Dreamer
Regular Member
imported post
The DC Mall complex is a Federal Park. According to the National Park Service website:
DC is NOT a state. It is a City. It is, in fact, a Federal District. Therefore, since DC is not a state, and is not part of a state, it has NO state law. Since there are no state laws that regulate DC, there can be, by extension, no state laws that regulate firearms in DC.
Under our system of law in the USA, any action not specifically prohibited by law, code, or statute is LEGAL.
Without State Laws that prohibit carry in DC, Carry on Federal Parkland located in DC should be, under the letter of the Federal Law, legal.
Let me reiterate that for the hard of thinking.
The new Federal law allowing carry in Federal Parklands defers to State Laws.
DC is NOT a State, and therefore NO STATE LAWS exist in DC.
The Federal law makes no mention of local, municipal, County, or City laws, ordinances, codes, or regulations. It ONLY mentions STATE laws.
One more time, for the "hard-of-thinking"...
DC is NOT a state. Without the existence of the legal entity of a State, there can be no "State laws".
And as we all know, under the US system of law, in the absence of a prohibitive law, an activity is, de facto, LEGAL.
So who wants to be the "test case"?...
The DC Mall complex is a Federal Park. According to the National Park Service website:
Officially established in 1965, National Malland Memorial Parks actually protectssome of the older parkland in the National Park System.Areas withinthis premier parkprovide visitors with ample opportunities to commemorate presidential legacies; honor the courage and sacrifice of war veterans; and celebrate the United States commitment to freedom and equality.
So if the Mall, particularly the Park around the Washington Monument where the 2A march was held earlier in April, are Federal Parkland, then under the wording of the new law regarding carry on Federal Parkland, carry SHOULD be legal there:
Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property
Chapter 1 - National Park Service, DOI
Part 2 - Resource Protection, Public Use, and Recreation
2.4 Weapons traps and nets. (new paragraph (h))
(h) 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."
Let me explain. The new law states that carry in a Federal Park is legal as long as the person carrying is legally permitted to carry in that STATE.Chapter 1 - National Park Service, DOI
Part 2 - Resource Protection, Public Use, and Recreation
2.4 Weapons traps and nets. (new paragraph (h))
(h) 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."
DC is NOT a state. It is a City. It is, in fact, a Federal District. Therefore, since DC is not a state, and is not part of a state, it has NO state law. Since there are no state laws that regulate DC, there can be, by extension, no state laws that regulate firearms in DC.
Under our system of law in the USA, any action not specifically prohibited by law, code, or statute is LEGAL.
Without State Laws that prohibit carry in DC, Carry on Federal Parkland located in DC should be, under the letter of the Federal Law, legal.
Let me reiterate that for the hard of thinking.
The new Federal law allowing carry in Federal Parklands defers to State Laws.
DC is NOT a State, and therefore NO STATE LAWS exist in DC.
The Federal law makes no mention of local, municipal, County, or City laws, ordinances, codes, or regulations. It ONLY mentions STATE laws.
One more time, for the "hard-of-thinking"...
DC is NOT a state. Without the existence of the legal entity of a State, there can be no "State laws".
And as we all know, under the US system of law, in the absence of a prohibitive law, an activity is, de facto, LEGAL.
So who wants to be the "test case"?...