firearms and national forest lands
- Thread starter BAB
- Start date
ellsworthtoohey
New member
Generally, state laws apply.
Jeff Thomas
New member
In CA, for example, apparently you can't take an 'assault weapon' on to BLM or National Forest lands ... although, I'm still unclear about the exact requirements.
In Arizona, no problems, to my knowledge. If you possess the firearm legally (e.g. Class 3, etc.), then it is not an issue. Don't know about CO.
Regards from AZ
In Arizona, no problems, to my knowledge. If you possess the firearm legally (e.g. Class 3, etc.), then it is not an issue. Don't know about CO.
Regards from AZ
ellsworthtoohey
New member
According to the Forrest Service, state law applies. Perhaps threir web site has more info. National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges have tight federal regulations governing weapons. Generally speaking, National Forests and Bureau of Land Management lands are regulated by the law of the state that they are in with regards to firearms, hunting, and fishing.
------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
I'm in Washington state and I used to go hunting at a National forest. I took my Mini-14 up there last week and a forestry guy saw me and told me no to shoot any signs. So it must be ok here. National parks are a definite No, No
------------------
"Guns don't kill people the government does", Rusty Shackleford.
http://www.fair.org
[This message has been edited by jnix (edited April 05, 2000).]
------------------
"Guns don't kill people the government does", Rusty Shackleford.
http://www.fair.org
[This message has been edited by jnix (edited April 05, 2000).]
buckskinner
New member
Here in CA, I open carry my Glock .40, and of course what ever long gun I'm hunting with. (.338 Win Mag, my current favorite!) I have been stopped and asked by very polite game wardens and also forestry folks, and they never gave the guns a second look.
In CO. however, the Dept. of Wildlife official came roaring up on his ATV, pissing me off and moving game around, and first demanded that I unload and put down my rifle. I did, and wasnt' carrying a sidearm, but he was very rude!
Maybe he knew I was from CA, and prejudged me for a yahoo!
------------------
Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? For if it doth prosper, none dare call it treason." - John Barrington
In CO. however, the Dept. of Wildlife official came roaring up on his ATV, pissing me off and moving game around, and first demanded that I unload and put down my rifle. I did, and wasnt' carrying a sidearm, but he was very rude!
Maybe he knew I was from CA, and prejudged me for a yahoo!
------------------
Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? For if it doth prosper, none dare call it treason." - John Barrington
One thing that I noticed her in Southern Ca around San Bernadino mountains is the forestry service has put up signs that to enter any National forest you must purchase a fun pass from the National Forestry Service. What this entails or entitles you to, since no services are provided, I have not been able to determine yet. Is this happening anywhere else in the country?
According to the local national forestry service they honor the state laws, which by the way are more restrictive. The way that this question was answered leads me to believe that they would honor basically which ever one was the most restrictive.
I am probably showing my ignorance but what confuses me is if it is federal land, why is there not a standard national/federal policy vice a state policy in place.
I sorry this reply has more questions than answers. You can flame me for living in Kalifornia but these socialist liberals are not going to run me off. Besides someone has to try to maintain some sanity or at least a thorn in their side.
According to the local national forestry service they honor the state laws, which by the way are more restrictive. The way that this question was answered leads me to believe that they would honor basically which ever one was the most restrictive.
I am probably showing my ignorance but what confuses me is if it is federal land, why is there not a standard national/federal policy vice a state policy in place.
I sorry this reply has more questions than answers. You can flame me for living in Kalifornia but these socialist liberals are not going to run me off. Besides someone has to try to maintain some sanity or at least a thorn in their side.
buckskinner
New member
Yo Chief!
No reason to flame ya cuz ya live in one of the most beautiful and diverse states in the union!
I go to a couple N.F. and have never seen the sign about a needed permit. It is a crime however to have a fire with no permit for that.
There are also an increasing amount of gates on previously accessible roads to good huntin g and fishing grounds. This is very upsetting..
No reason to flame ya cuz ya live in one of the most beautiful and diverse states in the union!
I go to a couple N.F. and have never seen the sign about a needed permit. It is a crime however to have a fire with no permit for that.
There are also an increasing amount of gates on previously accessible roads to good huntin g and fishing grounds. This is very upsetting..
ellsworthtoohey
New member
Chief, USFS does have a national policy in place--which is to follow the laws of the state that the land is in. This is Federalism as it was intended. It is an instance of the power of the national government being fragmented and therefore, weaker that it would otherwise be.
Trust me, you don't want an overiding national policy except in a very few instances-national defense being one. I don't want an overiding, uniform national policy any more than I want an overiding, uniform global policy. I want to have some place of relative freedom to flee to should the jurisdiction I'm living in become like California is politically.
------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
Trust me, you don't want an overiding national policy except in a very few instances-national defense being one. I don't want an overiding, uniform national policy any more than I want an overiding, uniform global policy. I want to have some place of relative freedom to flee to should the jurisdiction I'm living in become like California is politically.
------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
Thanks for the input and I agree this is a double edge sword. No I don't want a national policy, but I don't like the state policy either.
What was driving my orininal input is this example.
A military base is federal land. There are a lot of out of state vehicles that didn't have to get smog checked every two years (as requied by CA) because there state didn't require it. No big deal, except about five years ago they started requireing out of state vehicles to get a smog check to conform to state laws every two years to get a base sticker. So the federal government is requireing out of state none residents to comply with another states requirements.
I do not know of any state policy in place that is less restrictive than a federal policy or guidline. Maybe thats just california. I agree and think that it would be easier to change a state policy vice a federal one. I will do a post when I find out more about the Permits to access federal forest land, I truely hope that this is not another trend that the republic of California is setting.
What was driving my orininal input is this example.
A military base is federal land. There are a lot of out of state vehicles that didn't have to get smog checked every two years (as requied by CA) because there state didn't require it. No big deal, except about five years ago they started requireing out of state vehicles to get a smog check to conform to state laws every two years to get a base sticker. So the federal government is requireing out of state none residents to comply with another states requirements.
I do not know of any state policy in place that is less restrictive than a federal policy or guidline. Maybe thats just california. I agree and think that it would be easier to change a state policy vice a federal one. I will do a post when I find out more about the Permits to access federal forest land, I truely hope that this is not another trend that the republic of California is setting.
This discussion had a lot of interest on AR15.com. Pthfndr had a thread that showed a letter that was from the USFS allowing in writing the public at large to use firearms on USFS land. He offered the letter to anyone wanting it. Do a search on him, the thread is only a few weeks ago. MWT