Garner State Park CHL?

[Venus Pax]

I remember my instructor saying that state parks were technically illegal, but that most LEOs would encourage CHL holders to carry there. IMO, this isn't encouraging. I would rather the law stand behind me.

However, I'm not finding anything in my booklet on handgun laws that relates to a state park.

[KBCraig]

What do you mean by act as a landlord? Does that mean if the landlord of my house decides he doesn't like CHL holders he can tell me I'm not allowed to have my loaded gun with me in my house?

Or are you just talking about federal regulations for CHL's?

A landlord is free to make "no guns allowed" part of the contract, and the lessee who signs it agrees to that stipulation.

I meant that on a state park that is on land leased from the Corps of Engineers, the Corps could, conceivably, try to say that it is still CoE land, subject to CoE rules banning loaded firearms.

My experience with CoE is that they don't really care, though. Their regulations against loaded firearms are directed at illegal hunting, and to make sure no one is plinking in the campgrounds.

Kevin

[KBCraig]

So, my biggest burning question is if I carried, and get stopped by a police officer for whatever reason, would I get my license suspended if I am on state park grounds, even if the park sits on federal land?

Absolutely not.

The worst-case hypothetical would be if a CoE (or other federal agency) law enforcement ranger found you were carrying, and issued you a summons to federal court. He couldn't issue you a summons to a Texas court, because you wouldn't be in violation of any Texas statute.

The good news: federal officers are not "peace officers" under Texas law, so you don't have to display your CHL, nor disclose that you're carrying. Don't lie, of course; but you needn't volunteer anything.

Kevin

[Commander]

Well, I just learned something from KBCraig. Here is some more info of interest:

Code of Criminal Procedure
Art 2.122 Special Investigators
(d) A commissioned law enforcement officer of the National Park Service is not a peace officer under the laws of this state, except that the officer has the powers of arrest, search, and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state committed within the boundaries of a national park or national recreation area....
(e) A Special Agent or Law Enforcement Officer of the United States Forest Service is not a peace officer under the laws of this state, except that the agent or officer has the powers of arrest, search, and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state committed within the National Forest System.

[KBCraig]

So what could happen to me in a federal court? Just a nice fat fine?

Interesting question. Contrary to popular belief, there is no law against carrying a firearm on federal lands. The National Park Service, Corps of Engineers, etc., bans on firearms are effected through "codifying" their agency policies by entering them as Rules in the Code of Federal Regulations. Congress didn't pass any such laws, but they give broad authority to make rules, and some bureaucrats use that authority to make their own laws.

The CFRs, if they do not conflict with or exceed the enabling legislation, constitute federal law.

But, here's something I've found: unless there is an underlying law, there is no penalty prescribed.

I won't go out on the limb and say a federal magistrate would not impose any kind of penalty. I am not a lawyer, merely a lowly DoJ employee studying the USC and CFR for my own edification. There are all sorts of "administrative fines" imposed without any specific statutory authority. The TSA "fines" come to mind.

I once watched a ridiculous scene play out. My Theta Chi alumni association meets every year for a campout and reunion. We reserve a portion of Richland Creek Wilderness Area campground, in the Ozark National Forest in north-central Arkansas. We pay a special use fee to reserve the campground, so that we can be loud and obnoxious and drink too much and play poker until the wee hours, and otherwise pretend it's 1982, and we're 20 years old and bulletproof.

Hey, we all need a break now and then!

Anyway, we've been at this for 25 years now. We have established a good record of leaving the campground cleaner than we found it. The old rangers know us, and stop by to make sure everything is okay, and that we have plenty of trash bags (because we do clean up!)

A few years ago, one of the brand new rookie Possum Police, aka, Pine Cone Cops, aka USFS LE Rangers, stepped out of his truck and almost hit the ground; his badge was weighing so heavy on his chest, I don't know how he could stand up straight.

He marched around barking orders about how we had to clean up after ourselves, while his much older partner followed quietly behind with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge. He knew we'd been at this a while, and he trusted us.

Then Junior Birdman whipped out his ticket book and cited one of the brothers for --drumroll, please-- urinating on a tree. At a wilderness campground. Where there is no plumbing.

Guess that answers the question of what the bear does in the woods, eh?

The specific code cited was "unauthorized deposit of bodily waste", just as if he'd dumped an RV holding tank into a pristine trout stream. Please!

(It was handled quietly, and the older ranger came back the next day and told my friend to tear up the ticket.)

All of that was off topic, and an entirely different section of law. But... yeah, you could possibly have to answer a summons. But I don't believe there is any penalty attached.

IANAL. I am sharing my limited knowledge. You are responsible for your own research. Yada yada yada.

Kevin

[couzin]

I will disregard the issue of title 18 sec 930 for the moment because there is considerable debate over it and whether or not someone legally carrying 'could' get in a jam for carrying in/on a federal facility - however - this law is the grandaddy for the prohibition against carrying weapons contrary to agency regulations. Keep reading. While some agencies (US Forest Service) allow the carrying of weapons on most USFS lands (not in park buildings), other agencies just say no. The licensing ('leases') of federal land (COE land in this case) to the state (TX Parks & Wildlife in this case) is done through a legally binding document. The fed retains ownership, retains applicability of all federal laws and regulations, and still owns the resources and how they are managed. The state laws, regs, and policies cannot trump federal law or even regulations. So, even though TPWD now says you can carry a weapon in the TPWD parks, if that park is 'on' federal land (COE managed fee lands), you can be cited by a COE ranger or employee with title 36 citation authority for violation of 36 CFR 327.13(a) Explosives, firearms, other Weapons and Fireworks. The fine is currently set in the Eastern District of TX at $100.00 plus a processing fee of $25.00 if so marked on the ticket. If it is marked as a mandatory appearance, then the federal magistrate will set the fine based on the severity of the incident, the violator's record, and other factors, up to $5000.00 and prison time. A COE ranger has the ability to summon local and/or federal law enforcement if confronted by a potential violator which can certainly up the ante and cause someone even more grief. Now - here is where it gets real sticky - same COE regulation (title 36 CFR 327) has a section 26(a-b) (State and Local Laws) that "except as provided...by federal law or regulation, state and local laws...shall apply on project lands and waters. This includes...(3)...use and or possession of firearms or other weapons;..." Again, I am not a lawyer, but if it is legal for someone to carry in the state, legal to carry in state parks, then this section seems to trump both the earlier section of the regulation as well as title 18. In other words, the federal regulation has just cancelled out itself. Now, the COE office of counsel (lawyers) still maintains that the regulation prohibiting firearms is the current policy and that is what they are going with, but I wonder what would happen if a cited 'violator' took his/her chances in front of a magistrate and pointed out the inconsistencies. I would not want to be the test case - but it really is just silly.