• 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.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI - Loaded Outside Home

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
Hopefully SCOTUS will take the case. If they follow their own opinions in Heller and McDonald it should be a no brainer. And it would go a long way in helping us here in the PRK.

ETA: PS - The way I understood the article I think he was arrested on the east coast, not CA.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
The arrest was in Virginia, not California.

The charge is rendered moot based on currect regulation if it was in conformance with VA law. However, VA law does not allow a concealed loaded handgun in a vehicle unless you have a CCW. I don't see whether or not he had one listed. If not, even today what he did was illegal per current regulations for Federal Parks/Forrests. This case is confusing with the mention of PDR regulations. What does that have to do with a case occuring in VA?
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
The charge is rendered moot based on currect regulation if it was in conformance with VA law. However, VA law does not allow a concealed loaded handgun in a vehicle unless you have a CCW. I don't see whether or not he had one listed. If not, even today what he did was illegal per current regulations for Federal Parks/Forrests. This case is confusing with the mention of PDR regulations. What does that have to do with a case occuring in VA?

The conviction was for acts that occurred before the National Parks Amendment took effect. The NPA took effect on February 22nd, 2010. The events that precipitated this was pre-Heller. Rather than doing the smart thing and dropping the charges when Congress passed the law, they continued to doggedly prosecute Mr. Masciandaro and will not drop it, thus the appeal up to SCOTUS.
 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
Hmmm...

36 C.F.R. § 4.12, failure to comply with a parking sign.

“Front End Parking Only” area is should be illegal because it isn't about the public safety
but for a lazy LEO don't wanna to get out and walking over to check the vehicle's tag at the back end parking.

Should have written as in "non-moving motor vehicle violation".

36 C.F.R. § 2.4(b) (2007).

Carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in a motor vehicle,
vessel or other mode of transportation is prohibited, except that
carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in a vessel is allowed
when such vessel is not being propelled by machinery
and is
used as a shooting platform in accordance with Federal and State law.

State law is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment or they are not in jurisdiction with federal NPS and/or NPS isn't jurisdiction with the State. They are many cases question about within the federal jurisdiction against the local government laws.


Noted: On December 10, 2008—six
months after Masciandaro's arrest but less than two
months before his trial—the Secretary published a
final version of the regulation, to take effect January
9, 2009, which provided:

Notwithstanding any other provision in this
Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport
concealed, loaded, and operable firearms
within a national park area in accordance with the
laws of the state in which the national park area,
or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise
prohibited by applicable Federal law.

73 Fed. Reg. 74,966, 74,971–72 (codified at 36
C.F.R. § 2.4(h)).

When 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(h) took effect, Masciandaro
had not yet been tried, and he promptly
filed a motion with the magistrate judge to dismiss
the charges against him, arguing that § 2.4(h) had
effectively superseded § 2.4(b). He also argued
that, in any event, § 2.4(b) violated the Second
Amendment, as applied to him and facially.

On March 19, 2009, while Masciandaro's appeal
to the district court was pending, the District
Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary
injunction, blocking enforcement of newly
promulgated § 2.4(h), because the Department of
the Interior had failed to conduct the required environmental
impact analysis. See Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence v. Salazar, 612 F.Supp.2d 1(D.D.C.2009).

Responding to this ruling, Congress
promptly added language to an unrelated piece of
legislation, which in essence reinstated § 2.4(h) by
statute. See Credit Card Accountability Responsibility
and Disclosure Act of 2009 (“Credit CARD
Act”), codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1a–7b(b). Section
512 of the Credit CARD Act provides:

The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate
or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual
from possessing a firearm including an assembled
or functional firearm in any unit of the
National Park System or the National Wildlife
Refuge System if—

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited
by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance
with the law of the State in which the unit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Section 512 becomes effective on February 22, 2010. Section 512 affects implementation of the existing NPS regulations regarding the possession of firearms in national parks, by now allowing individuals to possess firearms if:

(1) they are not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm and

(2) such possession is in compliance with the law of the state in which the park unit or that portion of the unit is located.

Section 512 applies to possession of firearms within the National Park System regardless of the jurisdictional status of the unit—exclusive, concurrent or proprietary.

HUH?!? Around, around, around we go regardless the 14th Amendment clause in compliance with the law of the State?

Are we getting from one nut of balls from them?

Aren't you aware of this is one of a kind regardless the State or local government laws on knife, letter opener, sword, bow, pepper spray and etc.?
 
Last edited:
Top