National Park Carry Question?

[TEX]

Question – something just occurred to me concerning the ability to now legally carry in National Parks. As far as I know it is legal if, one, the state the National Park is located in issues concealed handgun permits, and two, if there is no state law prohibiting carrying in parks.

Now, take for example, California. Although they do not recognize a Texas CHL, they do in fact issue CHLs or the equivalent. As far as I can tell they do not have a specific law prohibiting the carrying of firearms by CHL holders, so the question is this…

Could I legally carry my handgun via my Texas CHL while on the property of the National Park, in such a state, even though I could not legally carry it outside the National Park?

I would be on federal property and meeting the criteria, as I understand it, for legally carrying in that National Park. Is there a possible loop hole here.

I know this issue may be a wide a deep grey area, and I don’t intend to ride the ragged edge of legality, but I would be interested in others’ opinions.

TEX

[Liberty]

As I recall the way rule was presented is that the park would recognize the states rules. If you are legal within the state that the park is in, you are legal within the park itself.

[flintknapper]

Question – something just occurred to me concerning the ability to now legally carry in National Parks. As far as I know it is legal if, one, the state the National Park is located in issues concealed handgun permits, and two, if there is no state law prohibiting carrying in parks.

Now, take for example, California. Although they do not recognize a Texas CHL, they do in fact issue CHLs or the equivalent. As far as I can tell they do not have a specific law prohibiting the carrying of firearms by CHL holders, so the question is this…

Could I legally carry my handgun via my Texas CHL while on the property of the National Park, in such a state, even though I could not legally carry it outside the National Park?

I would be on federal property and meeting the criteria, as I understand it, for legally carrying in that National Park. Is there a possible loop hole here.

I know this issue may be a wide a deep grey area, and I don’t intend to ride the ragged edge of legality, but I would be interested in others’ opinions.

TEX

Edited... to remove incorrect information.

[barres]

Uh, Flint, that's a rule he can't just review. It's already in effect. In order for him to change it he would have to go through the whole process over again. The media made it sound like Park Carry is one of the new laws he was going to review, but he does not have that authority. He can only review pending laws that have not yet fully come into effect.

As to the OP, I think not. You would have to abide by the laws of the state in which the park is located as far as the CCW laws, and California's CCW laws says you can't carry on a Texas CHL. I would think that that would keep you from carrying in a National Park in California on the authority of your Texas CHL. Just my opinion, and IANAL.

[ELB]

Here is the exact text of the law. It does not hinge on whether the state has CHL or not, just "in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located."

Nice try, but I don't think they opened a loophole for California concealed carry...

Title 36 -- Parks, Forests, and Public Property
Chapter 1 -- National Park Service
Part 2 -- Resource Protection, Public Use, and Recreation

Section 2.4 was amended by adding the following paragraph:

"(h) Not withstanding any other provision in this Chapter, persons may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibitied by federal law."

Title 50 -- Wildlife and Fisheries
Chapter 1 - United States Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI
Part 27 Prohibited Acts
Subpart D Disturbing Violations: With Weapons

Section 27.42 Firearms, was amended by adding the following paragraph:

"(e) Not withstanding any other provision in this Chapter, persons may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national wildlife refuge in accordance with the laws of the state in which the wildlife refuge, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibitied by federal law."

NOTE that "except as otherwise prohibited by federal law" phrase means that rules/laws prohibiting concealed carry in federal buildings still stand. So I guess you can carry your gun in the park, but you can't take it into the visitor's center.

Here is a link to the Department of the Interior press release announcing the final rule:
http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here a link to the DOI's final rule, with the language I quoted above, plus all the other governmental overhead that goes with it (25 pages of text to implement two, nearly identical, one-sentence additions the the CFR!)
http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cling]

California law doesn't prohibit open carry in the woods. Too bad Bush's interior department wasn't as gun friendly.

[flintknapper]

Uh, Flint, that's a rule he can't just review. It's already in effect. In order for him to change it he would have to go through the whole process over again. The media made it sound like Park Carry is one of the new laws he was going to review, but he does not have that authority. He can only review pending laws that have not yet fully come into effect.

I don't know about that: The Congressional Review Act gives Congress 60 in-session days to review and reject any new federal regulation.

I recognize he can not change current just by a "stroke of the pen", but I believe he can call for a review.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[TEX]

DANG!

[nitrogen]

The national park carry rule was already in effect. Obama cannot overturn/review it without going through the rulemaking and comment period.

If Bush signed the ;aw much later, then, yes, Obama could halt it.

[barres]

Uh, Flint, that's a rule he can't just review. It's already in effect. In order for him to change it he would have to go through the whole process over again. The media made it sound like Park Carry is one of the new laws he was going to review, but he does not have that authority. He can only review pending laws that have not yet fully come into effect.

I don't know about that: The Congressional Review Act gives Congress 60 in-session days to review and reject any new federal regulation.

I recognize he can not change current just by a "stroke of the pen", but I believe he can call for a review.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

I originally thought the same thing, but that 60 days is the 60 days prior to it going into effect, not 60 after it goes into effect. That's why it was on the books for a couple of months before becoming effective on January 9, 2009. Now that it has gone into effect, as Nitrogen said, President Obama would have to put it through the whole process all over again at large expense to change the rule at this point.

[flintknapper]

Uh, Flint, that's a rule he can't just review. It's already in effect. In order for him to change it he would have to go through the whole process over again. The media made it sound like Park Carry is one of the new laws he was going to review, but he does not have that authority. He can only review pending laws that have not yet fully come into effect.

I don't know about that: The Congressional Review Act gives Congress 60 in-session days to review and reject any new federal regulation.

I recognize he can not change current just by a "stroke of the pen", but I believe he can call for a review.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

I originally thought the same thing, but that 60 days is the 60 days prior to it going into effect, not 60 after it goes into effect. That's why it was on the books for a couple of months before becoming effective on January 9, 2009. Now that it has gone into effect, as Nitrogen said, President Obama would have to put it through the whole process all over again at large expense to change the rule at this point.

Thank you for that clarification. I stand corrected.