< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: Right-to-Carry Takes Effect In National Parks  (Read 1218 times)

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Right-to-Carry Takes Effect In National Parks
« on: February 26, 2010, 06:02:27 PM »
Right-to-Carry Takes Effect In National Parks
 
Friday, February 26, 2010
 

On February 22, a new law took effect that applied state firearms laws to national parks and wildlife refuges across America.

The implementation of the new law, which the National Park Service (NPS) has planned for since passage of H.R. 627 last May, has so far been without major problems.  NPS management reports that it has worked with the 493 individual parks, promoting a consistent message on several key points:

    * Under the new law, every park is subject to all the firearms laws of the state (or states) where the park is located.
    * Park visitors must know and obey state laws, including knowing which state laws apply in parks (such as Yellowstone) that cross state boundaries.  (For information on state laws, go to www.nraila.org/gunlaws.)
    * The new law affects firearms possession, not use.  Laws regarding hunting, poaching, target shooting or any unlawful discharge remain unchanged.
    * It will remain unlawful to carry in certain locations, under a separate law that prohibits possession of any firearm in a "federal facility."

This last point?and especially the definition of "federal facility"?may be the one most likely to cause confusion for visitors.  The National Park Service has indicated that, according to its apparently broad interpretation of the law, the law prohibits firearms not only in buildings (such as visitor centers, ranger stations, and administrative offices) but also in other areas that are regularly staffed by federal employees (such as developed caves and gated outdoor performance areas). However, NPS officials stress that all prohibited locations will be marked with signs.

The ban on carry in "federal facilities" does not apply to buildings that are located in parks, but not staffed by the federal government?such as many restaurants, lodges and gift shops.  However, private operators of those places are free to make their own rules subject to state law.

Needless to say, anti-gun activists and the media have redlined their hysteria meters, with one newspaper claiming that "there assuredly will be more gun violence" in parks, and another suggesting that park visitors "might want to toss a Kevlar vest into the SUV."  And the Brady Campaign is still looking for ways to use the courts to reverse the new law.

Needless to say, media fears are unlikely to be realized, and NRA-ILA will fight any effort to reverse this hard-won victory.  As always, be sure to watch this alert and www.nraila.org for any new developments.
   
 
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline DanClrk51

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: Bellevue
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Right-to-Carry Takes Effect In National Parks
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2010, 01:39:59 AM »
Why don't all the antis just give up. We already have concealed weapons in 48/50 states that are legal for the most part in most public areas except where posted. You would think, reason would finally befall them. :-(

Offline rugermanx

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Prague, NE
  • Posts: 224
Re: Right-to-Carry Takes Effect In National Parks
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2010, 11:36:58 PM »
Not to be a downer here I totally agree that the anti's should let it go and live their lives and let us live ours. But it seems they are always looking for back door ways to get the bans in there. Like the work with some of the "public health" departments calling guns a "public health risk". I don't wish them to give up... But wouldn't mind arguing them publicly and openly instead of constantly having to watch the backdoor. If its in the open then it seems we have the upper hand. Its the stupid little things that they sneak into different laws as amendments or the de facto bans thru taxing, that really irk me.

Second reason will never befall anyone who can translate "shall not be infringed" as "with reasonable restrictions"  >:D
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. Benjamin Franklin