Senators request Interior to allow carrying in Parks

So I can carry openly on Independance Mall in Phila.? The wildlife in Philly has a taste for human blood, too, you know.
I'm ok with this senatorial request but it must be repeated that asking for permission does not a right make.

BTW- if you're really worried about wilderness predators of humans, a Scout Rifle in something well north of 300 caliber would be wise, with a hand cannon as back-up. Google "Jeff Cooper" and "Baby" for an example.

Frankly, I can't imagine hiking the Yosemite or Yellowstone (especially) backcountry without a large caliber handgun and my guess is that a lot of people carry illegally rather than risk defending against a grizzly attack with pepper spray and harsh language. I have been in the backcountry of the North Rim of the Grand Canyon National Park and it can get pretty damned lonely out there.

I never saw any dangerous animals, but while I was in the Kaibab National *Forest*, I did run into some guys who had come down from Utah and they looked pretty sketchy. One of their beater trucks had broken down and I did stop to help them. Gave them some water for their radiator and also to drink. If I hadn't had a gun on me, I would not have stopped to help.

Unfortunately, the Interior Dept.'s regulations are simply reflection of specific laws that Congress has passed. See Alan Korwin's Gun Laws [of he U.S. In other words, Federal law must be changed.

Thank you, Henry.
That's why I said what I said earlier in here.
And my apologies on the search strategem.
Put "scout rifle" in your favorite search engine for a real predator stopper, esp. in 30 cal or higher.

Good God, some sense coming out of Washington?!!???!! Checking out the window for flying pigs...

And yes, a LOT of people carry "illegally" in the national parks, bad laws don't make all people stupid, suicidal victim fodder.

Are you sure about the 'sense' part, FOX3? This smacks of eyewash, smoke up the so-called sportsman's kilt.

Every time I ever visited Independance Mall, I have carried at least one major caliber firearm concealled on my person. The GreenCoats were blissfully unaware and I'd wager that most would not revert to jack booted thuggery but a firm, "that's illegal. Go across the street where your license makes it legal" and you can even carry openly even though you'll still need a license because Philly is 'special' for it's first class city status.

Bad laws kill people on a gruesomely regular basis.

Common sense, and while the antis are going to go through their usual drama over this, it really shouldn't be a big deal.

My family and I went out to South Dakota -- gotta show the kids Rushmore, no? -- this last summer. I know I spotted at least four other people routinely carrying in Custer State Park (worth the trip, by the way), and the state cop I was chatting about the subject with said it was utterly routine. Hard to see how it would be different in a park under National management.

(He'd pretty obviously figured out what my vest was for, and when I quietly asked if he wanted to see my carry permit, he said, "Nah," and gave a Don'tWorryAboutIt shrug and we chatted for a couple of minutes about the change of the law in Minnesota, which he'd followed, as he has family here. "Welcome to America," he said.)

I go into the national forests all the time, but I always have a rifle with me. My wife and I were in Alaska over the summer and a fairly large black bear buzzed passed us while chasing salmon up a stream. We were in a national park...no guns allowed. I would have felt a lot better if I could have had my pre-64 Model 70 with me. I simply will not go into places where you can't pack a rifle. Pistols are a bit on the weak side for me, plus there are concealed weapon issues. Let's face it, there are things out there that can kill you.

I'm surprised that 47 senators signed on to this idea. This makes a lot of sense to me!

I'm pleasantly surprised that 47 senators signed on to this. I would be curious to know which 3 did not.

I carry in state parks in Tennessee, and in the Smokies, but I'd feel a little queasy talking about it with the rangers there. Although, really, you don't usually see many of them off the beaten path.

Problem is, whatever you carry's gotta be concealed, since it's against a very stupid set of laws to carry in those places. I'd feel more comfy if I could strap to myself a short 12 gauge with slugs in it, but it's better to have a 1911 than just a sharp stick.

Henry Bowman,

I don't believe you. Those same federal laws don't keep the USFS or BLM from having a radically different set of regulations, do they? Though I'd certainly like to see those laws you refer to mostly repealed, so that my CPL would allow me to carry inside Forest Service buildings, Post Offices, etc.

National Forests and National Parks are very different animals and are, in fact, not even managed by the same federal agency. National Forests are managed by the Forest Service, which is a political subsidiary of the Department of Agriculture.

National Parks, on the other hand, are managed by the National Park Service, which is a political subsidiary of the Department of the Interior. Other federal lands, particularly the "grazing lands" of the arid West, are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, which is also a subsidiary of Interior.

Needless to say, the rules and regulations on such lands regarding firearms, hunting, mining, roads, logging, etc., are generally very different from each other. And those differences all start with the various laws the Congress passed.

Kirk Parker:

The laws I reference are specific to National Parks. In fact, as nearly as I can tell from reading Korwin's book, there is a specific [that is, separate] law for each National Park affected. National Forests and BLM land is not exempted: such lands are simply not specifically called out in the laws. Thus, the Interior Dept. does not have regulations prohibiting firearms from National Forests simply because Congress has not passed a law that authorizes such regulations.

Clarification: The Agriculture Dept. (not the Interior Dept.) does not have regulations prohibiting firearms from National Forests simply because Congress has not passed a law that authorizes such regulations.

If one carried in the National Parks it would probably not be discovered unless one needed to shoot a bear, or other predator, in self defense. The penalty under the regulations is up to six months in jail (but not more than 6 months so no right to a jury trial) and a fine of, I think, $1,000. I believe the "lessor of evils" defense would protect you from conviction if you got a fair trial and the self defense facts were established.

A huge problem is that bear attacks tend to be sudden and unexpected so that having the gun in a pack might be no protection. The gun needs to be in a strong side belt holster. If in the pack that's probably where the gun would be found when the rangers searched your dead body. This regulation is pretty awful and really needs to be ended. The Park Service does not send its own employees into the back country of Yellowstone or Grand Teton without firearms.

One more thing, the gun in your holster needs to be at least a 44 Magnum revolver or even better, a Ruger Redhawk Alaskan in .454 Casul loaded with 23 grains of 296 behind a 335 grain hard cast lead gas checked bullet. Only a brain shot will prevent you from most likely being severely mauled even if you get all six (you'll be lucky to get two) into it before it gets to you. There just isn't any good news about dealing with Mr. Griz if he decides he wants a piece of you. Don't even think about using a 1911 or any other semi-auto. Even if there were such a thing as a 30 round mag it wouldn't be enough.

I know guys who carry .357 magnum revolvers in bear country. I tell them they would be better off using it on themselves if they are attacked by a bear than trying to stop the bear with it.

Once you get to shotguns and rifles the fun of the hike is pretty much diminished by all the extra weight. Makes me nostalgic for the days, about 25 years ago, when there were no grizzlies in Grand Teton and the Yellowstone ones stayed in the deep back country.

If you look at the overall statistics for human deaths and injuries from all causes, attacks by other humans far exceeds attacks by animals. An even better reason to be allowed to carry.

Henry,

It's a little unclear whether we're talking about the same thing here. I'm quite familiar with the contents of 36 C.F.R. 2.4 (which, I shouldn't need to point out, is a regulation not legislation.)

There's nothing in there specific to individual parks (though there is another section with special stuff related to Alaska.) Quite a number of individual parks' web sites under nps.gov simply quote from or refer to this section of the CFR.

Are you really saying Congress passed legislation telling the NPS or DOI what specific regulations they had to write regarding firearms, rather than simply enabling and authorizing them to do so? Perhaps a cite of the actual USC would be helpful here.

Kirk:

Congress passed specific laws for individual Parks. Perhaps all parks are covered by such laws by now; it's not clear to me. The NPS [Interior Dept] then writes regulations to implement the laws. Sometimes an outside observer reading a regulation is baffled by its relationship to the relevant law.

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage at the moment since I'm visiting my disabled father and not at home, so I cannot cite specifics. However, an example may suffice: Congress has passed a specific law prohibiting the carrying of firearms [except by 'authorized' personnel] in Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico. The NPS regulations implement this law.

My point is that if the Congress Critters want the Interior Dept. to change its regulations, the Congress will probably have to rewrite [or, if we are terribly lucky, repeal] those laws from which the regulations are derived. I think that the way the actual laws are written, the Interior Dept. could not permit concealed carry simply by issuing a regulation -- the regulation would be in violation of the authorizing legislation. However, there may be specific instances in which 'hunting and fishing' is prohibited in a particular park. In such cases concealed carry could indeed be permitted. But, I don't have a list of the specific laws at hand for the next week or so.

I went throught the East Yosemite Ranger gate last summer and a sign above the booth window said "All firearms must be decleared." Did I mention the 4 AR15's and a .380 pistol in the back of the pickup? Hell no!

Henry,

I look forward to an update from you when you get back, if you can. Let me try to justify my skepticism, if I may:

However, an example may suffice: Congress has passed a specific law prohibiting the carrying of firearms ... in Bandelier National Monument

This doesn't really suffice, since a single isolated example doesn't show anything about the default case. That default, as far as I can tell, is that there isn't park-specific firearms legislation for most parks since there are hardly any firearms-specific regulations at all. A quick search of Title 36 parts 1-199 (see here for the search page) for the words "weapon" and "weapons" turns up very few hits in part 7 (Special regulations, areas of the National Park System), and those that do are almost exclusively to allow hunting within Refuges and Recreation Areas during local hunting seasons. Hence my dubiousness toward the proposition that Congress has legislated firearm bans specifically for each park (if, indeed, that's what you're claiming.)

I just hope I'm not relying too much on the naive assumption that the law is supposed to make sense... :-)

The Interior Dept. Regulation on guns in National Parks is a legislative regulation, as opposed to an interpretative regulation. Legislative regulations are promulgated pursuant to a specific delegation of legislative authority by Congress to an administrative agency and thus have force and effect of law. That is why a criminal penalty can be imposed for violation of this regulation.

Interpretative regulations are an agency's interpretation of a statute and are entitled to great weight but do not have force and effect of law. If you take action contrary to an interpretative regulation you may lose in court but you won't go to jail. Violation of a legislative regulation is about the same as violation of a federal statute.

The way you know when a regulation has force and effect of law is when the enabling statute says something like, "The use and carrying of firearms on lands in the National Parks shall be as set for in regulations duly promulgated by the Secretary of Interior...."

I don't know the exact wording of the statute, but I'll bet it comes close to the above. Somebody with the time may want to look it up.

Flash,

No one is going to mistake me for an expert in these matters (duh!) and your last comment really helped to clarify something.

I can't seem to find the enabling legislation related to firearms in national parks, and I think it will obviously make a huge difference if it reads something like, "The use and carrying of firearms on lands in the National Parks shall be as set for in regulations duly promulgated by the Secretary of Interior...." as opposed to something more like, "The prohibition of the use and carrying of firearms...". Surely if it's the former, then the Secretary of the Interior could make the change being requested by the Senators, whereas Henry's statement that he couldn't certainly implies that the enabling statue is more like the latter. That's the point I'm trying to get at.

The legislative delegation is not going to say anything about prohibition. I don't have the reg in front of me but I looked it up some time ago to find out the penalty for violating it.

The only thing needed is for the Department of the Interior to propose a new regulation rescinding the current one and putting a new one in place saying that firearms in National Parks will be regulated according to the law of the state in which the park lands are situated. The proposed new reg would be published in the Federal Register, there would be a public comment period and the regulation would either be changed to reflect public comments or left as is and adopted. That will do it. No need for Congress to do a thing.

The enabling legislation might be from over a hundred years ago, whenever the National Park Service was created as part of the Dept, of Interior. Yellowstone was created in 1872, so the federal statute is an old one but is somewhere in the United States Code. I don't feel like spending two hours on my computer finding it because I don't think it matters a hill of beans anyway.