Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

[zigzag]

I was reading material sent to me by the Sam Houston National Forest and it said its not prohibited to carry in National Forest Lands. But its a different story in National Parks.

Im glad we can carry in State Parks and with National Forests.

[NcongruNt]

I was reading material sent to me by the Sam Houston National Forest and it said its not prohibited to carry in National Forest Lands. But its a different story in National Parks.

Im glad we can carry in State Parks and with National Forests.

Yup, I've carried in Sam Houston National Forest. Unfortunately, the policies in National Parks do not match (yet), but there is movement in this area. It's possible that this may change soon so that state law regarding CHL will apply in National Parks as well.

[NcongruNt]

Anyone know of any progress on this?

[bpet]

I'm still waiting on my questionnaire that I am sure will come as part of the vetting process. I guess I can expect it soon after I receive my digital tv discount coupons. Oh darn,......I'm being negative again.

Note to self:

Don't be so negative. Move to Oklahoma, build a big fence buy a big lock for the fence, and ignore everything that's promised (sort of) by Uncle Sam. Dang it, there I go again.

[KBCraig]

Unfortunately, there's some movement in the opposite direction: an attempt to move the USFS out of Agriculture and into Interior (same as national parks and monuments).

If our legislators don't fix the underlying law first, DoI will render national forests as "gun free" as national parks.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Unfortunately, there's some movement in the opposite direction: an attempt to move the USFS out of Agriculture and into Interior (same as national parks and monuments).

If our legislators don't fix the underlying law first, DoI will render national forests as "gun free" as national parks.

Not likely. National Forests are large swaths of land, a lot of which is privately owned. There would be a huge amount of blowback if the feds tried to ban gun possession in National Forests. For instance, about half of the state of New Hampshire is the White Mountain National Forest, with all kinds of private land all through it. There is also a legitimate legal question over whether the feds even have the authority to do such a thing involving land that they do not own.

When you pass one of those signs saying that you are now entering the so-and-so national forest, it has more or less as much (or little) significance as a sign saying that you are now entering the so-and-so desert.

Bottom line: Don't worry about national forests.

[corax]

We aint there yet on this one.

In my view, this is one of the biggest issues with concealed carry - right up there with employer parking lots. As userss of this forum are aware, calling 911 REALLY does not work in the backcountry. Under pressure from Congress, the park service has a proposal to make concealed regulations in parks consistent with that in state parks. So forget carrying in Yosemite, but you would be legal in Big Bend and Yellowstone.

Of course the park service itself, plus the anti-gun lobby, is claiming this will allow poaching, etc. I believe we need to make our voice heard, and urge you to put in your comments. The comment period ends on June 30.

The first link below is to comment on the issue. The second is to the NRA’s article about the situation.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/c ... 648053d497

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4017

Thanks.

[NcongruNt]

Any news on what's happening with this?

[NcongruNt]

So here we are again, at the end of the second deadline...

I haven't heard of yet another extension, so I suppose this is supposed to be moving forward now.

Any news?

[Mike1951]

Probably until they get the desired results!

[FlynJay]

Yet another reason to carry in national parks.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/pot ... index.html

[anygunanywhere]

Yet another reason to carry in national parks.

We wouldn't want to make ourselves safe by breaking any of those silly federal rules (Translation - reasonable restriction or common sense gun laws; infringement) now would we?

You can bet those marijuana growers were not armed since we all know they follow the rules.

Anygunanywhere

[NcongruNt]

I'm sure it's been put on the backburner due to all of the other "crises" going on these days, but anyone know of any progress on this?

[Familyman1993]

Here is a news report from the NRA Website about an upcoming announcement regarding the National Parks Rules under consideration. The comments in the report below sound disturbing citing that comments submitted against a change far outweighed those submitted for change. Not good but let’s hope the reporting is not completely accurate.

Link:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/adventure ... 30027.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thenewstribune.com

Decision expected on rule about guns in parks
JEFFREY P. MAYOR; jeff.mayor@thenewstribune.com
Published: November 6th, 2008 12:30 AM

The Department of the Interior is expected to announce this month its decision regarding changes in rules governing guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
When he visited Mount Rainier National Park for the Oct. 10 opening of the new Jackson Visitor Center, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said the announcement would be made soon.
“We’re going through the process. We anticipated we’d get a lot of responses, and we did,” Kempthorne told The News Tribune.

At the end of April, the department proposed a change that would allow people to carry a concealed firearm in a national park or wildlife refuge if the individual is permitted to carry a concealed weapon and is authorized to do so on similar state lands in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.

The department received 130,000 to 140,000 comments on the proposal, said Chris Paolino, deputy director of communications for the department.
“That’s on the higher end for comments but not extreme. By contrast, we received nearly 300,000 comments on proposal relating to a narrow change in Endangered Species Act regulations,” Paolino said.

“The majority (of the comments) support leaving the current rules in place,” said Sean Smith, Northwest regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, which opposes the changes. “In other words, the public comments support the current firearm restrictions, not the NRA’s proposed changes.”

The debate began last December, when 47 U.S. senators wrote Kempthorne asking that him to review the existing laws and allow citizens to transport and carry firearms consistent with state law where the National Park Service’s sites are located.
Current regulations require weapons to be temporarily inoperable or stowed so they are not easily accessible.

The NRA, which pushed for the change, argues park visitors have the right to protect themselves against wild animals and people. It also argues the existing law is confusing because it differs from regulations allowing loaded weapons on other federal recreation lands.

Groups such as the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and the NPCA oppose any change. They say allowing guns in parks and refuges will only put people and wildlife in danger.

Jeffrey P. Mayor: 253-597-8640
blogs.thenewstribune.com/adventure

[barres]

I'm usually not a conspiracy theorist, but I don't believe them. I think they waited until after the election, and, with BamBam as President-elect, decided that they could continue to ban carry. Especially since BamBam has promised national legislation banning carry anyway.