PDA

View Full Version : National Park Service- New Gun Policies documents


UndaCovaCalGunna
02-03-2010, 3:29 PM
Please share with other sites as members see fit:

44931

44932

44933

44934

Doheny
02-03-2010, 3:31 PM
Good info; where'd you find it?

UndaCovaCalGunna
02-03-2010, 3:33 PM
Good info; where'd you find it?

Fell off the back of a truck.....

Doheny
02-03-2010, 3:37 PM
Fell off the back of a truck.....

Hey...no reason to be a secret squirrel for your first post; it's easy enough to Google some of the text and find it...I was just asking!

.

UndaCovaCalGunna
02-03-2010, 3:39 PM
I don't think those documents are available on google ;-) If they are, all the better.

Doheny
02-03-2010, 3:42 PM
I don't think those documents are available on google ;-) If they are, all the better.

Yeah they are: http://www.nps.gov/glac/parkmgmt/upload/Firearm_Q&As_%20FINAL_1_21_10.pdf

But thanks for the heads up! :thumbsup:

.

UndaCovaCalGunna
02-03-2010, 3:49 PM
Oh damn, well here I am late to the party again. Anyway, anyone notice that the sign text says:

Federal law prohibits the possession
of a firearm or other dangerous
weapon in this Federal facility unless
specifically authorized. 18 USC 930(a)
possession violations are subject to
fine and/or imprisonment up to one
year

However 18 USC 930(d)(3) states:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Seems to me that you can carry in a Federal Facility on a national park, because it is now a "lawful purpose".

Vtec44
02-03-2010, 3:52 PM
Yeah they are: http://www.nps.gov/glac/parkmgmt/upload/Firearm_Q&As_%20FINAL_1_21_10.pdf

But thanks for the heads up! :thumbsup:

.

Thanks for the direct link.

Electricboy
02-03-2010, 3:55 PM
For some reason i can't open these

will now check new link.....thanks

Matt@EntrepriseArms
02-03-2010, 3:56 PM
My favorite Q/A from the list:

"Q. I am frightened by firearms and am leaving the park. Can I have my entrance fee refunded? My annual pass refunded?
A. Park superintendents have the authority to provide a refund if the circumstances warrant it"

SixPointEight
02-03-2010, 4:01 PM
My favorite Q/A from the list:

"Q. I am frightened by firearms and am leaving the park. Can I have my entrance fee refunded? My annual pass refunded?
A. Park superintendents have the authority to provide a refund if the circumstances warrant it"

The answer should be "No, grow some"

LOL

vladbutsky
02-03-2010, 5:23 PM
Q. What should I do if I see someone drinking alcohol who has a firearm?
A. Contact the nearest park ranger or contact the park office and report what you have seen.

So if I have a firearm in my tent and somebody sees me drinking a beer, he/she will call a ranger on me?!
I wonder what that ranger can do in this case...

I'm not advocating drinking and shooting, but drinking a beer does not make me drunk and just having a firearm (not carrying it!) should not preclude me from having a few drinks.

darkshier
02-03-2010, 5:28 PM
The last 4 ?'s of the faq are hillarious

Q. My family and I come here to enjoy the peacefulness of the park – why is the National Park Service allowing people to bring firearms?
A. (should be) Because you live in the United States of America.

Lol, hard to believe that is even a FAQ!

darkshier
02-03-2010, 5:32 PM
So how does this apply to National Parks in CA? Do we follow the National Forest laws as in Loaded Open Carry? Or will it be Unloaded Open Carry for us?

pitchbaby
02-03-2010, 5:43 PM
Another newbie to the site and you already got the good stuff! Thanks

Doheny
02-03-2010, 6:10 PM
Another newbie to the site and you already got the good stuff! Thanks

I'm not sure how much of a newbie he actually is...

:)

.

zinfull
02-03-2010, 6:30 PM
The FAQ is about the same as the Frequently answered questions. They should just say know the law and shut up.

jerry

CenterX
02-03-2010, 6:59 PM
The FAQ and additional supporting documents are quite vague. Assembled as a patchwork quilt of can and cannot which could trip you up at the end of a long travel day.
I wonder when the first national news event will hit the air? Before or after March 1st?
Good luck!

Fyathyrio
02-03-2010, 8:02 PM
While it's nice that this is law...the fact that it's tucked into section 512 of a credit card bill is a little distressing. Just proves to me the people who pass these laws don't read them...or some congressional anti would have the media screaming their heads off.

yellowfin
02-03-2010, 8:31 PM
My favorite Q/A from the list:

"Q. I am frightened by firearms and am leaving the park. Can I have my entrance fee refunded? My annual pass refunded?
A. Park superintendents have the authority to provide a refund if the circumstances warrant it"Better answer would be get a therapist and learn to stop wetting the bed.

pitchbaby
02-03-2010, 8:46 PM
I'm not sure how much of a newbie he actually is...

:)

.

Just referring to his calguns join date... nothing more... hehe

MudCamper
02-03-2010, 9:55 PM
Please share with other sites as members see fit:

44931

44932

44933

44934

Thanks for the info. Do you work for the Park Service?

dantodd
02-03-2010, 10:02 PM
Thanks for the info. Do you work for the Park Service?

Based on his username I suspect he'd rather not answer ANY questions. And I somehow doubt Kes is going to out him.

MudCamper
02-03-2010, 10:07 PM
My favorite Q/A from the list:

"Q. I am frightened by firearms and am leaving the park. Can I have my entrance fee refunded? My annual pass refunded?
A. Park superintendents have the authority to provide a refund if the circumstances warrant it"

The person who asked this question probably read the Brady bunch statement about how families will be "staring down the barrel of an AK-47" when visiting the NPs. Ridiculous.

MudCamper
02-03-2010, 10:16 PM
Lots of minor gotchas in the Guidance doc. Like they will hit you with the 36 C.F.R. § 2.4 charge if you happen to violate any other federal or state laws. Plus they plan to enforce other future use prohibitions to be determined. And they ban all park employees from carrying. Sucks to be them...

aplinker
02-03-2010, 10:21 PM
The FAQ is complete ****.

It doesn't answer anything. An FAQ should at least refer to where the answers can be found! Example:
Q. How do I know where I can take a firearm?
A. It is the responsibility of each individual to know and understand applicable federal,
state, and local firearms laws.
Q. Can I openly carry my firearm in a national park?
A. If it is allowed by applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.
Q. Can I carry a concealed firearm in a national park?
A. If it is allowed by applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

MudCamper
02-03-2010, 10:27 PM
The FAQ is complete ****.

It doesn't answer anything. An FAQ should at least refer to where the answers can be found! Example:

It's because they can't bring themselves to just come out and say, "Yes." It just pains them too much. But that is the answer to most of the "is it legal to carry" questions. Just insert a "Yes, if ..." in front of all of their answers.

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 10:28 PM
Based on his username I suspect he'd rather not answer ANY questions. And I somehow doubt Kes is going to out him.

You have to love a username like that.

N6ATF
02-03-2010, 11:43 PM
The answer should be "No, grow some"

LOL

Or... "So, you want to be deported to the UK?"

johnny_22
02-04-2010, 8:22 AM
Of all the building they describe, why not the rest rooms? Do I need to disarm to take a leak?

MudCamper
02-04-2010, 8:43 AM
Of all the building they describe, why not the rest rooms? Do I need to disarm to take a leak?

I read somewhere else (sorry can't recall) that the restrooms will not be gun-free zones. But we'll know for sure if they post one of those signs there.

ETA: See the "Identifying Federal Facilities" document:

Before February 22, parks must identify all their federal facilities and conspicuously post signs at each public entrance to those facilities notifying people that firearms are not allowed inside.

Liberty1
02-04-2010, 8:59 AM
44933



Mudcamper,

see page six, reference 'vessels'. Does this include the busses one may ride from some NPS parking lots such as at Fort Clatsop (http://www.nps.gov/lewi/planyourvisit/fortclatsop.htm)?



44934

and page two, they are going to keep us out of enclosed open air forts :mad:

Liberty1
02-04-2010, 9:44 AM
Seems to me that you can carry in a Federal Facility on a national park, because it is now a "lawful purpose".

We need a declaratory ruling of what this means or a test case which I suspect will happen soon enough after people start carrying in NPs. :o

MudCamper
02-04-2010, 9:44 AM
see page six, reference 'vessels'. Does this include the busses one may ride from some NPS parking lots such as at Fort Clatsop (http://www.nps.gov/lewi/planyourvisit/fortclatsop.htm)

Well Section 2277, and all of Chapter 111, is clearly about shipping: http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title18/18usc2277.html

And here is the actual US Code definition of "vessel": http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title1/1usc3.html

The word ``vessel'' includes every description of watercraft or
other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means
of transportation on water.


So unless that bus floats, s2277 does not apply! ;)

M1A Rifleman
02-04-2010, 10:10 AM
Of all the building they describe, why not the rest rooms? Do I need to disarm to take a leak?


Yea, this was my thought to. As per Mud Camper, this smells of a gotcha, where they wouldn't post the toilet bulding and the LEO would be hiding in the stall waiting for an OC. :mad:

M1A Rifleman
02-04-2010, 10:15 AM
The part about hotels where Federal employees give lectures is a pisser. Anyone familier with the hotels at Yosemite, I wonder if these will be determined to be all federal.

Also odd there isn't much on target shooting or use of the firearms within the parks - meaning the difference between UOC and LOC.

MudCamper
02-04-2010, 10:18 AM
Also odd there isn't much on target shooting or use of the firearms within the parks - meaning the difference between UOC and LOC.

Yeah. Will they ban shooting in the parks? This is important to us in California because of the "prohibited area" language in 12031. Of course, there are those that argue that the prohibition must be a county code, not a federal or state one, to trigger 12031. But this is a whole other discussion. (See 51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 197 (1968), People v Knight, People v Segura, links here (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=36464&forum_id=12&jump_to=620776#p620776).)

M1A Rifleman
02-04-2010, 10:26 AM
Yeah. Will they ban shooting in the parks? This is important to us in California because of the "prohibited area" language in 12031.

I'm waiting (ok, hoping for) an Open Carry event to take place at, say at Yosemite on February 23. Seeing the expressions and actions of the libs and Federal anti-gun employee types is worth the $20 entrance fee to the park. :D

UndaCovaCalGunna
02-04-2010, 11:29 AM
I see some folks talking about the "no guns" signage the NPS is to put up. Please see my quote from an earlier post. Anyone care to weigh in on "the rest" of the law cited on the signs? It seems to me that carrying in a federal facility would fall under "other lawful purpose" wouldn't it? Since it is not otherwise unlawful...?



Oh damn, well here I am late to the party again. Anyway, anyone notice that the sign text says:

Federal law prohibits the possession
of a firearm or other dangerous
weapon in this Federal facility unless
specifically authorized. 18 USC 930(a)
possession violations are subject to
fine and/or imprisonment up to one
year

However 18 USC 930(d)(3) states:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Seems to me that you can carry in a Federal Facility on a national park, because it is now a "lawful purpose".

Mulay El Raisuli
02-11-2010, 7:24 AM
I'm waiting (ok, hoping for) an Open Carry event to take place at, say at Yosemite on February 23. Seeing the expressions and actions of the libs and Federal anti-gun employee types is worth the $20 entrance fee to the park. :D


I'm waiting (OK, hoping) for the same thing to happen at Wolf Trap!

Anyway, it looks to me we only have 11 days to wait for the Open Carry types to expand the issue/discussion to not just the national stage, but to the INTERnational stage as well. I can't copy/paste the bit from the 6th. page of the letter from Ken Salazar, but he mentions that "international tourists would be shocked." In his opinion, the shock would be from the parks no longer safe & friendly, but that just his opinion. What will really shock them is seeing just why this is the Land of the Free.

The opportunity to disseminate the point is just too good to pass up & so I've no doubt that OCers are planning a big 'coming out' party.

Oh, if only I lived in a free state & could join them.


The Raisuli

GrizzlyGuy
02-11-2010, 7:43 AM
Of all the building they describe, why not the rest rooms? Do I need to disarm to take a leak?

My interpretation of their criteria in the "Identifying Federal Facilities" document is that rest rooms could be federal facilities and you would have to disarm. They are buildings and "federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties" (daily toilet cleaning).

Although their guidance says that signs should be posted at entrances, 18 USC 930 (h) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000930----000-.html) says they shall be posted (and if no sign you can't be convicted):

(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.

So if you see no sign on the way in, they either decided the restroom isn't a federal facility or forgot to put up the sign, and you can perform your bodily functions while armed.

MudCamper
02-11-2010, 7:48 AM
Oh damn, well here I am late to the party again. Anyway, anyone notice that the sign text says:

Federal law prohibits the possession
of a firearm or other dangerous
weapon in this Federal facility unless
specifically authorized. 18 USC 930(a)
possession violations are subject to
fine and/or imprisonment up to one
year

However 18 USC 930(d)(3) states:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Seems to me that you can carry in a Federal Facility on a national park, because it is now a "lawful purpose".

Well, is "lawful purpose" defined anywhere in the US code? If not, it's a gray area at best. What is the lawful purpose while inside a federal building? Self defense?

bigcalidave
02-13-2010, 1:20 PM
I still believe that having a permit is carrying in a lawful purpose...

txgho1911
02-13-2010, 3:11 PM
"Lawful Purpose" is also in regs over Post Office.
If your there to conduct business that is legal then there should be no deterrence or prohibition to carry. When I stop into fastfood for a meal or takeout, I pull cash and wait in line. Nothing to be alarmed about just because everyone can see that gun on my hip.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-14-2010, 5:27 AM
However 18 USC 930(d)(3) states:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.



Well, is "lawful purpose" defined anywhere in the US code? If not, it's a gray area at best. What is the lawful purpose while inside a federal building? Self defense?


If I'm reading the Code correctly, it doesn't go to what brings me to the federal facility, it goes to what brings the gun to the federal facility. Hunting being just one example of a lawful purpose. If my interpretation is correct, then "buying a camping permit" won't do because that doesn't address the gun.

But, "self defense" would rate as a lawful purpose. But so would "to promote the gun culture." At least, that's how I see it.


The Raisuli

tango-52
02-14-2010, 6:39 AM
Maybe the approach to take is not defining what a lawful purpose is, but to establish what is an unlawful purpose. If you didn't bring the gun in to commit a crime (roberry, murder, etc.), then carrying the gun in accordance with state and local laws and regulations would be, by default, lawful. Self defense is a lawful purpose. The rangers might not see it that way though. I can see this one going to court. :rolleyes:

Southwest Chuck
02-14-2010, 9:57 AM
Well, is "lawful purpose" defined anywhere in the US code? If not, it's a gray area at best. What is the lawful purpose while inside a federal building? Self defense?

First, sorry for the long post, but ......
I'm wondering if "lawful purpose" is the "Golden Egg" that might help us here, Mudcamper. Some may be unfamiliar with our exchange about LOC vs. UOC in California National Parks when the new law goes into effect shortly. It is located
Here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457&page=12) in the Firearms in Forests and Parks thread, posts #116 - 121. Please read those for a fuller understanding of the quandry we face regarding the LOC issue. Foe convienience though, below is the repost of the original exchange and question I posed. I would be interested in other opinions on the legality on LOC in California N. Parks, since both Mudcamper and I ended up very unsure of its legality :shrug: . :helpsmilie:

Part 1

So, in your estimation Mudcamper,(or any other knowledgeable people here,) based on the new documents above, will LOC be legal in CA ? More specifically, Death Valley National Park (much of it) is located in unincorporated area's of Inyo County where the discharge of a firearm is not otherwise restricted, (same as the BLM lands there). So will LOC be available to us, or only UOC?

I know we're still in a can of worms state here. I way I see it, on one hand,
County Reg.s say we can discharge, and thus NPS is directed to honor State law, which gives us LOC. One the other, in the Guidence/Implementation Doc. posted in the link above, it states :

"Section 512 does not affect the enforcement of the regulatory prohibition on the use of firearms within the National Park System, see 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii), which should continue to be enforced as appropriate."

Would California recognize this as a restriction on discharge and thus no LOC?

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg. I understand the dificulties here and the contradictions involved.

1. Inyo County says you can discharge = LOC is ok
2. NPS must honor State Law.
3. NPS says that (via 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) ) is still valid and No Discharge allowed. (*See Note Below)
4. Based on #3 above, CA says no LOC.

So which has preemption?

*Note: In Sec.512. (a)(4) Congress states that this section(36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(i)(ii)(iii) violates our 2nd A. rights, but it seems the NPS is ignoring (iii) discharge (using) and will still enforce this.

So in your opinion, where do we stand on this?

Edited to Add :
Just another thought. Since California does not prosecute federal law for Medical Marijuana use since State Law allows it, would it be a stretch to assume they wouldn't prosecute LOC since State /Locate law allows it but as in the MJ case above, the Feds don't?

One more tid-bit to chew on:The NPS also says in the Guidence/Implementation Doc. that:Applying the term “law of the State” in Section 512 requires that NPS look to the provisions of applicable state law, which includes local and county laws and ordinances that may derive from state law. Insofar as Section 512 refers to "an assembled and functional firearm,” we interpret that phrase to include loaded firearms.

Based on that language, I interpret that we can LOC where allowed by State/Local Law with-in the National Park.Discharge however (target shooting, etc.), would be pushing the envelope and would not recommend it except in Self Defense.

Am I on the right track here?

Part 2
It's a bit of a quandary, isn't it. Let's read the code:
(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited:

(i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net

(ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net

(iii) Using a weapon, trap or net

(i) and (ii) are specifically rendered void per Section 512 of HR 627.
(iii) uses the word "using". That's a pretty broad term. It could include (i) and (ii), but obviously that wouldn't fly given the new law. I honestly don't know what to think. We may very well be able to get away with LOC, but I just don't know yet.

Part 3
Great word, quandary. That's what we're in, in this instance, right now, for sure. Landmines all around until it gets sorted out. And NO, I don't want to be a test case ;). I guess it's a wait and see approach to see how the Park Service reacts to the first Open Carriers both UOC/LOC. Hopefully DVNP / YNP/ etc. will issue there own Guidence/Implementation Document on CA Law clarifying their position on the matter .

Even then, if they don't have a problem with LOC, we may still face risk (although diminished) of being prosecuted (12031) by an over zealous County Prosecuter (think Theasus) with a citation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.4(a)(1)(iii) . It's something they (the Rangers) could hold over your head, so to speak.... ("Well sir, your carrying exposed and loaded is within Federal Law here in the Park, but may well be Illegal per CA State Law. Generally, we're not in the business of enforcing State Law, but just don't push it" ).... with an insinuation of put it away or leave. :mad:

Any other opinions offered as to the legality of LOC would be welcomed especially since the Feb.22 "deadline" is comming up FAST !

IrishPirate
02-14-2010, 10:11 AM
Q. Can I have a firearm in every park after February 22, 2010?
A. If you can legally possess a firearm outside of a national park, you can possess it in
that park on and after February 22, 2010. It is up to visitors to understand the
requirements of federal law and the laws of the states/localities they live in or are
travelling to (or through). Park websites have been updated to offer basic information
about the applicable state law(s) and will generally include a link to a state website with
more information.

good to know......thought it was already in effect!!!:eek:


I like how the FAQ are COMPLETELY biased against gun owners. "i'm afraid of guns......what should i do if i see a gun.......why would you let people bring guns.......do guns cause AIDS....." ok, the last one wasn't really on there but from how much backhanded hate of guns was going on you'd think it was considered. And, every question that a law abiding gun owner might ask is answered with "know where you are and know the laws"......the questions anti's might ask are carefully answered in detail.

I'm not going to flaunt my gun around Yosemite next time I go home, but I'll be damn sure to enjoy the fact that I can bring it with me!!!

Southwest Chuck
02-14-2010, 10:20 AM
I'm not going to flaunt my gun around Yosemite next time I go home, but I'll be damn sure to enjoy the fact that I can bring it with me!!!

But the burning question now is UOC or LOC ? That is if you decide to OC at all or if you consider that "flaunting" :confused:. Or in your case, even if not Open Carrying, will you have it loaded and/or is it even legal to do?

iRIGHTi
02-14-2010, 10:55 AM
got me wondering about National Forrest vs National Parks policy...

Southwest Chuck
02-14-2010, 4:01 PM
Well, I guess everyone else is stumped too, Just as Mudcamper and I are. :confused: