PDA

View Full Version : CCW Reform in National Parks: Next Step in the Process?


Paladin
08-15-2008, 7:50 AM
August 8th, the end of the public comment period, has come and gone. Does anyone here know when to expect the Dept of the Interior to make a decision re. reforming the CCW policies of the National Parks, etc.?

bulgron
08-15-2008, 8:01 AM
I don't know about the Dept of Interior and all that, but what I'm wondering is why National Parks & Monuments are still off limits for open carry. These are federal lands, so Heller should apply even without incorporation.

If we wanted a good case to push "bear" outside of the home, suing the NPS over their ban on open carry in our parks is a great way to go, IMO. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I'm probably all wet.

I suppose if the NPS reformed their CCW policy in the parks, then that would severely weaken the argument. Which is, IMO, another good reason for the NPS to reform their CCW policy.

Paladin
08-15-2008, 8:27 AM
I don't know about the Dept of Interior and all that, but what I'm wondering is why National Parks & Monuments are still off limits for open carry. These are federal lands, so Heller should apply even without incorporation.

If we wanted a good case to push "bear" outside of the home, suing the NPS over their ban on open carry in our parks is a great way to go, IMO. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I'm probably all wet.

I suppose if the NPS reformed their CCW policy in the parks, then that would severely weaken the argument. Which is, IMO, another good reason for the NPS to reform their CCW policy.Hmmm, you got me to thinking. Post-Heller incorporation, I wonder how defensible is the DOI in situ stuff (e.g., a nat'l park's policy is the policy of the state in which it is located)?

Plus, as you point out, since they are federal lands, I wonder if Heller means that you now have a right to keep a loaded functioning firearm inside your tent for SD. Next step, literally and legally, is to step outside your tent w/your loaded firearm (OC? CC?) to find out if you have a right to bear arms outside your "residence" for SD on federal lands. No need to move to D.C. We can test this wherever a national park is located.

Hmmm. Thoughts?

sorensen440
08-15-2008, 8:32 AM
Two weeks !

bulgron
08-15-2008, 10:51 AM
Hmmm, you got me to thinking. Post-Heller incorporation, I wonder how defensible is the DOI in situs stuff (e.g., a nat'l park's policy is the policy of the state in which it is located)?

Plus, as you point out, since they are federal lands, I wonder if Heller means that you now have a right to keep a loaded functioning firearm inside your tent for SD. Next step, literally and legally, is to step outside your tent w/your loaded firearm (OC? CC?) to find out if you have a right to bear arms outside your "residence" for SD on federal lands. No need to move to D.C. We can test this wherever a national park is located.

Hmmm. Thoughts?

Legal resources aside, why do we have to wait for incorporation to challenge this right now?

metalhead357
08-15-2008, 2:57 PM
Defintely an interesting idea about open carry through inclusion....... hmmmm... Will have to talk to a lawyer or 3.........

Paladin
08-16-2008, 5:57 AM
Legal resources aside, why do we have to wait for incorporation to challenge this right now?

I *think* the reason I wrote that is because I don't know for sure if national parks are truly legally equivalent to D.C. since nat'l parks, unlike D.C., are located w/in states. I'm not sure if the state retains any residual legal authority/jurisdiction that may cloud a pre-incorporation challenge.

If the state does not, yet the DOI goes w/allowing CCWing under the terms of the state in which the nat'l park is located, you get the interesting situation of where if an AZ resident goes into one nat'l park, let's say in UT, they get to carry, but if they go into a nat'l park in IL, they don't, despite them both being on federal lands. Constitutionally, can conflict of laws and comity considerations distort a fundamental right to such an extent?

How this would work out w/OC is also interesting and worth investigating by CGN's legal "think tank."

CGN does have an informal, volunteer "think tank," don't we? If not, perhaps the various lawyers, law students, paralegals, and others could informally form one (online?) so that tasks could be more efficiently and effectively undertaken. They could work closely w/CGF.

BigDogatPlay
08-16-2008, 9:12 PM
I *think* the reason I wrote that is because I don't know for sure if national parks are truly legally equivalent to D.C. since nat'l parks, unlike D.C., are located w/in states. I'm not sure if the state retains any residual legal authority/jurisdiction that may cloud a pre-incorporation challenge.

Would it not depend, at least in part, on what level of jurisdiction the federal authority asserts over the land? If exclusive federal jurisdiction is asserted, then to my brain that is de facto incorporation as the DOI land would be a "federal enclave" just like D.C.

My guess is that most likely the DOI lands are concurrent federal / state jurisdiction, but that would require some in depth research.

bulgron
08-16-2008, 10:05 PM
I know that a lot of the BLM lands in California are joint jurisdiction.

But I always thought the NPs and NMs were federal lands managed by federal employees. How do we find out for sure?

bulgron
08-16-2008, 10:08 PM
Oh boy. Now this is some interesting reading:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_owns_yellowstone_national_park

Apparently, the UN owns and controls a lot of our national parks and monuments?

ETA:

Ah, OK, this (http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-1290:1) makes things clearer:


Supporters express concern that even though there may be no international or U.N. direct control of U.S. sites, federal agency managers may take into account the international rules of the World Heritage program in making land use decisions, or use the designation to undermine local land use decisions, often without the advice or even the knowledge of local authorities or property owners.

The World Heritage Convention does not give the United Nations authority over U.S. sites. The Department of State has testified that under the terms of the World Heritage Convention, management and sovereignty over the sites remain with the country where the site is located. Supporters of the World Heritage system note that member countries nominate sites for the World Heritage List voluntarily and agree to develop laws and procedures to protect them using their own constitutional procedures. Most of the U.S. sites named have already been accorded protection in law as national monuments or parks. In commenting on the bill, the Administration stated that the designation does not give the United Nations the authority to affect land management decisions within the United States and has not been utilized to exclude Congress from land management decisions. The Department of State notes that the Convention itself has no role or authority beyond listing sites and offering technical advice and assistance. Supporters of the convention assert that World Heritage status has been the impetus behind closer cooperation between federal agencies and state and local authorities.


So far, it sure looks to me like National Parks and Monuments are owned by the US Federal Government and are under the sole control of the US Federal Government. To my mind, this must mean that the 2A is a restrictions on the actions of the National Park Service, and so at the very least Open Carry in non-sensitive areas of the parks (which should be, basically, everywhere except maybe inside of structures) must be allowed.

bulgron
08-16-2008, 10:27 PM
I call BS on that one. The UN is not currently involved in running our National Parks. I would be interested to read more of the treaty through to see what could happen legally under it's terms....

See my post again. I added some additional information there. As far as I can tell, the UN cannot exert any control over lands within the United States.

lateknightucd
09-06-2008, 8:47 PM
BUMP! Any new info on carry in National Parks?

Meplat
09-07-2008, 5:44 PM
I think I just saw a big stinky camel nose!!!:eek::eek::eek:




Oh boy. Now this is some interesting reading:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_owns_yellowstone_national_park

Apparently, the UN owns and controls a lot of our national parks and monuments?

ETA:

Ah, OK, this (http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-1290:1) makes things clearer:



So far, it sure looks to me like National Parks and Monuments are owned by the US Federal Government and are under the sole control of the US Federal Government. To my mind, this must mean that the 2A is a restrictions on the actions of the National Park Service, and so at the very least Open Carry in non-sensitive areas of the parks (which should be, basically, everywhere except maybe inside of structures) must be allowed.

Paladin
09-12-2008, 7:58 AM
CGN does have an informal, volunteer "think tank," don't we? If not, perhaps the various lawyers, law students, paralegals, and others could informally form one (online?) so that tasks could be more efficiently and effectively undertaken. They could work closely w/CGF.

Worthy of a "bump" just to make sure the "powers-that-be" see it.

Paladin
09-12-2008, 8:54 AM
http://crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=302899

CRAPO EFFORT ON GUNS AND PARKS GAINS MOMENTUM

Notes Senate Energy Committee vote on legislative efforts

Contact: Susan Wheeler
Thursday, September 11, 2008

Washington, DC – Idaho Senator Mike Crapo calls a vote by a Senate Committee today relating to the right to transport and carry firearms in national parks and fish and wildlife refuges is a positive development in his ongoing effort to free gun owners from conflicting regulations regarding firearms on public lands. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today voted to send to the full Senate legislation that clears the way for firearms to be legally transported and carried across federally-owned lands. Crapo is spearheading an administrative effort to repeal the current regulatory framework and replace it with one that respects the rights of the states to manage the transport and carrying of firearms on federal public lands within their state’s jurisdiction.

“I strongly support 2nd Amendment rights, and we need to ensure that law-abiding gun owners are treated fairly regarding federal lands,” Crapo said following the vote.

On December 17, 2007, Crapo sent a letter to Kempthorne requesting that the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service remove the conflicting restrictions on the carrying and transport of firearms by law-abiding gun owners, and defer instead to state gun laws, which is currently the practice of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. The letter was signed by a bipartisan group of 47 Senators. On February 11, 2008, another bipartisan group of four more Senators sent a letter to Secretary Kempthorne expressing their support for Senator Crapo’s policy request. Kempthorne agreed to study the issue.

On April 30, 2008, Kempthorne proposed regulations that would permit law-abiding gun owners to transport and carry firearms in national parks and fish and wildlife refuges in states that permit doing so on their analogous public lands, such as in state parks and wildlife refuges. That was followed by a comment period that ended on July 30. Interior officials expect final comments on the rule to be promulgated by November 1, 2008. The legislation approved today by the Committee, was sponsored by Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and co-sponsored by Idaho Senator Larry Craig.

# # #