Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Oopsie, carried illegally yesterday.

  1. #1
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

    Oopsie, carried illegally yesterday.

    So the family went up to Mt. Ranier yesterday(Paradise) and I cc'd. I thought it was all good because of the recent decision making it legal to carry in national parks. Then I went to go in the Visitor Center/Gift Shop. There was a big sign on the door saying it was illegal to carry into federal buildings. I was a little confused. I chose to enter anyway since I was cc and my son desperately needed some dry socks. Then I looked around and noticed that the sign was only on one of the five entrances to the building. You could easily break the law if you didn't know and came in one of the other doors. I was going to ask about it but there wasn't a free ranger about, so I came home, searched the forum and came up with this http://www.nps.gov/mora/parkmgmt/upl...PublicFAQs.pdf a FAQ of firearms rules at Mt. Rainier National Park. Now I know. Thanks!
    Last edited by trevorthebusdriver; 08-03-2010 at 11:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    It says that the sign will be posted at the entrance of the facility. I wonder if you would be legal if you entered any of the other doors that were not marked? I hope someone on here could clarify.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  3. #3
    Regular Member krazichinaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Between Seattle/Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    177
    That would be a great PDF to have on you while you OC around the parks!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Wa
    Posts
    11
    Just remember "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law", and that is exactly what the judge will tell you.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
    Posts
    272
    Help me here ..... that PDF file talks about rules in the park(s) NOT LAWS

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by trevorthebusdriver View Post
    So the family went up to Mt. Ranier yesterday(Paradise) and I cc'd.
    If nobody saw the firearm, was it really there? Sometimes Concealed Carry does have its advantages.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Hopefully the judge will be saying that to the prosecutor, not the defendant in this case. Notice what the actual statute (18 USC 930) says regarding signs and prosecution:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...0----000-.html

    (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

    A person entering the facility through an entrance without a sign would have an affirmative defense to the charge because the government failed to comply with the statute. It would then be up to the government to prove that the person had "actual notice" of the prohibition, which is completely a separate matter then "assumed notice".

    Now, a defendant enters through a posted door, and they did have actual notice.
    Anyone found carrying, and not engaged in any other unlawful activity, will probably just be advised of the ban and told to leave. Arrests would probably not occur unless one was to cause a scene.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    these notices!!!

    Originally Posted by NavyLT
    Hopefully the judge will be saying that to the prosecutor, not the defendant in this case. Notice what the actual statute (18 USC 930) says regarding signs and prosecution:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...0----000-.html

    (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

    A person entering the facility through an entrance without a sign would have an affirmative defense to the charge because the government failed to comply with the statute. It would then be up to the government to prove that the person had "actual notice" of the prohibition, which is completely a separate matter then "assumed notice".

    Now, a defendant enters through a posted door, and they did have actual notice.




    my post office, here in Belfair is NOT posted in any way, any where, Inside or Outside!
    it seems crazy that it is "prohibited" to carry my gun in the building, or leave it locked in my car in the parking lot, without posting the prohibition against it!
    most government building prohibitions have the disclaimer that,
    Lawful carry, incident to hunting "or other lawful purpose" is exempt from the prohibition!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    Originally Posted by NavyLT
    Hopefully the judge will be saying that to the prosecutor, not the defendant in this case. Notice what the actual statute (18 USC 930) says regarding signs and prosecution:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...0----000-.html

    (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

    A person entering the facility through an entrance without a sign would have an affirmative defense to the charge because the government failed to comply with the statute. It would then be up to the government to prove that the person had "actual notice" of the prohibition, which is completely a separate matter then "assumed notice".

    Now, a defendant enters through a posted door, and they did have actual notice.




    my post office, here in Belfair is NOT posted in any way, any where, Inside or Outside!
    it seems crazy that it is "prohibited" to carry my gun in the building, or leave it locked in my car in the parking lot, without posting the prohibition against it!
    most government building prohibitions have the disclaimer that,
    Lawful carry, incident to hunting "or other lawful purpose" is exempt from the prohibition!
    You do realize that you are breaking the law by having a firearm in the car on Post Office property even the parking lot, right. I park on the street for that reason. IMO the Post Office should not be off limits or most goverment offices for that matter those buildings belong to us.

  10. #10
    Regular Member badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mukilteo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    92
    I was in the exact same situation as OP on Friday, July 31st last week. I got to the Paradise visitor's center and was greeted by the No Firearms sign. I returned to my vehicle and secured my Kimber for the duration of my time at the visitor's center, then rearmed before hiking up to Glacier Vista Point.

    -Badger
    1911 before dialing 911.

  11. #11
    McX
    Guest
    your penalty has been determined; you must take your best gun, box it up, and send it to me. let that be a lesson to you.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    your penalty has been determined; you must take your best gun, box it up, and send it to me. let that be a lesson to you.
    Penalty is easier from Idaho. You can send me your worst functional gun!

  13. #13
    Regular Member J_Douglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    PBC, FL
    Posts
    86
    So it is just the visitors center that it is illegal, correct? While hiking/driving around you are good, right?

  14. #14
    Regular Member badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mukilteo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by J_Douglass View Post
    So it is just the visitors center that it is illegal, correct? While hiking/driving around you are good, right?
    That's correct. The sign posted at the main entrance to the visitor's center isn't some generic decal of a pistol with a "no sign". It very specifically states that the building is federal property and mere possession of a firearm on the premises will land you in prison for 5 years. I too was tempted to CC but had the time and properly stored my pistol in my vehicle for the 20 minutes I was in the visitor's center. Though legal to carry while hiking, I chose to CC for the remainder of my time on the mountain.

    -Badger
    1911 before dialing 911.

  15. #15
    Regular Member J_Douglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    PBC, FL
    Posts
    86
    That's what I thought, just wanted to make sure. The wife really likes the mountain. We are from Florida so there are not any of those around.

  16. #16
    Regular Member badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mukilteo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    92
    Yes, it said 5 years. Now I wish I'd taken a pic of the sign. It's a pretty big freakin notice posted at the door, impossible to miss as you enter.
    1911 before dialing 911.

  17. #17
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206
    Is it just me, or do a couple of the Q & A's in the pdf linked to in the OP leave a little to be desired?

    Especially the 3rd and 4th Q & A from the bottom of the 2nd page. Pretend you're an anti (or just uninformed) and read those.

    Q: "Is OC allowed...in vehicle...?"
    A: "...unloaded only..."

    I think it would have been better to mention that a CPL is required for loaded carry in a vehicle.

    But this one is the worst:

    Q: "Is a concealed weapon license required in national park units?"
    A: (Person) "Yes" (exception for recreational activities)
    A: (Vehicle) "Yes, unloaded only"

    These two Q & A's leave me with the impression that 1) No one is allowed to have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, regardless of concealed "weapon" license; and 2) To carry in a national park you must have a license.

    I know they were wanting a simple guide, but without defining what OC & CC are beforehand, their Q & A could give the wrong impressions imo. At the very least, very poorly worded and constructed. At worst, outright wrong.
    Last edited by kwiebe; 08-07-2010 at 02:10 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by kwiebe View Post
    Is it just me, or do a couple of the Q & A's in the pdf linked to in the OP leave a little to be desired?

    Especially the 3rd and 4th Q & A from the bottom of the 2nd page. Pretend you're an anti (or just uninformed) and read those.

    Q: "Is OC allowed...in vehicle...?"
    A: "...unloaded only..."

    I think it would have been better to mention that a CPL is required for loaded carry in a vehicle.

    But this one is the worst:

    Q: "Is a concealed weapon license required in national park units?"
    A: (Person) "Yes" (exception for recreational activities)
    A: (Vehicle) "Yes, unloaded only"

    These two Q & A's leave me with the impression that 1) No one is allowed to have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, regardless of concealed "weapon" license; and 2) To carry in a national park you must have a license.

    I know they were wanting a simple guide, but without defining what OC & CC are beforehand, their Q & A could give the wrong impressions imo. At the very least, very poorly worded and constructed. At worst, outright wrong.
    If I remember correctly the "rule" allows for carry according to the laws of the State in which the park resides. That sounds to me that in Washington State, you can carry loaded in a vehicle if you have a CPL. Also, if not in a vehicle then open carry is legal subject to limits stated in RCW9.41.270 with or without a CPL.

    I'll bet that this information in the Q&A is generic and is distributed throughout the NP system.
    Last edited by amlevin; 08-07-2010 at 07:01 PM.

Posting Permissions

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