Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Tue Apr 16, 2024 7:47 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 New Regs for Carry in National Parks 
Author Message
 Post subject: New Regs for Carry in National Parks
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:53 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 1060
Location: Savage, MN
Nice piece of thorough, in-depth reporting:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/35609854.html

I'm sure that's all they have from the AP so far, so it might actually be more than one sentence long when you see it. Right now, this is what it says:

Quote:
Image


Last edited by Lenny7 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:59 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

Quote:
Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication and is available to the public on www.doi.gov.

Existing regulations regarding the carrying of firearms remain otherwise unchanged, particularly limitations on poaching and target practice and prohibitions on carrying firearms in federal buildings.

“America was founded on the idea that the federal and state governments work together to serve the public and preserve our natural resources,” Laverty said. “The Department’s final regulation respects this tradition by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so under state law. This is the same basic approach adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS), both of which allow visitors to carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.”

On February 22, 2008, Interior Secretary Kempthorne responded to letters from 51 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, urging him to update existing regulations that prohibit the carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. In his response, the Secretary directed Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty “to develop and propose for public comment by April 30 Federal regulations that will update firearms policies on these lands to reflect existing Federal laws (such as those prohibiting weapons in Federal buildings) and the laws by which the host states govern transporting and carrying of firearms on their analogous public lands.”

Changes in the final regulations from those originally proposed in April were developed as the result of public comments. In particular, comments expressed concern about the feasibility of implementing regulations which directly linked the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges to the ability of an individual to carry a concealed firearm on analogous state lands. The final regulations remove that potential logistical hurdle.

The existing regulations, as currently in effect, were adopted in 1981 for national wildlife refuges and in 1983 for national parks. Since that time many states have enacted new firearms policies. Currently, 48 states have passed legislation allowing for the lawful possession of concealed weapons.

“The Department believes that in managing parks and refuges we should, as appropriate, make every effort to give the greatest respect to the democratic judgments of State legislatures with respect to concealed firearms,” said Laverty. “Federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize the expertise of the States in this area, and federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects state prerogatives and authority.”

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:01 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:43 am
Posts: 371
Location: Anoka, MN
YES!

One 'Federal Land' issue down...several more to go...

Post Office next?


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:18 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
They have another updated story:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/35609854.html

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:29 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:36 am
Posts: 702
Location: St. Paulish
Since MN is OC&CC, can we OC in our National Parks? It seems like it is CC only regulations.

_________________
Proud owner of 2 wonderful SGH holsters.
"If man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:14)
"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" -Jesus (Luke 22:36)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:50 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
And how about NPS land other than National Parks?


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:53 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
And, since long guns are legal for carry (but not loaded transport) how bout them?

Note the comment about "not federal buildings"? I'll bet that means any facilities .bathrooms, offices, interpretive centers ...

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:57 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:02 pm
Posts: 571
plblark wrote:
Note the comment about "not federal buildings"? I'll bet that means any facilities .bathrooms, offices, interpretive centers ...

No problem, I can just leave my pistol on a bench outside the 'building', right?

Oh, except I forgot, I lost most of my pistols a while back . . . ;)

_________________
If the Government does not obey the Constitution, then what is Treason? -- Unknown


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:04 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf

I like the responses to issues raised:

Quote:
Issue 5: Visitors should not carry a concealed firearm for self-defense because NPS and FWS law enforcement officers are more than adequate to protect individuals from harm.

Response 5: The Department believes that NPS and FWS law enforcement officers work hard and perform valiant public service in their respective capacities. We also recognize that the NPS and FWS together employ approximately 3000 full and part-time law enforcement officers who are responsible for patrolling and securing millions of acres of land, a substantial portion of which is remote wilderness. In these circumstances, NPS and FWS law enforcement officers are in no position to guarantee a specific level of public safety on their lands, and cannot prevent all violent offenses and crimes against visitors. See, e.g, Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)(no federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection); Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)("the government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen").


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:12 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
there's a lot of good, sound, freedom loving logic in that pdf. They looked at the likely opposition and cited sources and reasons to counter hysteria. Well done.

IT does indeed read concealed in the final rule change.

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:16 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
plblark wrote:
Note the comment about "not federal buildings"? I'll bet that means any facilities .bathrooms, offices, interpretive centers ...

The rule says "nothing in this regulation shall be construed to authorize concealed carry of firearms in any federal facility or federal court facility as defined in 18 U.S.C. 930."

18 USC Sec. 930

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

STATUTE

(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 or attempts to kill 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, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.

(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 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.

(e)(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.


This is the same provision we've argued about with respect to Post Offices. If Federal regulations make it explicitly legal to carry a handgun for self-defense in a National Park, the only rational interpretation would be to make carrying a handgun for self-defense in the interpretive center of a National Park a "lawful purpose" with respect to (d)(3).

I make no predictions on how likely a federal court would be to make that rational interpretation. I do predict that the legal costs of getting a federal court to make that rational interpretation would be more than I'd want to spend.

Anyone want to volunteer?


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:17 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
I'm buying a lottery ticket in Bkrafft's name tonight :-)

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:28 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:02 pm
Posts: 571
plblark wrote:
I'm buying a lottery ticket in Bkrafft's name tonight :-)

Jeez, why does everyone think I'm a fanatic civil rights nut-job?

Oh, probably because y'all have met me :wink:

_________________
If the Government does not obey the Constitution, then what is Treason? -- Unknown


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:02 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 273
Location: Central Minnesota
bkrafft wrote:
plblark wrote:
I'm buying a lottery ticket in Bkrafft's name tonight :-)

Jeez, why does everyone think I'm a fanatic civil rights nut-job?

Oh, probably because y'all have met me :wink:


No, Bruce.

Those that have met you think you're an axe-wielding Viking! Your avatar sort'a reinforces that belief. (And, no, I haven't seen you in person.)

:-)

jb

_________________
There are things that you cannot imagine, but there is nothing that may not happen.

John Farnam (I believe)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:45 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:19 pm
Posts: 2305
JonnyB wrote:
bkrafft wrote:
plblark wrote:
I'm buying a lottery ticket in Bkrafft's name tonight :-)

Jeez, why does everyone think I'm a fanatic civil rights nut-job?

Oh, probably because y'all have met me :wink:


No, Bruce.

Those that have met you think you're an axe-wielding Viking! Your avatar sort'a reinforces that belief. (And, no, I haven't seen you in person.)


I was just going to send Bruce a pm asking him if he liked battle axes or long swords.

So as to not get any further off topic, it is good to have a bit of good news in this new dynamic time of change.

Who should we be sending thank you letters to?


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group