Open Carry in Museums and parks

hicksnumber3 · Aug 7, 2011

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

skidmark · Aug 7, 2011

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.

AbNo · Aug 8, 2011

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.

nova · Aug 9, 2011

AbNo said:
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.

skidmark · Aug 9, 2011

nova said:
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/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&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.

peter nap · Aug 9, 2011

skidmark said:
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/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&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:

Cmdr_Haggis · Aug 9, 2011

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"

markand · Aug 9, 2011

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.

grylnsmn · Aug 9, 2011

markand said:
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.

wylde007 · Aug 9, 2011

skidmark said:
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.

TFred · Aug 9, 2011

wylde007 said:
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

ProShooter · Aug 9, 2011

TFred said:
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!

nuc65 · Aug 9, 2011

skidmark said:
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.

ocholsteroc · Aug 9, 2011

(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... :banghead:

TFred · Aug 10, 2011

ocholsteroc said:
What is or other lawful
purposes.... I been trying to figure this one out for a few months now.

Isn't self defence one... :banghead:

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.

Wolf_shadow · Aug 10, 2011

TFred said:
(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/2...enge-usps-ban-of-firearms-on-postal-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/Bonidy-v-USPS-Motion-to-Dismiss

And I don't think the Federal Government can justify personal protection is lawful everywhere except on Federal Property either.:banghead:

TFred · Aug 10, 2011

Wolf_shadow said:
Law suit In Colorado. http://www.postalreporternews.net/2...enge-usps-ban-of-firearms-on-postal-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/Bonidy-v-USPS-Motion-to-Dismiss

And I don't think the Federal Government can justify personal protection is lawful everywhere except on Federal Property either.:banghead:

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.

2a4all · Aug 10, 2011

TFred said:
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.

TFred · Aug 10, 2011

2a4all said:
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

Open Carry in Museums and parks

hicksnumber3

New member

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

AbNo

Regular Member

nova

Regular Member

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

Cmdr_Haggis

Regular Member

markand

Regular Member

grylnsmn

Regular Member

wylde007

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

ProShooter

Regular Member

nuc65

Activist Member

ocholsteroc

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member

TFred

Regular Member

2a4all

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member