Good News - National Parks concealed carry!

Status
Not open for further replies.

CowboyKen

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
269
Reaction score
147
Location
Henderson, NV
WOW!!!!

http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

U.S. Department of the Interior Date: December 5, 2008
Contact: Chris Paolino
202-208-6416
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."

— DOI —
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accessibility|Feedback|Notices|Disclaimer|Privacy Statement|FOIA|E-Gov|USA.gov|DOI Home

U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
[email protected]
Last Updated on 12/05/08

Ken
 
Register to hide this ad
WOW!!!!

http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

U.S. Department of the Interior Date: December 5, 2008
Contact: Chris Paolino
202-208-6416
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."

— DOI —
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accessibility|Feedback|Notices|Disclaimer|Privacy Statement|FOIA|E-Gov|USA.gov|DOI Home

U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
[email protected]
Last Updated on 12/05/08

Ken
 
Thanks for posting this.
icon_smile.gif
 
Good news indeed
icon_smile.gif
. It sure will feel better having a revolver with me while I'm fishing in the Olympics.
 
Keep in mind that state laws over rule this. Here in California one canot carry a loaded firearm in state parks. That means one cannot carry a loaded firearm in National Parks, under this ruling.
 
Originally posted by Hook686:
Keep in mind that state laws over rule this. Here in California one canot carry a loaded firearm in state parks. That means one cannot carry a loaded firearm in National Parks, under this ruling.

That is incorrect. It is still a national park and falls under federal law. The new reg pertains to concealed carry only. If you have a CA CCW permit you can CCW in a national park in CA. The DOI is not adopting state park regulations it is putting it's CCW policy in line with that of the states the national parks are located in not with what the states dictate for their parks.

"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."

Nothing in the above quote says anything about carry in a state park but carry in the "state". States do not control or override the rules or regulations on federal lands.
 
Originally posted by Hook686:
Keep in mind that state laws over rule this. Here in California one canot carry a loaded firearm in state parks. That means one cannot carry a loaded firearm in National Parks, under this ruling.

According to this AP report ( http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irWgv...JgjierKwnFwD94SV7C00 ), your concerns are misplaced: the new Federal law *will* allow those with recognized CHLs to carry in National Parks that are located within states that prohibit carry in their *state* parks. This means Californians with CHLs may carry in Yosemite, but not in state parks. (And, 'cause California doesn't recognize other states' permits, it will be *only* Californians that will be legal there. But, it sure opens up Yellowstone, etc., that are located in CHL-friendly states.) Note that concealed carry will still be prohibited in federal buildings, which includes National Park visitor centers, etc.

I, too, applaud this ruling, although I confess I'd had few expectations it would pass.

Steve
 
Can we get the list of Congress men/women that voted "FOR" this?
I would like to thank mine, (if any), and make a point to vote for them at my next opportunity.
mrwildroot
 
I'm wondering if this will last.

Jan. 20 is coming and the principal actor on that day is on record as favoring a nationwide ban on concealed carry.
 
My Constitutional guarrantees do not begin or end at a national park boundary. My Right to self defense supercedes any convoluted bullshit regulation that this present or future administration can approve or deny. Some of you are thinking in the wrong direction. While some of you give high praise to "2nd Amendment Principles", in almost the same breath, the same ones are thanking and lauding this "ruling from on high" that "allows" some CCW in some national parks.

If we are truely the posterity that James Madison thought of as he penned the Constitution in general and what became the 2nd Amendment in particular, this type of praise and acceptance from some of us over another usurpation of our beloved Constitution, makes our Framer's efforts and sacrifice a somewhat wasted endeavour if the net effect is for some gunowners to grovel at the feet of their sovreign for another crumb off of their table.

Rights are like muscle....exersize them of lose them. Government works for us and not us for them. That makes us the boss where this subject is concerned. I do not need now or ever the permission of my servant to perform an act that it is my God-given Right to do in the first place.
 
Climber ,

In theory, I agree with your comments.

However, after being arrested, jailed and fined for carrying a defensive weapon by the Rule of Law concerning CCW in this nations' patchwork of varying laws and ordinances, I find this hard fought "NEW" legal right a great step forward for us all.

Walk up to the next LEO you can find and expose your illegal CCW, Tell him what you posted here for us to read, and see just how far your "rights" and "bluster" will take you in the real world....

I'm sure we all will look forward to your action report on this matter....

MW
 
Originally posted by mrwildroot:
Climber ,

In theory, I agree with your comments.

However, after being arrested, jailed and fined for carrying a defensive weapon by the Rule of Law concerning CCW in this nations' patchwork of varying laws and ordinances, I find this hard fought "NEW" legal right a great step forward for us all.

Walk up to the next LEO you can find and expose your illegal CCW, Tell him what you posted here for us to read, and see just how far your "rights" and "bluster" will take you in the real world....

I'm sure we all will look forward to your action report on this matter....

MW
With some men it's bluster. Some mean it. I don't know Climber from Adam, but just like in 1775 there are men today prepared to back up their beliefs. If you don't know the guy, don't acuse him of being full of BS.
 
Originally posted by mrwildroot:
Can we get the list of Congress men/women that voted "FOR" this?
I would like to thank mine, (if any), and make a point to vote for them at my next opportunity.
mrwildroot

No vote/Congressional action; DoI simply changed the regulation.

Be safe.
 
in almost the same breath, the same ones are thanking and lauding this "ruling from on high" that "allows" some CCW in some national parks.

Since I was the one "lauding" in this instance, and am amazed (along with others) that this ruling was passed legally in this anti-gun PC (BS) environment, I was offended by his remark.
I did, in fact, stand up for my 2nd Amendment rights, and was arrested, jailed and fined for doing so, as I stated. Subsequently, I acquired my NC CHP, and now prefer to follow the existing laws. This new ruling is worth "lauding" IMO.
I merely suggested that Climber might do so himself, and let us know how he faired.....
Please feel free to do the same.
mrwildroot
 
No vote/Congressional action; DoI simply changed the regulation.

Thanks for the info.
I recall when this process began some months ago, and there was mention of 51 Congresspersons signing a letter supporting the passing of the new regulations.
Might be nice to say thanks...
MW
 
Originally posted by mrwildroot:
Climber ,

In theory, I agree with your comments.

However, after being arrested, jailed and fined for carrying a defensive weapon by the Rule of Law concerning CCW in this nations' patchwork of varying laws and ordinances, I find this hard fought "NEW" legal right a great step forward for us all.

Walk up to the next LEO you can find and expose your illegal CCW, Tell him what you posted here for us to read, and see just how far your "rights" and "bluster" will take you in the real world....

I'm sure we all will look forward to your action report on this matter....

MW

First of all, your "Hard fought new legal right"(are there any illegal Rights?)is no Right at all. Your Right has been turned into a privilege. Your PERMIT gives you government's permission to perform an act that would be otherwise illegal. What is an "illegal CCW" that you speak of? What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear to you? Obviously the same part that is not clear to government or so it seems as I try to reason through your speech.



Should free speech become illegal but someone fights real hard and a "new legal right" is discovered so that with a permit issued by government, one can now engage in government approved speech, then maybe you can get one of those permits also.

There are many things that government does that I do not approve of. For instance, AMTRACK.... why should we the taxpayer subsidize someone's train ride? Just because I disaggree with AMTRACK does not mean that it would be wise for me, in protest or stupidity or both, to lie down in front of one coming at me traveling 60mph...I would lose that fight because I chose poorly to pick the fight in the first place.

It would also be very unwise to challenge unConstitutional CCW laws by walking up to a LEO and brandishing a concealed firearm in protest with or without a CCW permit. That is a fight that need not be picked with any LEO because it is a fight that one would lose. The day that should I ever decide to pick a fight with a LEO and I cannot imagine what that might be or why, it will be a fight that I am going to win and the outcome will have been a foregone conclusion well before I start the fight and with justification. So, pick your fights carefully and wisely and never start a fight that you cannot win.

When I speak of my God-given Rights and government's usurpation of those Rights, it is not "bluster" that comes through but my passion to defend those Rights. There is a difference.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, para. 2 says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF(emphasis mine); and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND(emphasis mine); and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING(emphasis mine).

That is good enough for me. "Notwithstanding" means that all of these other bullshit laws not in line with the "Supreme Law" are null and void and don't mean squat, especially any law that infringes on the 2A. Now I will wait for some "scholar" to tell me that it does not mean what it says or that it has not been "incorporated" back, down or over to the states by the SCOTUS....you know them, that same bunch that in "Heller" upheld the individual Right to keep and bear arms and told D.C. to go ahead to "allow" Dick Heller to "register" his firearm so that he could be issued a "permit" to keep the firearm at home.

And the NRA applauds "Heller" and this new edict from on high about CCW in a national park but only after one jumps through the hoops and goverment is happy.

BULLSHIT!

Mrwildroot and many like him need to yanked from their comfort zone. Perhaps that needed stimulus is forthcoming. Then again, some choose to remain a toady. There are more ways to enslave a man than chaining him down to a tree stump and bad law does just that.
 
So alot of words and bluster, yet as Shakespeare said..."signifying nothing!"

Still awaiting your "action report" on proving your point of view... in the real world...not from your comfy chair, in your safe and secure environment, hiding behind a CRT screen...

Since 1732, Mrwildroot, and his family, have fought (and some have died) in the creation and continuing defense of this nation.

To honor and obey the law is sometimes a distastful task. Yes, the Constitution guarantees rights, yet our elected officials usurp the intent. I DO NOT AGREE with the continuous chipping away of our "Inalienable Constitutional rights", but, as a citizen, must abide by the rules and regulations as stated. (For instance...new president elect...) Having some of those rights restored pleases me. It is "laudible". It is a good start.
Hooray!
Until you challenge the laws you do not agree with, and put your actions, money, freedom and person where your mouth is, well all you have to say "Signifies Nothing!"

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

Interior Department rule allows carrying of loaded firearms in most national parks
By MATTHEW DALY , Associated Press

Last update: December 5, 2008 - 9:34 PM




The Bush administration said Friday it is overturning a 25-year-old federal rule that severely restricts loaded guns in national parks.

Under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms.
The new rule goes further than a draft proposal issued last spring and would allow concealed weapons even in parks located in states that explicitly ban the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.

"If you can carry (a gun) on Main Street, you are allowed to carry in a national park," said Chris Paolino. a spokesman for the Interior Department.

The Interior Department rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

....


I would caution everyone to check carefully before rushing into a National Park in California with a loaded firearm.
 
Please note that this change in regulations does not become effective for about a month. They have to post the changes or something which they will do next week and I believe it is 30 days after that posting before it takes effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top