Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#1

Post by ELB »

Haven't seen this posted elsewhere on the forum yet: Apparently the National Park Service is going to change the rules on CHL carry in National Parks. :hurry:

Only drawback I know about this so far is it will save Hilary and Barack from having to vote in the Senate on a law to force the NPS to honor state CHLs. Well, that, and the fact that a law would be harder to change than a NPS regulation under a new administration, but I'll take any progress.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... x?ID=10651
Partial quote:
Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.
This is an anti-CHL carry article, but it contains the verbiage of the Secretary of the Interior to draft new rules:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/20 ... onal-parks
This administration supports the long-standing tradition of affording states the right to determine those who may lawfully possess a firearm within their jurisdictions while preserving an individual's right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the federal government's authority to manage its lands, buildings and facilities," Secretary Kempthorne wrote to Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

I have directed Assistant Secretary Lyle Laverty, who oversees regulatory matters for parks and refuges, to develop and propose for public comment by April 30 federal regulations that will update firearm 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.
There's a comment section for this last article, had only one comment when I read it. Perhaps you might wish the drop by and help enlighten the author... :mrgreen:
USAF 1982-2005
____________

bpet
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Rowlett, Tx

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#2

Post by bpet »

I've read a few federal firearms regulations and wouldn't get too excited just yet. Biggest wad of mumbo-jumbo that man has ever had the opportunity to turn into law. While it would appear that there is an opportunity for progress to be made, I'm not holding my breath until I see what actually gets proposed.

What I read in your post is a very politically worded response to a politically motivated directive. I'll be patient and see what develops before I get too excited.

Bill
"Limit politicians to two terms. One in office and one in jail!" (Borrowed from an anonymous donor)

frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#3

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

I'm optimistic about this. Looking forward to finally visiting Big Bend.

When will people finally "get it"? The combined experience of 40 states prove without a doubt that CHLs are not a danger to anyone.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#4

Post by ELB »

bpet wrote:I've read a few federal firearms regulations and wouldn't get too excited just yet. Biggest wad of mumbo-jumbo that man has ever had the opportunity to turn into law. While it would appear that there is an opportunity for progress to be made, I'm not holding my breath until I see what actually gets proposed.
Bill
Well, yes, the proof is in the pudding, but the NPS has gone farther than I thought they would. I've worked in a large bureaucracy -- to me this signals they know they are going to have to do something, so they'd rather have some control than have congress just hand it to them. Certainly they have an opportunity to try to drag it out or clutter it up to the point of impracticality, but we'll just have to keep the pressure on.
bpet wrote: What I read in your post is a very politically worded response ...
Bill
Um, so? Not sure what to make of this.
bpet wrote: ... politically motivated directive.
Bill
You can look a lonnnnnng, lonnnnnng time before you find a governmental directive or law, that is not "politically motivated".
USAF 1982-2005
____________

NcongruNt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2416
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:44 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#5

Post by NcongruNt »

frankie_the_yankee wrote: I'm optimistic about this. Looking forward to finally visiting Big Bend.
Me too. My brother is out that way frequently, and is an avid hiker. I'd consider his frequent invitations more seriously if I were allowed to carry. If the law is amended to allow the states to have jurisdiction regarding the carry of firearms, the NPS would receive significant support from myself and associated friends who would make regular trips to Padre Island National Seashore (which I frequented regularly before I started carrying) and Big Bend National Park. As it stands, I opt to go elsewhere, such as National Forests (such as Sam Houston National Forest) and State Parks (such as Mustang Island State Park or Davis Mountains State Park). Out in the middle of nowhere with no cell signal and an LEO response time measured in hours is not somewhere I want to go unarmed.
Image
NRA Member
TSRA Member
My Blog: All You Really Need

bpet
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Rowlett, Tx

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#6

Post by bpet »

ELB,

I know this response is long but I wanted to clarify some of my earlier comments.
ELB wrote:
bpet wrote:I've read a few federal firearms regulations and wouldn't get too excited just yet. Biggest wad of mumbo-jumbo that man has ever had the opportunity to turn into law. While it would appear that there is an opportunity for progress to be made, I'm not holding my breath until I see what actually gets proposed.
Bill
Well, yes, the proof is in the pudding, but the NPS has gone farther than I thought they would. I've worked in a large bureaucracy -- to me this signals they know they are going to have to do something, so they'd rather have some control than have congress just hand it to them. Certainly they have an opportunity to try to drag it out or clutter it up to the point of impracticality, but we'll just have to keep the pressure on.
bpet wrote: What I read in your post is a very politically worded response ...
Bill
Um, so? Not sure what to make of this.
bpet wrote: ... politically motivated directive.
Bill
You can look a lonnnnnng, lonnnnnng time before you find a governmental directive or law, that is not "politically motivated".
I look forward to the day when all of the government agencies that have a role in, or an opportunity to control/adjust/deny/etc. my second amendment right, agree on simplifying their approach to protecting their own interest. With a little luck and a continued application of pressure from the President and 50 or so members of congress, even the Department of the Interior can be motivated to change something that they would obviously just as soon leave un-changed.

I fully understand that very few politicians or their appointees make original decisions and instead, depend on "experts", advisers, polls, and staff to ensure that their response to "needs for change" are in keeping with the best interest of the majority of the people's wishes while at the same time protecting the interest/objective of the agency. It is unfortunate that many times, the resultant action/policy is less than clear.

The point I was trying to make was that Mr. Kemptorne has responded to pressure from the President and members of congress to do something that he obviously felt no need to act on previously. While his response is promising, he has covered all the bases in his response letter to ensure political correctness without making any real commitment other than incorporating new (more restrictive) federal requirements.

First, Secretary Thorne acknowledges that he has decided to take action. Not because it's in the best interest of the people or the correct thing to do, but because 50 congressional representatives have applied enough political pressure to make him do something.

Second, Secretary Thorne dutifully summarizes the complexity of trying to keep up with changing federal regulation. In effect acknowledging that his current policy may not reflect current regulations or policy. There is a hint of hope when he mentions the current NPS policy of requiring firearms to be inoperative. At this point, I could see something significant getting ready to happen but other than say state and federal laws have changes, he leaves any decision to take action to later analysis.

Third. Secretary Thorne re-assures that "This Administration" supports "the long-standing tradition" of states rights while preserving "...the Federal government authority to manage its lands, buildings, and facilities." Not sure if "This Administration" is referring to the Dept. of Interior or the Bush administration, but it is clear that Secretary Thorne is preserving his authority to take some liberty with a strict interpretation of the second amendment to make any changes appropriate for those Government resources within his control.

Fourth, Secretary Thorne does what any good political appointee would do, he passes the task off to an assistant with assurances that the assistant will do whats necessary to see that newer (in Sec. Thornes example, more restrictive) federal regulations are incorporated and then, incorporate wording that reflects the "law by which the host states govern transporting and carrying of firearms...". Although Sec. Thorne gives assurances that any changes will be appropriately vetted, I find it hard to imagine that this can be a simple process and will be heavily dependent on Asst. Sec. Laverty's experts, advisers and staffers. The results should be interesting.

Finally, Secretary Thorne closes by saying in effect, see Assistant Secretary Laverty if you have any issues but be assured that he will do everything I've asked him to do. That is, he will take action based on your political pressure. He will ensure that updated federal regulations are incorporated, while preserving the value of public lands, including the safety and enjoyment of all visitors, while enhancing local control and respecting the individuals 2nd amendment rights.

The final paragraph of Secretary Thorne's letter pretty much sums things up. The bolded text in the above paragraph is for emphasis of his main points. NPS has used the concern for "safety and enjoyment of all visitors" as their primary reason for their restrictive gun policy for years. This makes me wonder if there is a change in the works or if it will be business as usual. With the added inclusion in this letter of "enhanced local control", I see an opportunity for some improvement but Secretary Thorne has been very clear that any update will reflect additional federal restrictions as well as recognition for enhanced local control.

My original response to the post said that I thought this was a political response and I stand by that. Secretary Thorne has left enough wiggle room in his letter that he can dodge left or right depending on the political winds and never have to recant anything in this letter. But as you pointed out, "the proof is in the pudding". I will wait and see whether this is a net sum gain or loss. I would love to believe that we have a gain on the way. :patriot:

KBCraig
Banned
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#7

Post by KBCraig »

I hope the congresscritters aren't mollified by this promise to change the CFR. I want them to go ahead and change the USC (which overrides CFRs), and make it clear that all federal agencies will assimilate the gun laws of the state in which they're located.

At worst, that will leave them no more restrictive than some states; at best, it will be considerably better. And in all cases, it will eliminate confusion for visitors, who often might not even know when they're on NPS property (ever been to Hot Springs, AR?)

bpet
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Rowlett, Tx

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#8

Post by bpet »

A valid point and one I hadn't thought of.

Given that NPS is at least alluding to adopting associated state rules on carrying firearms, I wonder what they will do where national parks boarder more than one state? Yellowstone comes to mind.
"Limit politicians to two terms. One in office and one in jail!" (Borrowed from an anonymous donor)

bwahahaha
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:26 pm

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#9

Post by bwahahaha »

So, what's the likelihood that the Obama administration will promptly reverse this upon taking office, assuming it goes in favor of CHLs? It would've been great to have gotten this a few years ago, not during Bush's last year in office.

Obama has been outperforming the polls, and the polls already show an Obama victory in the general against McCain:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... a-225.html

bpet
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Rowlett, Tx

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#10

Post by bpet »

Well, the Sec of the Interior is an appointed member of the presidents cabinet. Most presidents like to appoint their own cabinet members and I don't see much chance of one of George Bush's appointees hanging around long after he leaves. Soooo, I see a somewhat empty promise to change the way things are today unless they work really fast.

If the current administration doesn't get it in place before dooms day, bwahahaha has an almost 100% chance of being correct in that the entire effort will be "re-evaluated". If it does get put in place before Bush leaves office, it will only serve as an example of how even Dept. of Interior policy can and should be updated to reflect current "federal" policy and the new Sec of Interior will be tasked with doing even better in updating that policy when the "better" policy is defined. (Sorry for the run-on sentence but I'm a little miffed that it took this long to get this far). :banghead:

Of course, if the Dems fail, all things will be good and the world will stabilize on its axis and the universe will quit expanding, and there's a chance we all may get to enjoy the new NPS policy. Sorry about being negative (again). :mad5
"Limit politicians to two terms. One in office and one in jail!" (Borrowed from an anonymous donor)
User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#11

Post by Liberty »

All this negativism!!
Maybe we should ust throw up our hands and run into corner.

its early and its way to early throw in the towel. And just because a liberal gets in doesn't mean he can do anything he wants without a fight. It didn't happen to Reagan it didn't happen to Carter. lets keep the faith and support those who are like minded instead of crying about thing we haven't lost.
Liberty''s Blog
"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." John F. Kennedy

KBCraig
Banned
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#12

Post by KBCraig »

bwahahaha wrote:So, what's the likelihood that the Obama administration will promptly reverse this upon taking office, assuming it goes in favor of CHLs?
bpet wrote:If the current administration doesn't get it in place before dooms day, bwahahaha has an almost 100% chance of being correct in that the entire effort will be "re-evaluated".
If Congress changes the law, the next president can't do anything about it except submit a request to change the law back.

If NPS changes the CFR, then it only takes a word from the next President to have NPS change it back.

Kevin
User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#13

Post by ELB »

KBCraig wrote:I hope the congresscritters aren't mollified by this promise to change the CFR. I want them to go ahead and change the USC (which overrides CFRs), and make it clear that all federal agencies will assimilate the gun laws of the state in which they're located.
Ditto. I went ahead and wrote to Senators Cornyn and Hutchison to urge them to press on with a law requiring the NPS to recognize state CHLs, and include as many other federal agencies as they can while they are at it. I actually don't expect any other agency to be included at the moment, it will be enough of an effort to get an actual law passed just on this issue I think.

bpet, I summarize your response as boiling down to "They're bureaucrats interested in their own definiton of their mission, concealed carry isn't part of that, and they may just clutter it up and slow roll the whole thing." Yes, I agree with that, as I noted in my original response to you. This is the way the Fed gummint works. I was part of it for many years. I also know that when even a single Senator or Representative take an interest in an issue, the bureaucrats wills scurry like mad to take care of it; so given that there are 51 Senators barking at them about this, I have some hope for a resolution.

I do wish the due date was earlier than 30 Apr, because there will have to be a public comment period (not sure how long this is, probably 60 days or more), then time to read and incorporate comments, etc, so this will start pushing up against the election. Lotsa opportunities for the thing to go astray. We will need to stay on them, comment vociferously in favor of concealed carry when the comment period comes, and keep pestering our Senators and Congressmen to keep the heat on.

But, this is the way things work. (Good thing, too -- remember the nonsense about treating ammo as explosives? Good thing there was a public comment period for that, and that the bureaucracy responded to political pressure!)

Oh, and about national parks that cross state boundaries? I think this is more of a theoretical problem than a real one. We already have state lines -- you follow this state's laws when on this side of the border, and that state's laws on the other side. What if the others side doesn't have legal concealed carry? What do you do now when you cross state lines? If I am in a part of the park that is woolly enough that I can't tell where the state line is, I am not going to worry about it too much.

Write your senators and keep the heat on!
USAF 1982-2005
____________

bpet
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Rowlett, Tx

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#14

Post by bpet »

Guys,

You are correct. I was being too negative. I'm gonna have to work on that.

Meanwhile, I'll keep the faith and expect great things.

Looking forward to the day!.....
"Limit politicians to two terms. One in office and one in jail!" (Borrowed from an anonymous donor)

Truck
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:18 am
Location: La Porte

Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs

#15

Post by Truck »

Frankie, don't let something like this keep you away from Big Bend it's a treasure not to be missed. We "prepare" properly
and have never felt unsafe. Most of the law enforcement rangers are very aware of the situation.
greg
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”