TexasCHLforum.com

Here is a notice about the national park, etc. carry.

Chas.

http://www.fws.gov/news/NewsReleases/sh ... 440EDB35CE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles
The Houston paper stated that "Gun will not be allowed in visitor centers or rangers' offices, because firearms are banned in federal building.". Is this true?

While the law will change the application of rules regarding possession of firearms, it has no impact on the authorized uses of firearms on National Wildlife Refuges. The law does not allow visitors to fire or discharge the firearms in any way, brandish the weapon in the view of others, or any other use of the firearm.

I hope this does not mean that if I am in one of these parks and have to defend myself that I will not be in trouble for discharging my weapon.

old farmer wrote: Charles
The Houston paper stated that "Gun will not be allowed in visitor centers or rangers' offices, because firearms are banned in federal building.". Is this true?

According to that article it is. And that still seems kind of reasonable since it is a federal building. It didn't mention them , but I was also wondering about stand alone restrooms.

Persons with so-called firearm "carry" permits will be able to possess firearms on a refuge in accordance with the provisions of the state issued permit

So-called???? What is that supposed to mean?

The notice isn't quite correct: it's not only licensees who can possess firearms. Unlicensed possession is supposed to be treated exactly the same as state law, meaning vehicle carry, open carry, etc., will now be legal in national parks if they're legal in the surrounding state.

Mr. Cotton,

So this works for NWR land, ofcourse...

Do you know of status changes for other federal agency controlled and managed land? Here in the Lone Star, and certain near me, we have alot of US Army Corps of Engineers land (USCOE) surrounding rivers and lakes.

Is USCOE land still a no-go on licensed carry? I'm assuming so.

Thanks.

While possession on a refuge may generally be allowed under state law, possession of firearms will remain prohibited in Federal facilities. Examples include: visitor centers, refuge administrative office buildings, refuge maintenance offices and workshops, field and backcountry offices, ranger stations and fee collection stations.

So "stay outside" Lots of "what ifs" enter my mind, particularly those in the life or death category. Which is a valid concern in the outdoors.

C-dub wrote: According to that article it is. And that still seems kind of reasonable since it is a federal building. It didn't mention them , but I was also wondering about stand alone restrooms.

Hmm, yeah...that would be awkward, even for us 'not afraid to go outside' kinda ladies

chabouk wrote:The notice isn't quite correct: it's not only licensees who can possess firearms. Unlicensed possession is supposed to be treated exactly the same as state law, meaning vehicle carry, open carry, etc., will now be legal in national parks if they're legal in the surrounding state.

I think that's what they meant when they (awkwardly) said "does not differentiate" between licensed carry and long guns (and, inferred, other locally-legal carry). This does not seem to have been written by someone who has to work with firearms laws on a daily basis....

Shorts wrote:

While possession on a refuge may generally be allowed under state law, possession of firearms will remain prohibited in Federal facilities. Examples include: visitor centers, refuge administrative office buildings, refuge maintenance offices and workshops, field and backcountry offices, ranger stations and fee collection stations.

So "stay outside" Lots of "what ifs" enter my mind, particularly those in the life or death category. Which is a valid concern in the outdoors.

C-dub wrote: According to that article it is. And that still seems kind of reasonable since it is a federal building. It didn't mention them , but I was also wondering about stand alone restrooms.

Hmm, yeah...that would be awkward, even for us 'not afraid to go outside' kinda ladies

The rule was basically no carry in federal office buildings, which would be like Ranger Stations, Visitor Centers, etc. Stand alone restrooms were OK, as well as cabins that would be rented or leased, private concession stands and restaurants.

Mastodon wrote:Mr. Cotton,

So this works for NWR land, ofcourse...

Do you know of status changes for other federal agency controlled and managed land? Here in the Lone Star, and certain near me, we have alot of US Army Corps of Engineers land (USCOE) surrounding rivers and lakes.

Is USCOE land still a no-go on licensed carry? I'm assuming so.

Thanks.

RPB may have found that answer at http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... rs#p360164" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . I don't know if this was the final word on the subject.

COE is a different agency that NPS, and the law was only for National Parks. COE land is still off-limits.

Is a "National Wildlife Refuge" the same thing as a "National Park?" The linked FWS announcement does not talk about National Parks, but only mentions National Wildlife Refuges.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Is a "National Wildlife Refuge" the same thing as a "National Park?" The linked FWS announcement does not talk about National Parks, but only mentions National Wildlife Refuges.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service is the monitor of NWR's. NRA's; however, fall under the auspices of the NPS.

C-dub wrote:

While the law will change the application of rules regarding possession of firearms, it has no impact on the authorized uses of firearms on National Wildlife Refuges. The law does not allow visitors to fire or discharge the firearms in any way, brandish the weapon in the view of others, or any other use of the firearm.

I hope this does not mean that if I am in one of these parks and have to defend myself that I will not be in trouble for discharging my weapon.

Well, our city forbids discharging a firearm inside city limits, but I can't imagine anybody being prosecuted for that in a legitimate deadly force scenario. One would hope that the same is true here, but some comfort would be nice. Presumably, as a last resort the "small wrong to prevent a greater wrong" defence would come into play.