National Parks Carry

[VApatriot]

imported post

I made it to the Virginia side of Great Falls today.

 

[swinokur]

imported post

Here is the new law:

attached see (b) (2)

 

[TFred]

imported post

Also, if you want a live web version, check here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-627&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A582

TFred

 

[nova]

imported post

VApatriot wrote:

I made it to the Virginia side of Great Falls today.

What a wacky way of spelling Potomac! :lol:

 

[TFred]

imported post

nova wrote:

VApatriot wrote:

I made it to the Virginia side of Great Falls today.

What a wacky way of spelling Potomac! :lol:

Ha, did you see how they spelled it here:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+ful+HJ150E



TFred

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

doug23838 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

All this just grinds my gears so much. You have to argue back and forth to try and figure out what the hell the damn law says and then you're still not really sure.

Why can't they just talk in plain english, in a paragraph structure that can be easily followed?

Cause we've allowed the lawyers to write the laws.

The law, like the tax code, should be understandable by the product of the public education system.

If the laws were written in "Readers Digest" English, they would still be adjudicated by those educated in jurisprudence.

Same difference - the scenery is no different whether you are the driver or a passenger.

Yata hey

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

doug23838 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

All this just grinds my gears so much. You have to argue back and forth to try and figure out what the hell the damn law says and then you're still not really sure.

Why can't they just talk in plain english, in a paragraph structure that can be easily followed?

Cause we've allowed the lawyers to write the laws.

The law, like the tax code, should be understandable by the product of the public education system.

If the laws were written in "Readers Digest" English, they would still be adjudicated by those educated in jurisprudence.

Same difference - the scenery is no different whether you are the driver or a passenger.

Except I can't read the law and understand it without beating my head against the wall. If lawyers are the ones to argue cases, fine. But we have just spent how much time discussing something that should have been as plain as the nose on your face. I hope you don't have a giant nose or anything, I was just making a point :^).

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

doug23838 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

All this just grinds my gears so much. You have to argue back and forth to try and figure out what the hell the damn law says and then you're still not really sure.

Why can't they just talk in plain english, in a paragraph structure that can be easily followed?

Cause we've allowed the lawyers to write the laws.

The law, like the tax code, should be understandable by the product of the public education system.

If the laws were written in "Readers Digest" English, they would still be adjudicated by those educated in jurisprudence.

Same difference - the scenery is no different whether you are the driver or a passenger.

Except I can't read the law and understand it without beating my head against the wall. If lawyers are the ones to argue cases, fine. But we have just spent how much time discussing something that should have been as plain as the nose on your face. I hope you don't have a giant nose or anything, I was just making a point :^).

Are you referencing my pointy nose for a reason? You know the one I keep putting into other people's business. :lol:

If we put all of the law writers and makers out of business, who would feed them, buy the BMWs and support the "Good Ol' Boys" clubs. Surely you would not want their wives to have to go to work.

My apologies to Mike, User and others as appropriate. We (I) really do appreciate you and are glad that you are on our side.

Yata hey

 

[user]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

...Except I can't read the law and understand it without beating my head against the wall. If lawyers are the ones to argue cases, fine. But we have just spent how much time discussing something that should have been as plain as the nose on your face. I hope you don't have a giant nose or anything, I was just making a point :^).

So THAT's why my head hurts!

 

[nova]

imported post

It took me a week, but I finally OC'd in a NP.

Manassas Battlefield ftw.

 

[power_shack]

imported post

TFred wrote:

user wrote:

My theory on this is that Virginia and the United States are designed with liberty in mind - that which is not specifically prohibited is permitted. Unlike the European countries using the Roman model, in which one is only permitted to do that which is specifically allowed. See, in particular, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, I see "other lawful purpose" being defined not in terms of what may be permitted, but what is not prohibited. Make sense?

Yes, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It does make sense, for the exact same reason that open carry is legal in Virginia: because it's not illegal!

If US law is indeed supposed to be the same, that which is not illegal is legal, then it would seem to be open and shut.

What this means in the real world is that I suspect we will never see a stand-alone arrest and prosecution for the sole act of carrying a holstered firearm into a Federal Park facility. Kind of like the GFSZ, it's a virtual hammer that nobody wants to test. People will occasionally do it, be told to leave, and they will, and that will be all that ever happens.

TFred

Here's my theory on correcting this issue without anyone having to face federal changes:

If I remember the Heller DC gun case correctly, Heller applied for a license to own a pistol and was denied. He then sued on this denial without having actually broke the law.

In the case of federal buildings, a gun owner could open carry up to the door of the building, they could then ask a federal employee (or federal law enforcement officer would be even better) for permission to enter the building. Assuming the gun owner is denied permission to enter, they could then sue based on the violation of their rights to carry into the building for "other lawful purposes"

I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea if this would work, but I agree with all of you that it sure would be nice to have the courts rule that the carrying of a firearm for self-defense is a lawful purpose under this statue.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

power_shack wrote:

TFred wrote:

user wrote:

My theory on this is that Virginia and the United States are designed with liberty in mind - that which is not specifically prohibited is permitted. Unlike the European countries using the Roman model, in which one is only permitted to do that which is specifically allowed. See, in particular, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, I see "other lawful purpose" being defined not in terms of what may be permitted, but what is not prohibited. Make sense?

Yes, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It does make sense, for the exact same reason that open carry is legal in Virginia: because it's not illegal!

If US law is indeed supposed to be the same, that which is not illegal is legal, then it would seem to be open and shut.

What this means in the real world is that I suspect we will never see a stand-alone arrest and prosecution for the sole act of carrying a holstered firearm into a Federal Park facility. Kind of like the GFSZ, it's a virtual hammer that nobody wants to test. People will occasionally do it, be told to leave, and they will, and that will be all that ever happens.

TFred

Here's my theory on correcting this issue without anyone having to face federal changes:

If I remember the Heller DC gun case correctly, Heller applied for a license to own a pistol and was denied. He then sued on this denial without having actually broke the law.

In the case of federal buildings, a gun owner could open carry up to the door of the building, they could then ask a federal employee (or federal law enforcement officer would be even better) for permission to enter the building. Assuming the gun owner is denied permission to enter, they could then sue based on the violation of their rights to carry into the building for "other lawful purposes"

I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea if this would work, but I agree with all of you that it sure would be nice to have the courts rule that the carrying of a firearm for self-defense is a lawful purpose under this statue.

You may have troublr getting the required response.
In the internal memo I removed here mostly because I;m sick of having things deleted, instructions are given the Non LE Rangers on how to respond to requests about storage and unauthorized entry is handled by LE.''

 

[TFred]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

You may have troublr getting the required response.
In the internal memo I removed here mostly because I;m sick of having things deleted, instructions are given the Non LE Rangers on how to respond to requests about storage and unauthorized entry is handled by LE.''

I was just wondering where that stuff went...

This is really stupid: "If a visitor asks where they can secure their weapon, advise that it needs to be safely secured accoding to applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws."

Translation: "Excuse me, where can I store my gun?" "You must store your gun safely and properly."

You can tell a career politician wrote that instruction!

:?

TFred

 

[peter nap]

imported post

TFred wrote:

peter nap wrote:

You may have troublr getting the required response.
In the internal memo I removed here mostly because I;m sick of having things deleted, instructions are given the Non LE Rangers on how to respond to requests about storage and unauthorized entry is handled by LE.''

I was just wondering where that stuff went...

This is really stupid: "If a visitor asks where they can secure their weapon, advise that it needs to be safely secured accoding to applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws."

Translation: "Excuse me, where can I store my gun?" "You must store your gun safely and properly."

You can tell a career politician wrote that instruction!

:?

TFred

I put them in a page off of the Va Guns Section on OVN TFred.
You can look at them there
http://news.oldva.org/?page_id=5474

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

I put them in a page off of the Va Guns Section on OVN TFred.
You can look at them there
http://news.oldva.org/?page_id=547

A shameless pug if I ever saw one.,

Yata hey

 

[hometheaterman]

imported post

Do you have to have a CHP to carry openly in National Parks? I was thinking I heard somewhere you did but wanted to double check on that and see what exactly the laws are?

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

peter nap wrote:

I put them in a page off of the Va Guns Section on OVN TFred.
You can look at them there
http://news.oldva.org/?page_id=547

A shameless pug if I ever saw one.,

Yata hey

I've gotta leave in a minute so I can get to the burbs by daybreak. Bet it gets deleted before I get there:lol:

Do you have to have a CHP to carry openly in National Parks? I was thinking I heard somewhere you did but wanted to double check on that and see what exactly the laws are?

No!

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

hometheaterman wrote:

Do you have to have a CHP to carry openly in National Parks? I was thinking I heard somewhere you did but wanted to double check on that and see what exactly the laws are?

As of Feb 22, you can carry in National Parks in accordance with the laws of the state in which the park is located.

Presuming that you live in Va. (your profile does not so indicate) you may OC w/o a permit or CC with a CHP - subject to a limited amount of restrictions cited in this thread.

Yata hey

 

[Remington Irons]

imported post

Just wear a post Civil War uniform (1885Signal Corp):


(Note: M1884 Carbine on Sling and M1873 Revolver in holster)

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Remington Irons wrote:

Just wear a post Civil War uniform

When did we win?