NRA Heads-Up on National Park Rules & CHLs

[ELB]

U.S. Department of Interior Proposes New Rule Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... x?ID=10978

Tuesday, April 29, 2008


Fairfax, Va. - The U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), through the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, today issued a proposed rule to amend regulations prohibiting firearms in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. The National Rifle Association (NRA) led the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms on these federal lands.

“Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges,� said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction, and we applaud efforts to amend the out-of-date regulations.�

The proposed rule was filed today and will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, and can be found online at: http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OF ... 606_PI.pdf. It provides sixty days for public comment.

These new regulations will provide uniformity across our nation’s federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while lands managed by DOI did not.

The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA has long held that amendments to those regulations were needed to reflect the changed legal situations with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.

As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuing licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense. Two states do not require permits, 38 states have a “shall-issue� permit process, and eight have a discretionary process for issuing permits.

This move will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands, and will make federal law consistent with the state law in which these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators sent a bipartisan letter to the Department of Interior (late last year) supporting the move to make state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands and refuges.

“These changes respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we are pleased that the Department of Interior is recognizing the authority of state right-to-carry laws,� concluded Cox.

-NRA-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.


Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

I suggest that lots of polite, supportive comments on the rule change (or at least on the changes that ARE positive) is in order if we want to see this go through...

[ELB]

My first, quick, very superficial read:

Two hurdles in order to carry in a National Park: 1) you must be authorized/licensed by the state, 2) the state must also allow carry on its "analagous" lands, i.e. if you can't carry on state park land, you can't carry on NPS land in that same state.

Federal facilities are still off limits. I guess you can drive through the park, but you can't use the Park's public restroom...

Haven't read it well enough to determine if there's any problem with non-resident licenses...

[ELB]

The document at the link is 13 pages long. Just figured out that the actual "rules" are only two, redundant paragraphs, spread out over two pages. The first 11 pages constitute a long preamble on guiding principles, certification that they complied with or otherwise are not crossways with various other rules, presidential directives, laws and the like. It is worth reading for the guiding principle stuff, but here's the actual rules:

36--Parks, Forests, and Public Property
CHAPTER I—NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DOI
PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 17j-2, 462.
2. Amend § 2.4 by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§ 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets.
* * * * *
(h) A person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms
within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may
lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park,
or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is
located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with
applicable federal and state law
12
Title 50--Wildlife and Fisheries
CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DOI
PART 27--PROHIBITED ACTS
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 614, as amended (16 U.S.C. 685); Sec. 5, 43 Stat. 651 (16 U.S.C.
725); Sec. 5, Stat. 449 (16 U.S.C. 690d); Sec. 10, 45 Stat. 1224 (16 U.S.C. 715i); Sec. 4, 48 Stat.
402, as amended (16 U.S.C. 664); Sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270 (43 U.S.C. 315a); 49 Stat. 383 as
amended; Sec. 4, 76 Stat. (16 U.S.C. 460k); Sec. 4, 80 Stat. 927 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) (5 U.S.C.
685, 752, 690d); 16 U.S.C. 715s).
Subpart D -- Disturbing Violations: With Weapons
2. Amend § 27.42 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 27.42 Firearms.
* * * * *
(e) Persons may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms
within a national wildlife refuge in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may
lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state
wildlife refuge, or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the national wildlife refuge,
or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting
otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.
_______________________
Dated
___________________________________
Lyle Laverty
Assistant Secretary of the Interior
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
13

[FR Doc. 2008-9606 Filed 04/29/2008 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 04/30/2008]

[Aric]

National Environmental Policy Act
We are required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental
guidelines in 516 DM 6, (49 FR 21438) to assess the impact of any Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, health, and safety. We are currently working to
determine the appropriate level of NEPA assessment and documentation that will be required for
promulgation of this regulation.

This is a bunch of standard government stuff.. My carrying of a gun might damage the environment? I guess if I have to use it, there might be contamination of the land with lead. But I usually hit what I aim for so they can carry away that contamination.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Reciprocity and non-resident licenses are covered by the general principle that the rules for national parks and wildlife refuges would reflect the existing state laws for carrying in those areas. So if a state honors reciprocity, or if a state honors non-resident licenses, so will the feds.

[ELB]

Comment on the proposed rule change I left at Regulations.gov

Excellent proposal, and long overdue. Actual experience of the shall-issue
concealed handgun license (CHL) laws in the states that have implemented them
has been overwhelmingly successful -- violations of ANY law by CHL holders has
been miniscule, and actual gun-related violations have been even smaller. Crime
rates are noticeably lower in those states that have CHLs, and in the unfortunate
instances where a CHL holder was forced to use a handgun to defend his or others
life, by far the law-abiding have prevailed and innocent lives saved. Please
implement this rule at the earliest opportunity.

Go here to comment:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/c ... 648053d497

[CWOOD]

It's easy.

Everyone here should do it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It's easy.

Everyone here should do it.

Please do!!

Chas.

[KBCraig]

I strongly support adoption of this proposed rule change.

As a federal law enforcement officer, I am not exempt from the current Rule except in the official performance of my duties. As a citizen concerned with Constitutional issues, I do not believe the federal government should ever impose harsher restrictions on citizens than do the several states.

The current Rule evokes emotional responses from people who believe it protects national monuments. They believe it protects wildlife in Yosemite, and heads off gun play in the Statue of Liberty. Many Americans do not understand that many "National Parks" are vast expanses of unpopulated land, such as Big Bend National Park in Texas, where firearms are a basic part of a common sense survival kit. Many don't understand the complexities of a place like Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas, where the city and Park intertwine and are indistinguishable. In Hot Springs, a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun can violate 36 CFR 2.4 just by driving down city streets and crossing an unmarked, invisible line.

Most importantly, those who object to the rule change do not understand that millions of Americans carry concealed handguns every day after having been thoroughly checked out by their state and federal governments, all without incident.

I would prefer that the revised Rule simply omit all prohibitions on weapons or firearms, but I find the proposal acceptable. Those most affected --licensed handgun carriers-- will enjoy an immediate positive change.

Please adopt the proposed change.

[Liberty]

It makes sense even when not concidering RKBA issues. It shows respect for the states and states rights. Most land in Alaska is owned by the Feds. The existing rules in their state are oppressive
What I find interesting though is whether they will post 30.06 signs in the rangers offices etc. I find I find the concept of the feds posting Texas penal codes on their walls strangely funny.

[frankie_the_yankee]

What I find interesting though is whether they will post 30.06 signs in the rangers offices etc. I find I find the concept of the feds posting Texas penal codes on their walls strangely funny.

I don't think they will need to post 30.06 to restrict carrying in various buildings. Consider the following two statements from the proposed new rules.

Possession of concealed firearms in national parks as authorized by this section must also conform to applicable federal laws.

Possession of concealed firearms in national wildlife refuges as authorized by this section must also conform to applicable federal laws.

So the way I read it, the feds would still be free to post ghostbuster or any other type signs they choose on particular buildings and/or facilities.

[KBCraig]

What I find interesting though is whether they will post 30.06 signs in the rangers offices etc. I find I find the concept of the feds posting Texas penal codes on their walls strangely funny.

I don't think they will need to post 30.06 to restrict carrying in various buildings. Consider the following two statements from the proposed new rules.

Possession of concealed firearms in national parks as authorized by this section must also conform to applicable federal laws.

Possession of concealed firearms in national wildlife refuges as authorized by this section must also conform to applicable federal laws.

So the way I read it, the feds would still be free to post ghostbuster or any other type signs they choose on particular buildings and/or facilities.

Good read, Frankie. "Applicable federal laws" include 18 USC 930, which prohibits firearms or other weapons in "federal facilities" (buildings or portions of buildings in which federal employees regularly perform work).

Changes to the CFR can't override federal laws.

[CleverNickname]

Just out of curiosity, which legislators are responsible for heading up this change in the rules?

There are no legislators involved. This is not a change in the law, it's a change in the CFR, which bureaucrats write.

[seamusTX]

This effort was kicked off by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. About 50 senators signed a letter to the National Park Service asking them to remove the ban on loaded weapons. Here's one story about it that contains a list of senators:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29052.html

- Jim