Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Open Carry in Museums and parks

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    KLFI
    Posts
    1

    Open Carry in Museums and parks

    I was just curious as to if you can OP and CC in a Virginia museums and public parks?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Welcome to OCDO!

    Let's break your question down into the component parts:

    1) museums: those operated/owned by the Commonwealth or cities/counties = Yes. Privately operated: depends on what the owner/operator wants to allow. Many will not post signs but have a "policy" of not allowing carry on the property. Use the search function here to check the specific privately-operated museum you are thinking of going to.

    2) public parks: http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/15.2-915.HTM when dealing with city/county parks, therefore YES. It's referred to as the state preemption law. We also can carry in state parks and state forests thanks to the work of VCDL www,vcdl.org in getting the Governor and the Commissioners to "see the light" and revise the Virginia Administrative Code. Use the search function to read all about how that happened.

    Remember that WMA areas are not parks or forests and have their own rules to be followed. We're working on fixing that, too.

    If you are not a member of VCDL I encourage you to join asap. Do it on line (yes, they use PayPal, that anti-gun group, but there is a certain shadenfreude involved in paying your dues that way) or wait till the next gun show in your area and sign up in person.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806
    I actually stopped in to ask a similar question. What about national parks? I know there was some change, but I don't remember what it was.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by AbNo View Post
    I actually stopped in to ask a similar question. What about national parks? I know there was some change, but I don't remember what it was.
    National parks is now OC and CC friendly. Just remember the federal facilities prohibition still applies to park offices/buildings that have NPS employees working in them.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by nova View Post
    National parks is now OC and CC friendly. Just remember the federal facilities prohibition still applies to park offices/buildings that have NPS employees working in them.
    Let's be careful that we do not continue to spread the misinformation about "working in them" versus "assigned work station". Just because the NPS guy goes into the freestanding restroom to clean up and restock the TP does not mean it is off-limits. http://www.nps.gov/glac/parkmgmt/loa...&PageID=434267 . The easiest way to figure out where you cannot carry is to look for the notice posted at the entrance (must be posted at all entrances not restricted to "employees only").

    Also, some buildings (gift shops, restaurants/snack bars, etc.) are leased by consessionaires and have no NPS employees working there. Those buildings may be posted at the discretion of the leaseholder, but will need to have signage if carry is not allowed. It will be different from the NPS signage and could be as basic as a gun-buster decal.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Let's be careful that we do not continue to spread the misinformation about "working in them" versus "assigned work station". Just because the NPS guy goes into the freestanding restroom to clean up and restock the TP does not mean it is off-limits. http://www.nps.gov/glac/parkmgmt/loa...&PageID=434267 . The easiest way to figure out where you cannot carry is to look for the notice posted at the entrance (must be posted at all entrances not restricted to "employees only").

    Also, some buildings (gift shops, restaurants/snack bars, etc.) are leased by consessionaires and have no NPS employees working there. Those buildings may be posted at the discretion of the leaseholder, but will need to have signage if carry is not allowed. It will be different from the NPS signage and could be as basic as a gun-buster decal.

    stay safe.
    Any building in the Park where carry is prohibited has to have this sticker displayed:


  7. #7
    Regular Member Cmdr_Haggis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Leesburg, VA
    Posts
    54
    Translated into proper English, that sign reads:

    "WARNING: Criminals Welcome

    Law-abiding citizens are, herein, disarmed. Within this Federal Facility, criminals are in charge. If they are caught they face trouble, if they are caught... If.

    But should a good citizen carry a gun in here, said citizen is screwed!

    Brought to you by The Idiots on Capital Hill.

    Anti-Gun logo (c) The Brady Bunch"
    Last edited by Cmdr_Haggis; 08-09-2011 at 09:56 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518
    In regard to Smithsonian museums in Virginia, be aware that there's an obscure federal law (36 CFR 504) that gives unusual power to the Smithsonian, allowing the Director of the Smithsonian to ban guns anywhere on the planet that the Smithsonian operates, even a temporary exhibit. For example, get caught with a gun at Udvar-Hazy Air and Space Museum near Dulles Airport, in any manner of carry or even storage in the trunk, whether in the parking lot or the museum itself, and you get hauled into DC, charged under DC law and spend the night (or more) in a DC jail, even though you are 40+ miles outside DC. Figure that out.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    In regard to Smithsonian museums in Virginia, be aware that there's an obscure federal law (36 CFR 504) that gives unusual power to the Smithsonian, allowing the Director of the Smithsonian to ban guns anywhere on the planet that the Smithsonian operates, even a temporary exhibit. For example, get caught with a gun at Udvar-Hazy Air and Space Museum near Dulles Airport, in any manner of carry or even storage in the trunk, whether in the parking lot or the museum itself, and you get hauled into DC, charged under DC law and spend the night (or more) in a DC jail, even though you are 40+ miles outside DC. Figure that out.
    That's not completely accurate. It doesn't apply to a temporary exhibit hosted on someone else's property, such as a travelling exhibit in a private museum. From the law:
    (1) Smithsonian institution. The Smithsonian Institution and its grounds, which include the following:

    (C) Other smithsonian buildings and grounds. All other buildings, service roads, walks, and other areas within the exterior boundaries of any real estate or land or interest in land (including temporary use) that the Smithsonian Institution acquires and that the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution determines to be necessary for the adequate protection of individuals or property in the Smithsonian Institution and suitable for administration as a part of the Smithsonian Institution.
    The definition only applies to "interest in land ... that the Smithsonian Institution acquires". If they don't acquire the land (through a lease or purchase agreement), then the definition as written wouldn't apply. Having a temporary exhibit hosted in another facility doesn't give a temporary interest in the land of that facility. Only a lease (or similar agreement) would do that.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  10. #10
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Let's be careful that we do not continue to spread the misinformation about "working in them" versus "assigned work station".
    Let us also be careful that we do not apply faulty logic to an argument.

    That being you can carry OC or CC in National Parks in Virginia, because you can carry OC or CC in Virginia.

    You CANNOT carry OC in a National Park in, say, Maryland, because Maryland is... well... Maryland.

    National Parks carry is dictated strictly by the firearms policies of the state in which the park is located, and also remembering that some National Parks cross multiple states.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    You CANNOT carry OC in a National Park in, say, Maryland, because Maryland is... well... Maryland.

    National Parks carry is dictated strictly by the firearms policies of the state in which the park is located, and also remembering that some National Parks cross multiple states.
    Raises an interesting question. Who would arrest you if you were carrying in a National Park in Maryland? The Park Rangers?

    TFred

  12. #12
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Raises an interesting question. Who would arrest you if you were carrying in a National Park in Maryland? The Park Rangers?

    TFred
    Yes, if you were unlawfully in posession of a pic-a-nic basket!
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  13. #13
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Welcome to OCDO!
    ...
    2) public parks: http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/15.2-915.HTM when dealing with city/county parks, therefore YES. It's referred to as the state preemption law. We also can carry in state parks and state forests thanks to the work of VCDL www,vcdl.org in getting the Governor and the Commissioners to "see the light" and revise the Virginia Administrative Code. Use the search function to read all about how that happened.
    ...
    Actually, the VAC has not yet been revised to reflect carry in a state park. It is only under the current governor's letter advising non-enforcement that OC in a state park is allowed. I look forward to, and would like to see, the VAC revised to reflect the current state of affairs.
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  14. #14
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly
    possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous
    weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility),
    or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
    not more than 1 year, or both.
    (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon
    be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes
    to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal
    facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
    imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    (c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of
    subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal
    facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon,
    or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as
    provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to -
    (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer,
    agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political
    subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or
    supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
    prosecution of any violation of law;
    (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a
    Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such
    possession is authorized by law; or
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
    in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
    purposes.
    (e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly
    possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court
    facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title,
    imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described
    in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
    (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the
    United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or
    orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of
    weapons within any building housing such court or any of its
    proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
    (g) As used in this section:
    (1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part
    thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal
    employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing
    their official duties.
    (2) The term "dangerous weapon" means a weapon, device,
    instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is
    used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious
    bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket
    knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.
    (3) The term "Federal court facility" means the courtroom,
    judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms,
    attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the
    court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States
    marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of
    any court of the United States.
    (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.
    What is or other lawful
    purposes.... I been trying to figure this one out for a few months now.

    Isn't self defence one...
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  15. #15
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by ocholsteroc View Post
    What is or other lawful
    purposes.... I been trying to figure this one out for a few months now.

    Isn't self defence one...
    It's one of the laws that the Federal Government is willfully choosing to ignore and openly violate every day. People should be in jail for this, but we all know that's not going to happen.

    TFred

    ETA: To provide a cite for this, see:

    THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968
    TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44


    Section 101, which states:

    Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares
    that the purpose of this title is to
    provide support to Federal, State, and
    local law enforcement officials in their fight
    against crime and violence, and it is not
    the purpose of this title to place any undue
    or unnecessary Federal restrictions or
    burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect
    to the acquisition, possession, or
    use of firearms appropriate to the purpose
    of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting,
    personal protection, or any other lawful
    activity,
    and that this title is not intended
    to discourage or eliminate the private
    ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding
    citizens for lawful purposes, or
    provide for the imposition by Federal
    regulations of any procedures or requirements
    other than those reasonably necessary
    to implement and effectuate the
    provisions of this title.

    There you have it straight from the law. Personal protection is a lawful activity. You can't be any more clear than that.

    ETA(2): I believe there is a case that touches this winding its way through the courts out west somewhere. It's specifically about the USPS ban, but I believe the wording is similar. I don't think the government can win an argument that personal protection is lawful everywhere except on Post Office property.
    Last edited by TFred; 08-10-2011 at 12:46 AM.

  16. #16
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    (snip)

    ETA(2): I believe there is a case that touches this winding its way through the courts out west somewhere. It's specifically about the USPS ban, but I believe the wording is similar. I don't think the government can win an argument that personal protection is lawful everywhere except on Post Office property.
    Law suit In Colorado. http://www.postalreporternews.net/20...stal-property/

    Ther was a motion to dismiss in Dec. 2010 based on Heller sensitive places and government buildings statement, I don't know the out come. http://www.scribd.com/doc/45607414/B...ion-to-Dismiss

    And I don't think the Federal Government can justify personal protection is lawful everywhere except on Federal Property either.
    Last edited by Wolf_shadow; 08-10-2011 at 02:49 PM. Reason: additional Info

  17. #17
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf_shadow View Post
    Law suit In Colorado. http://www.postalreporternews.net/20...stal-property/

    Ther was a motion to dismiss in Dec. 2010 based on Heller sensitive places and government buildings statement, I don't know the out come. http://www.scribd.com/doc/45607414/B...ion-to-Dismiss

    And I don't think the Federal Government can justify personal protection is lawful everywhere except on Federal Property either.
    Thanks for pulling those details back into my memory!

    Google quickly informed me that there has been an update. In April 2011, the initial suit was dismissed, based on the fallacious "sensitive areas" myth that anti-gun morons read in Heller. If only we had more judges who could read an opinion and think for themselves... *

    But the judge also gave them the option to refile an amended complaint, which they did, and in which they separate the issue of carry in the parking lot from carry inside the Post Office building.

    What I want to know is why nobody ever seems to pull out the fact that the Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically states that personal protection is a lawful act. It's right there in black and white!

    TFred

    * ETA: By the way, the real tragedy of this sort of shenanigans is that if every judge looking at every gun case in the country automatically dismisses cases that "might" fall under a definition of a "sensitive area" based on the fallacious reasoning that Heller mentioned the idea, then we'll never get to a point where the concept of "sensitive areas" can ever be evaluated on its own merit. And that was specifically what Heller said... that they were not addressing the merits of "presumptively legal" sensitive areas.
    Last edited by TFred; 08-10-2011 at 06:06 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,585
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Thanks for pulling those details back into my memory!

    Google quickly informed me that there has been an update. In April 2011, the initial suit was dismissed, based on the fallacious "sensitive areas" myth that anti-gun morons read in Heller. If only we had more judges who could read an opinion and think for themselves... *

    But the judge also gave them the option to refile an amended complaint, which they did, and in which they separate the issue of carry in the parking lot from carry inside the Post Office building.

    What I want to know is why nobody ever seems to pull out the fact that the Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically states that personal protection is a lawful act. It's right there in black and white!

    TFred

    * ETA: By the way, the real tragedy of this sort of shenanigans is that if every judge looking at every gun case in the country automatically dismisses cases that "might" fall under a definition of a "sensitive area" based on the fallacious reasoning that Heller mentioned the idea, then we'll never get to a point where the concept of "sensitive areas" can ever be evaluated on its own merit. And that was specifically what Heller said... that they were not addressing the merits of "presumptively legal" sensitive areas.
    And could there be more appropriate place for personal protection than the Post Office? Isn't that where the expression "Going Postal" originated? Well, OK, maybe a school.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  19. #19
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    And could there be more appropriate place for personal protection than the Post Office? Isn't that where the expression "Going Postal" originated? Well, OK, maybe a school.
    Some day if I ever get to meet Alan Gura, I'm going to ask him that question about the personal protection being in the GCA of 1968.

    TFred

Posting Permissions

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