McDonnell finalizes CC and OC in State Forests, effective 7/7/11

I guess I was focused more on the fact that it's not strictly speaking a federal problem. Here's where I'm getting it:

36 CFR Part 261-Prohibitions. Subpart A. General Prohibitions. Section 261.8. Fish and Wildlife.
The following are prohibited to the extent Federal or State law is violated:
(a) Hunting, trapping, fishing, catching, molesting, killing or having in possession any kind of wild animal, bird, or fish, or taking the eggs of any such bird.
(b) Possessing a firearm or other implement designed to discharge a missile capable of destroying animal life.

Ok fine let's check state law...

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 a bow, crossbow, or any firearm that is not unloaded and cased or dismantled on all national forest lands statewide and on department-owned lands and on other lands managed by the department under cooperative agreement located in counties west of the Blue Ridge Mountains except during the period when it is lawful to take bear, deer, grouse, pheasant, quail, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel, turkey, or waterfowl on these lands.

B. Department-owned lands east of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It shall be unlawful to have in possession a bow, crossbow, or any firearm that is not unloaded and cased or dismantled on department-owned lands and on other lands managed by the department under cooperative agreement located in the counties east of the Blue Ridge Mountains except during the period when it is lawful to take bear, deer, grouse, pheasant, quail, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel, turkey, waterfowl or migratory gamebirds on these lands.

C. Certain counties. Except as otherwise provided in 4VAC15-40-70, it shall be unlawful to have either a shotgun or a rifle in one's possession when accompanied by a dog in the daytime in the fields, forests or waters of the counties of Augusta, Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah and Warren, and in the counties east of the Blue Ridge Mountains, except Patrick, at any time except the periods prescribed by law to hunt game birds and animals.

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 subsections A, B and C of this section.The use of firearms, crossbows, and bows 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, crossbows, or bows during the closed hunting period in such ranges shall be restricted to target shooting only and no birds or animals shall be molested.

E. <removed as it only applies to dogs and training dogs>

F. It shall be unlawful to possess or transport any loaded firearm, or loaded crossbow 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. <removed as it only contains definitions which are not pertinent to this thread/post>


Thank you virginiatuck


4VAC15-40-60 is in the part of the VAC that deals with the DGIF. Without that, there appears to be no state law that could be violated, meaning there would be no federal prohibition either. I'm willing to be wrong if someone points out something I've missed.

That seems to allow concealed carry at any time with a permit, but open carry (with or w/out a permit) only during hunting season.

Jonesy said:

That seems to allow concealed carry at any time with a permit, but open carry (with or w/out a permit) only during hunting season.

Click to expand...

yes.

Hiking 15+ miles a day with a concealed, loaded, regular sized handgun, along with a spare mag on one's body is not fun... especially if it's above 65 degrees or humid at all. It's not useful if it's in a pack.

Jonesy said:

That seems to allow concealed carry at any time with a permit, but open carry (with or w/out a permit) only during hunting season.

Click to expand...

That's right Jonesy!
Another of the P4P things that irritate me,

One thing to remember though...
I grew up in the mountains of Va and spent more time in the National Forest than out.
The locals never go in unarmed and aside from the tourist areas, I've never seen a Ranger.

I'm not advocating breaking the law, just pointing out facts.
There are lots of Pot Plots and armed people to watch out for.

t33j said:

I guess I was focused more on the fact that it's not strictly speaking a federal problem. Here's where I'm getting it:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/julqtr/36cfr261.8.htm4VAC15-40-60 is in the part of the VAC that deals with the DGIF. Without that, there appears to be no state law that could be violated, meaning there would be no federal prohibition either. I'm willing to be wrong if someone points out something I've missed.

Click to expand...

That's correct JT and the above is the result of an agreement between other states and the National Forest. It would appear that a change in DGIF regulations would change the National Forest also.

My problem with that is that it has been illegal to carry in the National Forest during off season long before the Joint agreement. Back at least 50 years. There are other Federal Regs that are either dormant or can be reintroduced.

Forcing DGIF to break the agreement will be difficult also. I'm sure Bob will argue the need for a multistate/Federal agreement to manage game management and law enforcement.

This will be an uphill fight and without DGIF blessing, the General Assembly tends to not act.

t33j said:

yes.

Hiking 15+ miles a day with a concealed, loaded, regular sized handgun, along with a spare mag on one's body is not fun... especially if it's above 65 degrees or humid at all. It's not useful if it's in a pack.

Click to expand...

+1
I like a chesty puller the best. If you have to conceal, putting it in a fanny pack attached to the pack gives the best weight distribution and accessibility.

peter nap said:

+1
I like a chesty puller the best. If you have to conceal, putting it in a fanny pack attached to the pack gives the best weight distribution and accessibility.

Click to expand...

Yeah this is what I've finally come to like the best when carrying in the national / state parks. http://www.alaskasportsmanproducts.com/

t33j said:

Yeah this is what I've finally come to like the best when carrying in the national / state parks. http://www.alaskasportsmanproducts.com/

Click to expand...

That's pretty nice!
I cheaped out and made my own.:uhoh:
Actually, I couldn't find one that had all the features I wanted so I had to:lol:

I am curious if anyone is aware if the public comment period on this item is due to commence on the 6th of June (in 5 days)?

nuc65 said:

I am curious if anyone is aware if the public comment period on this item is due to commence on the 6th of June (in 5 days)?

Click to expand...

Maybe. Check this out from the previous page:

05-09-2011 06:42 PM #13 skidmark
View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries

Campaign Veteran

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join Date:Jan 2007
Location:Richmond VA, ,
Posts:2,712 How many public comment periods do they need? Once more into the breach!
http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/views...m?stageid=5828


Final Stage
Changes to Text No changes have been made to the text since the proposed stage was last published in the Register.
Exempt from APA No, this stage/action is subject to article 2 of the Administrative Process Act and the standard executive branch review process.
DPB Review Submitted on 4/4/2011

Review Completed: 4/18/2011 DPB's policy memo is "Governor's Confidential Working Papers"
Secretary Review Review Completed: 4/22/2011

Result: Approved

Governor's Review Review Completed: 5/6/2011

Result: Approved

Virginia Registrar Submitted on 5/9/2011

The Virginia Register of Regulations

Will be published on 6/6/2011 Volume: 27 Issue: 20
Final Adoption Period A public comment forum will open on 6/6/2011 and remain open through 7/6/2011
Effective Date 7/7/2011
According to ^^ it aint final till it's final, and that seems to depend on public comments. Mark your calendars for the day to start submitting comments.

stay safe.

Folks, we need to get the comments in to them as soon as they open the comment period. Edit Post Reply With Quote Blog this Post

Click to expand...

stay safe.

Agencies lack authority for administrative regulation purporting to affect firearms.

§ 2.2-601. General powers of the departments established in this title.

Each department established in this title shall have the following general powers to:

1. Employ such personnel as may be required to carry out the respective purposes for which such department was created;

2. Make and enter into contracts and agreements necessary or incidental to the performance of its duties and execution of its powers under this title;

3. Accept grants from the United States government and agencies and instrumentalities thereof and any other source. To these ends, each department shall have the power to comply with the conditions and execute the agreements necessary, convenient, or desirable; and

4. Do all acts necessary or convenient to carry out the respective purposes for which the department was created.

Click to expand...

Unless the agency is created for the purpose of regulating firearms (only the one that regulates hunting and conservation, by my lights falls into that category), no executive administrative agency has the legal authority to regulate firearms. They, like municipal corporations, have to have statutory authorization to act. That's my opinion, and I'd be happy to argue it in court. These agencies, federal and state, are just getting out of control with their regulations. Each one seems to think it is a government in itself. Too big for their breeches.

user said:

Agencies lack authority for administrative regulation purporting to affect firearms.

§ 2.2-601. General powers of the departments established in this title.

Unless the agency is created for the purpose of regulating firearms (only the one that regulates hunting and conservation, by my lights falls into that category), no executive administrative agency has the legal authority to regulate firearms. They, like municipal corporations, have to have statutory authorization to act. That's my opinion, and I'd be happy to argue it in court. These agencies, federal and state, are just getting out of control with their regulations. Each one seems to think it is a government in itself. Too big for their breeches.

Click to expand...

It was getting lonely out here embracing that position - one that I have held for sometime but w/o that cite.
Could this be the "ace in the hole" for which we have been looking?

Others have argued that "locality" in 15.2-915 did not include agencies of the state. Therefore, there was no restriction on such agencies/departments.

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.
A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.

Grapeshot said:

It was getting lonely out here embracing that position - one that I have held for sometime but w/o that cite.
Could this be the "ace in the hole" for which we have been looking?

Others have argued that "locality" in 15.2-915 did not include agencies of the state. Therefore, there was no restriction on such agencies/departments.

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.
A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.

Click to expand...

I think that these are two sides of the same coin; heads agencies are not prohibited, tails localities are. Unfortunately, the "heads" choice is operating like lots of other activites enjoyed by individuals, such as Open Carry, to wit, it's legal because there's no statute prohibiting it.

2a4all said:

I think that these are two sides of the same coin; heads agencies are not prohibited, tails localities are. Unfortunately, the "heads" choice is operating like lots of other activites enjoyed by individuals, such as Open Carry, to wit, it's legal because there's no statute prohibiting it.

Click to expand...

User and his cite would suggest that indeed State agencies are prohibited in that they are NOT specifically so authorized as required by statute.

Grapeshot said:

User and his cite would suggest that indeed State agencies are prohibited in that they are NOT specifically so authorized as required by statute.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that. Unfortunately, that doesn't compel any state agency to see things in that light. Again, these things are done because no one has specifically prohibited them from doing it. Legislators don't necessarily want to put too tight a leash on their dogs. If it gets fixed at all, it'll be because a governor issues a cease and desist order, which could be rescinded at the whim of a future chief executive.