to the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System. I thought National Forests were neither of those.

    Aren't we talking about National Forests here?
    Now you have me confused...You asked about the rule change.

    There is no rule change in the works for National Forests that I know of. The rule change was for National Parks.

    It's a little more complicated in National Forests.
    That rule is the result of a Multi State agreement to make hunting regulations more comparable. Since DGIF bans firearms (NON CHP Holders) except during hunting seasons in WMA's, the National Forest does also. (Readers Digest explanation)

    Now Bob McDonnell in his famous AG opinion said in essence, that none of the departments had the authority to regulate firearms.

    His secret plan is to correct all of them at once (I won't hold my breath)
    When that happens, The National Forest should change to conform just like they did with CHP's.
    I meant the "rule" (ie administrative law) that was cited earlier, 4VAC15-40-60. johnfenter said it hasn't been fixed yet. I thought, by "fixed," that he meant the rule had been officially changed, but the new version just hadn't been published in the VAC yet. I see that isn't exactly what he meant by "fixed." Given that and DJEEPER's exuberance that OC was permitted in National Forests, and the way people have been talking about it, it sounded like I missed some news that the rule had actually been changed and may be in effect, but not yet published.

    Now I understand that nothing has changed from what I knew. None of the administrative code has been changed; what is published in 4VAC15-40-60 is still in full effect; anyone could still be charged with a violation and would most likely have a court battle ahead of them in order to be vindicated.

    Do I have that right, save for some minor semantics?

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    I meant the "rule" (ie administrative law) that was cited earlier, 4VAC15-40-60. johnfenter said it hasn't been fixed yet. I thought, by "fixed," that he meant the rule had been officially changed, but the new version just hadn't been published in the VAC yet. I see that isn't exactly what he meant by "fixed." Given that and DJEEPER's exuberance that OC was permitted in National Forests, and the way people have been talking about it, it sounded like I missed some news that the rule had actually been changed and may be in effect, but not yet published.

    Now I understand that nothing has changed from what I knew. None of the administrative code has been changed; what is published in 4VAC15-40-60 is still in full effect; anyone could still be charged with a violation and would most likely have a court battle ahead of them in order to be vindicated.

    Do I have that right, save for some minor semantics?
    You've got it right.

    As far as anyone saying something to DJEEPERS...I pretty well grew up in the GW National forest. Sometimes I'd go up in the mountains and stay a couple of weeks without seeing anyone.

    Think of it this way.
    If a tree falls on Hank in the forest, does anyone care?

    Important disclaimer
    Never break the law even if Hank is under the tree:?


  17. #17
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    I meant the "rule" (ie administrative law) that was cited earlier, 4VAC15-40-60. johnfenter said it hasn't been fixed yet. I thought, by "fixed," that he meant the rule had been officially changed, but the new version just hadn't been published in the VAC yet. I see that isn't exactly what he meant by "fixed." Given that and DJEEPER's exuberance that OC was permitted in National Forests, and the way people have been talking about it, it sounded like I missed some news that the rule had actually been changed and may be in effect, but not yet published.

    Now I understand that nothing has changed from what I knew. None of the administrative code has been changed; what is published in 4VAC15-40-60 is still in full effect; anyone could still be charged with a violation and would most likely have a court battle ahead of them in order to be vindicated.

    Do I have that right, save for some minor semantics?
    You've got it right.

    As far as anyone saying something to DJEEPERS...I pretty well grew up in the GW National forest. Sometimes I'd go up in the mountains and stay a couple of weeks without seeing anyone.
    Yeah, I've been there several times, too, riding my DRZ. Even on a Saturday in the summer people can be few and far between.

  18. #18
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    Post imported post

    Dammit, now I'm confused. Thought the VA issue was about state forests?Will have to re-read the other thread.
    Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be well informed. ALL rights matter.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."

    --Robert A. Heinlein

    Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!

  19. #19
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    riverrat10k wrote:
    Dammit, now I'm confused. Thought the VA issue was about state forests?Will have to re-read the other thread.
    the dept of conserv reg affects more than state parks - other lands including nat forests - but the big loophole to allow open carry is when/where hunting is allowed - the text does not say you do not have to be hunting.

    We hope the gov orders reg chnages soon - till then OC in the nat parks of Va.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,601

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    riverrat10k wrote:
    Dammit, now I'm confused. Thought the VA issue was about state forests?Will have to re-read the other thread.
    the dept of conserv reg affects more than state parks - other lands including nat forests - but the big loophole to allow open carry is when/where hunting is allowed - the text does not say you do not have to be hunting.

    We hope the gov orders reg chnages soon - till then OC in the nat parks of Va.
    All of this is exactly and precisely why Governor Bob needs to fix this at the earliest possible time - like yesterday?

    The confusion will only contribute to putting an otherwise honest citizen on the wrong side of the law.

    Do the right thing Governor Bob and be a man of your word.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

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