National Park Carry in Peril?

Legal

For the record, here's a link to the Brady lawsuit challenging the rule change, filed 12/30/08.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/kempthorne-complaint.pdf

case# 1:08-cv-02243

I don't know how to track legal records, (pacer?) perhaps other knowledgeable members can post links to subsequent court filings/decisions as they accrue.

Assigned to Judge Colleen Kotar-Kotelly (A Bill Clinton appointee, who has slapped the Bush administration on at least a couple of occasions.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Kollar-Kotelly Is this pertinent?

Interesting, 2 of the 3 named defendants on this lawsuit are now gone (Kempthorne and Bomar). Replaced by Salazar, and another Obama appointee TBA. What happens when new administration's legal response is filed, essentially admitting to the malfeasance? Presumably only special interests like NRA, etc. will be left to file friends-briefs averring the charges.

Will that factor into the judge's decision?

How many of the 50-odd senators who signed the original letter requesting the change, are still in office?

The suit asks for reversal, and injunctive relief to block implementation. I'm assuming no decision (granting or denying the injunction) has yet been issued.

Scanning internet articles, it appears many forces are arraying against this rule change, including invoking the Congressional Review Act (undoing many of GWB's "midnight decisons") . Far fewer voices speaking up in favor. Time will tell, but I'd say it is quite foolish to dismiss concerns about this issue as chicken little doomsday crapola. :rolleyes:
 
I am planning a trip Big Bend next month and was curious as to the status of this law. I was told "until said law is entered into the National Registry" it is not law and would not be recognized as such. Firearms are not permitted onto national park land. Firearms must be made inoperable when on national park land. If caught with operable firearms you could face federal felony charges and a lifetime ban from all national parks.
 
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods.
Click to expand...

I bet the families of those two young ladies murdered in their tent in the Shenandoah National Park a couple years ago wish they had been able to defend themselves.

Other people's discomfiture with individuals concealed or open carrying for personal protection should never take precedence to the inalienable right to defend yourself and loved ones.
 
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods.
Click to expand...

How does it spoil the reason you go there? The guns are concealed, so you presumably don't even know who is armed, which incidentally has been the case all along.

Would you really make a case that individuals who can be trusted to CC with a license in an urban area are somehow unsafe with a gun in the wilderness?

With millions of open acres of land, and very little if any cell phone service, I can't think of a more appropriate place to take responsibility for one's own safety.
 
hammer4nc quoted the following from the Association of National Park Rangers:
ANPR echoes U.S. society and existing legislation in believing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute in all locations nor at all times. Park units are sanctuaries for human and animal alike, and in some cases may be the only viable habitat for a specific species. Unlike some other private, state, and federal property, natural resources in National Parks are protected, unless specified differently in the park's enabling legislation. Because of this, humans do not have the right to kill an animal in a National Park in order to protect life or property. Allowing firearms in National Parks would increase the risk to animals, primarily predatory species, considerably.
Click to expand...
and commented:
IOW: The "experts" believe the Endangered Species Act supersedes the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think ANPR has a valid point here, and it's not about the Endangered Species Act. The animals in National Parks live there, and are protected because they do -- we don't live there, nor do we HAVE to go there. The purpose of National Parks isn't to let us get little "nature fixes" when we want them; it's to preserve some of the natural environment, including the animals that live there. So it's reasonable to prohibit behavior which puts those animals at risk. Whether CCW in parks does put them at risk is an empirical question, but it seems to me that it might. It would be nice if "No, sorry, it's illegal to kill animals within National Parks, no matter what," were enough to prevent people from killing them, but that's pretty hard to enforce, especially once you're talking about people going into the backcountry, where rangers are few and far between. I'm not talking about "wanton killing" here, which I assume isn't something any responsible gun owner is going to engage in -- I'm talking about someone shooting a bear, or a wolf, or even a moose, because they felt threatened by it; in a National Park, this isn't, and shouldn't be, OK to do.

I've done a fair amount of travelling in pretty remote places, canoeing in the Arctic and such, without feeling any need to cart a gun along. At the same time, if I go to a National Park, just knowing that some people may -- legally -- be packing isn't going to wreck the experience for me, or make me uncomfortable. But I do think that if their reason for carrying has anything to do with their "right of self-defense" against wildlife, that's sorta sad... better they should stay home if they're that uncomfortable outdoors, or at least take the trouble to find out how to coexist with whatever wildlife they're lucky enough to meet.
 
So if you kill an animal in self defense in a NP, be prepared to pay a big fine. That seems reasonable to me. (I'd never thought about it before)
 
Yeah, I'd hope it'd be a big fine. But that there's a fine if you're caught won't necessarily deter someone who's way out in the backcountry...

And the new regulation will make it harder for the Park Service to catch poachers. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the original regulation, which requires firearms to be unloaded and inaccessible (e.g. in the trunk of the car) was to help prevent poaching within National Parks, where it's easy, as many animals have lost their fear of humans.
 
And the new regulation will make it harder for the Park Service to catch poachers. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the original regulation, which requires firearms to be unloaded and inaccessible (e.g. in the trunk of the car) was to help prevent poaching within National Parks, where it's easy, as many animals have lost their fear of humans.
Click to expand...
Just how does it make it harder to catch poachers? If someone is going to illegally poach animals, they are going to disregard the law about not carrying guns into the park in the first place. It is still not legal to discharge weapons in a national park without due reason. Any gunshots will still attract the same amount of attention.
 
poachers??? you think this is about poachers with shotguns and rifles?

they arent concealed carry people they are bear/deer/turkey etc hunting with dogs and long guns, they just poach, they dont care what boundaries they cross and that IS...and has been...illegal since forever anywhere and everywhere. park has nothing to do with poaching.
 
And the new regulation will make it harder for the Park Service to catch poachers. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the original regulation, which requires firearms to be unloaded and inaccessible (e.g. in the trunk of the car) was to help prevent poaching within National Parks, where it's easy, as many animals have lost their fear of humans.
Click to expand...

So poachers are going to get concealed weapons permits now? Why not just carry concealed w/o a permit, like other hooligans? (and anyone with any sense who went into Big Bend NP in recent years but before Jan 09 09) I don't like the insinuation...
 
How do you suppose two women sleeping in a tent might have defended themselves?

The national parks have a few problems, one of which seems to be fewer rangers. But another one is illegal hunting. One of the ways they attempt to deal with this is to close the park at dark (I am referring to Shenandoah here). But for the life of me I don't understand how that helps. This they only do during hunting season but I sort of assume that illegal hunting doesn't confine it self to the legal season. But there must be some logic there.

Oh, I just learned from another post that I must be one of those trolls. Apparently on this forum a troll is someone who has a different opinion. I don't toe anybody's party line.
 
Under the previous regulation, the possession of a loaded and readily available firearm was regarded as prima facie evidence of intent.

And, yes, of course that will still apply to anyone with a loaded weapon and no CCW, and yes, of course we'd like to think that no CCW holder would ever take an animal illegally.

Can I imagine a poacher applying for a CCW in order to be able to carry a loaded gun in an NP? It's a bit of stretch, but I can imagine it. "No, sir, officer, this here 44 mag is strictly for personal protection..."

But, yeah, the poaching thing is probably a bit of a red herring -- I think the "self-defense" killing of wildlife is a more legitimate concern vis-a-vis the new regulation.
 
After thinking about the problem of illegal hunting in some national parks, I concluded that it was likely people were entering the park (Shenandoah, in this case) and hunting after dark but during hunting season. If they were successful, they could, I suppose, claim to have killed it legally somewhere else and therefore could keep the deer.

Now, concerning other remarks I made in this thread earlier, I want to clear up a few things. I think I made mention of referring specifically to Shenandoah Park when I said I'd prefer there not be guns there. I am perfectly aware it is legal in certain other national parks, including all parks in Alaska, to be armed. No doubt it would even be recommended in Alaska. But in that case we are talking long arms, or I would assume so. None of my handguns would fill me with confidence in Alaska, though some I have owned would make me feel better.

Frankly, it isn't so clear cut, the issue of being armed in certain places. There are arguments to be made on both sides, some strong, some weak, but the certain places include not only national parks but churches, bars, the courthouse, your workplace, schools, and so on. My wife claims that having a gun at school (she's a schoolteacher) would be too tempting but I think she was pulling my leg.

Sometimes having a gun may be a good thing but it can also provide a false sense of security. But make no mistake. Parks are concerned about the safety of visitors, especially of those who visit the backcountry, such as it is in places like Shenandoah. Not that they do so much about it.

Other parks in other places are clearly different from the wilds that the East has. It doesn't follow that all parks have to have the same rules. They don't now. They pretty much all make up their own rules, sometimes, apparently, as they go along. But in most places here in Virginia (not just Northern Virginia, either--I'm an immigrant anyway--from West Virginia) I feel pretty safe whether or not I'm in a park. But then I feel pretty safe in D.C., too, mostly. I do use a little common sense, though, and I'm make it OK so far.

So the bottom line is, if you want to carry, go ahead. I probably won't run into you anyway. I'm getting on in years and I don't make it up there so much anyway (now that I've got that senior citizen's pass) and I don't make it down to 14th Street so much anymore either. Why, we're almost old enough to get a Harley and join the gangs that cruise Skyline Drive. But where shall we go now that Jimbo's closed?
 
If they were successful, they could, I suppose, claim to have killed it legally somewhere else and therefore could keep the deer.
Click to expand...

You cannot hunt deer more than 30 minutes after sunset anywhere in Virginia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top