New regs on carrying in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges

Question I haven't been able to get answered ... in Colorado you may carry a concealed handgun in your car without a permit. Would that carry through?

And of course all of this is for national monuments as well, right? Since it mentioned all managed lands, I'm assuming.

"...in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located..."

Steve, my take is that in states like CO and TX (which do not prohibit carrying loaded guns in vehicles), doing so in national parks is in accordance with state law. Accordingly, carrying in national parks in VT and AK will require no permit.

And per your other question, my take is that this rule applies to any land under the authority of the park service ... including national parks, seashores, battlefields, recreation areas, historic parks, hiking trails, monuments, etc.

But that's only my take and I sure ain't no lawyer.

Montana law only prohibits carrying concealed (w/o a permit, that is) in cities, towns, railroad camps, mining camps, etc. So, theoretically at least in Glacier and parts of Yellowstone as long as one is away from any sort of settlement or concession, ccw w/o a permit may be legal.

As far as applicability:

- The rule in 36 CFR § 2.4 allows CCW in a "national park area."

36 CFR § 1.4 defines "National Park System (Park area)" as: "any area of land and water now
or hereafter administered by the Secretary
of the Interior through the National
Park Service for park, monument,
historic, parkway, recreational,
or other purposes."

- The rule in 50 CFR § 27.42 allows CCW in a "national wildlife refuge."

"National wildlife refuge, and Refuge
mean a designated area of land, water,
or an interest in land or water located
within the National Wildlife Refuge
System but does not include coordination
areas." 40 CFR § 25.12.

Seems to me the key thing to know is that you are actually in a "national park" or "national wildlife refuge."

All good and well EXCEPT:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to hold "land" within the boundaries of any state.

The Constitution spcifically states that the feds may purchase lands within a state with the consent of the legislature of the affected state(s) for the singular purpose of erecting needful buildings. There is nothing there about forest, parks, wilderness areas, BLM lands, or any other lands for lands sake. Constitutionally all federal lands not properly purchased are really state owned lands OR ...

IF such land is considered "territory" then the federal government could hold such land BUT any and all persons living within such lands, i.e. rangers etc, would not be citizens of the state in which the land lies and would then not be able to vote within that area. Being a territory, the inhabitants would need to be treated in accordance with other territorial rules such as those that impact Puerto Rico, etc.

Just another case of the feds lying, cheating, and stealing their way to absolute control and the destruction of the sovereignty of the individual states (nations) that make up the Union.

TIOCFAIDH ÁR LÁ!

I’ve written to the NPS asking several questions about the ambiguous language in the ruling. Part seems to indicate you merely have to follow the laws of the state the park is in, other parts seem to make concealed carry mandatory. Carrying a handgun concealed while backpacking can be problematic.

What about states like Alaska and Vermont that don’t issue permits or licenses to carry concealed?

What about states like Washington where you may carry openly without a license?

So what part of the rule gets the emphasis, concealed or laws of the state?

The new regs specifically exclude any "Federal facility" within the parks, etc. The supervisor of a nearby National Lakeshore indicated that CCW carry was not allowed under the new regs in the Visitor Center and other buildings at Pictured Rocks.

The "buildings" issue will continue to be a problem for all sides.
De-gunning to go into a visitor center is an inherently less-safe operation than leaving it secure in a holster. It introduces other insecurites in the possession of the gun, which, importantly, will be loaded and prepared for use.
There will also be the controversy over the "other lawful use" clause in the federal buildings prohibition on firearms which this rule seems to leave alone.
The rule is a huge advance, but not without problems enough to keep the attorneys going while the ordinary citizens struggle to figure out how in the dickens to obey the law.

Is the "other lawful use" phrase codified or is it just a CFR with no referenced Code, therefore not valid?

I've had this question for years mostly related to US Post offices. The ofiice is no longer a Federal building but they still hang the signs.

The Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina is a state highway that is considered to be part of a national park, and there has been at least one case I know of where a motorist with a valid CCW was convicted of possession of a handgun in a public park.

This rule may not be a 100% victory, but is a huge step forward in preventing that kind of abuse.

I copied and pasted this from a post at a forum so I hope it formats out O.K.

Purpose section of the Gun Control Act of 1968:

[b]PURPOSE [/b]

SEC. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and [u]it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens[/u] with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, [u]personal protection[/u], or any other [u]lawful activity[/u], and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by [u]law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes[/u], or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

"Lawful purpose" in §930:

a) [u]Except as provided in subsection (d)[/u], 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.

(d) Subsection (a) [u]shall not apply to[/u]—
(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) [u]the lawful carrying of firearms[/u] or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other [u]lawful purposes[/u].

but, then again, I ain't no lawyer.

Oh crap.

Joe Mama:

Very interesting indeed. It does not take a lawyer to surmise that the carrying of a handgun for defensive purposes, and PARTICULARLY while licensed to specifically do so, is a lawful (and obviously purposed) activity.

930 clearly allows carry in any federal facility other than a courthouse as long as the carry is not for any unlawful purpose. I just don't have the guts or money to be the test case. It gets really complicated in Florida because in florida we can't carry anywhere prohibited by federal law, so if I'm wrong we get it at state and federal level. At the local va clinic they have a sign citeing 930 but misquaoting the law and tying to make you beleave you can not park in th parking lot with a gun in the car.

Chuck

The Federal facilities issue gets really tough where, and please forgive the lousy metaphor, the rubber meets the floormat.
The fact is, many NPS people believe that it's a crime to carry in "their" buildings, and many will continue to believe so, new rule notwithstanding.
That means a bust, which too many rangers would be inclined to do, could easily wind up costing such a victim five or ten grand, even with a finding of innocent or dropped charges.
This wouldn't be like under FOPA '86, where a provision for damages is included in the law.
To make it worse, as a regular motorcyclist, stopping to use the restroom in a visitor center would make my hair stand on end, but with a bike, de-gunning and re-gunning out in the open is practically begging for a 911 punchup. Maybe not such a big deal in Montana, but in northwest Indiana, for example, bad odds.
It seems as though it could be an expensive gamble.
A good example where what appears to be clear-enough wording in a clear-enough law might not be so obvious to someone with a, uh, different perspective.