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/upload/FirearmsPublicFAQs.pdf a FAQ of firearms rules at Mt. Rainier National Park. Now I know. Thanks!

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.

That would be a great PDF to have on you while you OC around the parks!

Just remember "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law", and that is exactly what the judge will tell you.

Help me here ..... that PDF file talks about rules in the park(s) NOT LAWS

trevorthebusdriver said:

So the family went up to Mt. Ranier yesterday(Paradise) and I cc'd.

Click to expand...

If nobody saw the firearm, was it really there? Sometimes Concealed Carry does have its advantages.

NavyLT said:

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/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000930----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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

1245A Defender said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

McX said:

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.

Click to expand...

Penalty is easier from Idaho. You can send me your worst functional gun!

So it is just the visitors center that it is illegal, correct? While hiking/driving around you are good, right?

J_Douglass said:

So it is just the visitors center that it is illegal, correct? While hiking/driving around you are good, right?

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

kwiebe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.