Interior allows carry in National Parks

We Illinoisans can just read it and wonder.

It doesn't happen very often, but sometimes common sense does prevail in Washington after all!

What is the likelihood that this rule change at the DOI will stimulate state legislation aimed at either opening or closing their own state parks to carry?

According to the information complied at "Handgunlaw dot us", the following states "allow" for carry (licensed or otherwise) in state parks:

AK, AZ, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WY

This could be interesting in Yellowstone Park (and perhaps other parks), since it straddles 3 states (Montana, Wyoming and Idaho)with varying CCW recognition policies.

Wyoming, Idaho and Montana all recognize virutally all states' CCW permits.

The new rule does explicitly say that the laws of the state in which the carrier is standing are the laws in effect.
One supposes that with GPS, this might actually be sort of credible.

Meanwhile, despite all the legal and bureaucratic import of this, I just can't shake the notion that this is yet another stick-in-the-eye by W towards his successor.
I kind of like that thought.

Just remember folks, when the new rule is passed, you still can't carry in a building. You probably can't even carry into a primitive toilet facility in a national park (though if you do, and get caught, it will be an amusing court case to read about!)

Sadly, the DOI has no authority to change the law in regards to weapons in federal facilities. That will take an Act of Congress, and good luck getting that done under this regime.

Since there's no prohibition on open carry mentioned in the new regulation, does that mean I can carry my XD in the open in Saguaro NP without a permit since there's no state statute against doing so?

Sebastian:

Not true. The prohibition on carrying in buildings applies only to posted "federal facilities." That is, the facility must have a warning sign indicating that carrying weapons is prohibited. No sign, no problem.

I really don't see the NPS posting signs on every hut and hovel.

The local issue in Florida was one where major roads went through National Parks. You had to drive through to get where you wanted to go, even if you didn't stop in the National Park.

Had to be fixed ... couldn't get to Miamai from the west coast carrying a gun legally.

The issue is in dispute. See below.

BEGIN QUOTE:
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in
a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be
present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal
facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided
in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or [AND HERE IS WHERE THE PLOT THICKENS] other lawful purposes.
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility,
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders
regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any
grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term ``Federal facility'' means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term ``dangerous weapon'' means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2\1/2\ inches in length.
(3) The term ``Federal court facility'' means the courtroom, judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
(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.
END QUOTE.

The argument is that the language "other lawful purposes" in 930(d)(3) allows persons with CCW permits to carry in federal facitilities *if* and this is big if, the applicable state law allows carry in government buildings. As far as I know, most state CCW laws prohibit carry in government buildings, but not all do. I am also aware of no cases, reported or otherwise, addressing this specific question.

So, your mileage may vary.

I have never interpreted the “other lawful purposes” to require that the state allow me to carry in “state” buildings. Only that I am not carrying a gun for Unlawful purposes. I am not an attorney. Somebody that is smarter than me please help. As far as I am concerned, I can carry in a post office if it’s for lawful purposes. OF COURSE I would NEVER really do it.

(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term ``Federal facility'' means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

At least in regards to outhouses on federal land, I would love to argue this one in court: "Ladies and gentlemen, I am sure that federal employees have had occasion to do their doodies in this latrine. But doodies are not duties, and there is nothing official about them."

I find it disturbing that the NRA is claiming that they "took the lead" in getting this enacted. Of the organizations that signed onto the petition, I never saw the NRA on the list. I wonder just what the NRA "took the lead" of? I am really getting tired of the glory hogs at the NRA laying claim to every good thing that happens in the realm of firearms, rarely giving credit to the grassroots orgs that are the real driving forces.

Read the rest of the statute. The federal facility ban only applies to posted facilities.

Are they going to post signs on every outhouse? Unlikely/

NRA took the lead because they worked the Hill and the Administration for more than 5 years to get this done. They were able to get 51 U.S. Senators to send letters to the Dept of the Interior in late 2007 and early 2008 requesting the change, something VCDL or no other group was capable of doing. Do you really think VCDL had the juice or relationships to coordinate that? I think not. Why don't you ask Phillip about his involvement in those letters. A detailed explanation of NRA's efforts can be found here. http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?ID=3529

If you believe VCDL really had anything to do with this getting done you're naive. Given your comments, I'm sure you will believe anything that comports with your view that NRA is the bad guy. Rather than complaining about NRA, you should be thanking them.

I have been watching this case for a long time and I would have to agree the NRA was in the lead.

When I think of the NRA I look at Heller, where it's pretty clear the NRA did initially try to derail the case (and if just one more judge had gone the other way, we would be regretting that they didn't scuttle it -- good thing that Justice O'connor retired!) the NRA may have joined the game late and reluctantly, but when they did they brought something no other organization could have: an amicus brief signed by a majority of senators and representatives. Other organization may be a bit more "pure" in their defense of gun rights, but none have the reach of the NRA.

And believe me, I am a person who respects the VCDL a heck of a lot and wish we could get a grass roots organization that strong here in Colorado. Wish I was an organizer with that much charisma.

Hopefully Obamafraud and his animal
rights Interior Secretary don't change
this federal regulation back to what it
just was 24 hours ago....

RKH:

It is more complicated than that. There is the whole "unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be" business. Not something I would want to risk my freedom testing.

All nit-pickin' and lawyerin' aside:

WOO-HOO!

I had fun blogging this one, especially since there is a mystery writer-park ranger who has written a whole series of crime novels set in national parks.

Yet some would have us believe that national parks are crime-free...

Mike, my point is that the NRA is always claiming "it" is always their idea and their initiative. They rarely give credit where it is due. http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?ID=3529
To read the NRA press releases, you would think no other gun rights organizations exist, let alone worked on the petition. I am a life member and have supported the NRA with money and effort. Naive? Hardly. But I see the NRAILA for what it is becoming: more elitist and arrogant; needing to be dragged kicking and pouting into the fray that is the defense of the 2nd Amendment (Heller and yes, this rule making). Once they get going, they do the job, but with no credit to the people who dragged them to the table.

Sounds like you could be talking about VCDL which claims credit for every positive development in VA. Understand, I am not saying they don't do any good. In fact, they do a good job when it comes to some of the local county issues or when it comes to finding no guns signs in parks/public bldgs or rallying folks to contact a local county boards about OC. Beyond that, they lack real ability to get things done in Richmond without NRA. As far as the Parks rule is concerned, VCDL's petition would have gone nowhere without NRA's efforts in Congress and the Administration to apply pressure to the Interior Dept. Beyond filing a petition, what exactly did VCDL or these other groups do? The Park service made clear it's position on their petition in a letter to Cong. Rahall. Without NRA's leadership and efforts, this would not have gotten done.

How exactly is NRA elitist? No other organization has fought as long or as hard for the rights of average gun owners and sportsmen. No doubt there are many fine state groups but few of these organizations are capable of getting a significant law passed or repealed on their own. Many claim to get the job done but none of national groups aside from NRA and few of the local groups are capable of doing the heavy lifting necessary to protect our rights in DC or state capitals.

Because of NRA's efforts, more than 38 states recognize the right to carry a firearm concealed for self-defense. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, nearly 2 dozen states have passed emergency powers reform laws to prohibit govt agents from confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens in the context of an "emergency". Congress passed a similar law in 2006. More than 20 states have passed castle doctrine laws to expand or restore the right to self-defense in and outside the home. No doubt local groups were helpful in these battles, but few could have done it on their own.

Finally, in 2005, NRA was successful in passing the gun manufacturers liability bill to prevent municipalities/individuals from bankrupting the firearms industry for the acts of criminals. Without this law, it's very possible many of these firearms manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers would be out of business today.

"How exactly is NRA elitist?"

Hughes Amendment, 19 May 1986 says it all as far as I am concerned.

Infighters ...

I swear that some folks just can't have enough enemies.

So NRA should have scuttled the Firearms Owners Protection Act? Nevermind NRA had nothing to do with the Hughes amdt being offered or attached to the bill. It will never end with people like you.

You'd rather tear down the only group capable of defending our rights and champion those wholly incable of doing anything but putting out a press release or shouting shall not be infringed.

Mike, you demonstrate my point only too well. You belittle any organization that might steal even a small bit of the NRA’s thunder. I’ll be sure and count all of the NRA big wheels at the Virginia legislature’s Lobby Day, Jan 19th, making sure that all of the legislation the NRA is proposing and supporting, gets passed. The NRAILA does have legislation being carried to the floor to further restore our right to own & bear, doesn’t it?

Dennis, perhaps you should re-read your initial post criticizing NRA's efforts in this process. I was simply responding to your attack on NRA. Is NRA perfect, of course not. There are plenty of things I'd like to see them do and do better. That being said, they are honestly the best we've got. If you re-read my post, you'll note that I admit there are other pro-gun groups doing good work. If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that they can't do it alone.

As for NRA belittling other gun groups, I've never seen NRA criticize another pro-gun organization publicly. However, I see it all the time on blogs and bulletin boards from folks like you and from many of the organizations with which you likely affiliate who clearly live to bash NRA.

"You'd rather tear down the only group capable of defending our rights"

The only group capable of defending our rights is US.