Penalty for a gun in National Park?

B

brianidaho

New member
I realize that having firearms in National Parks is prohibited, and tend to stay away from them because of that. The last time I was in Glacier I had my 44 mag in my day pack...not the handiest place to get to, but hey, the griz will probably stop to nibble on some granola type while I unpack. If I have the need to go back, I intend to carry again. In bear and cougar country, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Anyone know the penalty for carring in a National Park????


Bri
 
Not sure what the penalty is, we need one of our in-house attorneys to chime in, but I'm with you; I'd rather be tried by 12 than have 100 looking all over a National Park for my body parts after having been chomped on by a griz or a cat.
 
Besides a massive amount of jack booting, about 1K in fines, loss of car/truck, firearm or firearms and revokation of your pass.

The National Parks have become the utopia of animal lovers, UN and any granola crunchers. In other words, go us and kiss the bears, lions and other animals.

You can only shoot them with a camera. Thus, the reason they want you on the roads instead of backpacking, climbing, etc.

I was a IT contractor to them, so I learned quite a bit about their methodologies. Very, very liberal mindset. They thing now that Bush is in, he will install oil rigs in the parks and fire all the employees. Seriously!!!! They actually believe that!!
 
I used to backpack in Yosemite back in the early seventies with my first wife. I always carried a Colt Govt. Model (Series 70) with just one full magazine deep in my pack. Never said nothin' to nobody. When we set up camp, pitched the tent, and set out the sleeping bags, I racked the slide and put the gun in condition one with the safety on up under my air pillow.

Our concern at the time was never the four legged beasts of the forest high country, but the two legged kind who often frequented portions of the Muir Trail. Had many encounters with bears, but with our food strung up high they were basically just fun to watch, never directly threatening.

As for the "two legged" types, we never had a bad encounter, and I never revealed I had a weapon. But I must admit, out there in the dark miles from anywhere, a good flashlight and a .45 auto affords one confidence. Like the old saw, I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it.

Far as I can tell now, only the rangers have guns, carried openly on their hips no less! They did not carry back then. Must be nice to be a liberal, a govt. employee, and so elite you can carry while for your taxpayer boss it's a felony filled with fines and forfeiture of personal property without due process.
 
If I _do_ bring a piece in as part of my long trip, and declare it, don't they just check it's locked up and give a warning or something? What DO they do?
 
I pack in the park, Ruger .357. If it's good enough for our lords and masters the rangers, it's good enough for the peons. Since the parks are duly marked "victim zones", they attract more than their share of sickos and nutcases. Do a little research, and casually ask your friendly ranger "have they caught the guys who slaughtered the 2 sisters last spring?" or what ever your regional case is.
 
I'm a little confused...

I just returned from a week long hunting trip to the Davy Crockett National Forest in Texas...

Except for not allowing loaded guns on the public roads (legal in rest of Texas) the regulations are the same as the general Hunting regs....including hunting with a pistol.

I also occasionally go to the Sam Houston National Forest with a bunch of idpa chaps for Field Exercises that include 50 BMG rifles and occasionally some full rock n roll goodies (fully registered and legal)

It can't be just that these forecst are in Tejas, can it???
 
The following comes with no warranty, but it appears to be current. If there is a more current law or reg, I would be delighted to learn of it, because I have often wondered what the answer to this same question was. As it stands right now, on twenty minutes research, you choose between a tangle with a grizzly on the one hand and a max of $1000 and 12 mos on the other.

__________________________________________________________

43 USC § 1733, entitled "Enforcement authority," apparently is the statutory authority for regulations prohibitting possession of loaded firearms in national parks. The maximum penalty is $1,000 or 12 mos (see below). In a test case in the late 1970's a guy got a relatively nominal fine; the statute was upheld as a lawful exercise of the federal govt's power under ARTICLE IV Section 3, Clause 2. of the Constitution which provides that:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


In U.S. v. Brown, a Mr. Brown was cited for violations of National Park Service regulations prohibiting the possession of a loaded firearm and the hunting of wildlife in national parkways. > 36 C.F.R. ss 2.11 and > 2.32. Mr. Brown concedes and the Magistrate found that he was hunting ducks and, in fact, shot at a passing duck while the Rangers were issuing a citation to him.

The Magistrate found that the United States, as delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Interior, has jurisdiction over the waters within the Park's boundaries and may enforce National Park Service regulations promulgated under that jurisdictional authority. As a result, Carl E. Brown was found guilty of violating the above referenced sections for which the citation was issued. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $50.00 for violating > 36 C.F.R. s 2.11 and $100.00 for violating > 36 C.F.R. s 2.32.

US v. Brown, 431 F.Supp. 56 (United States District Court, D. Minnesota,1975)affirmed > 552 F.2d 817, certiorari denied > 97 S.Ct. 2666, 431 U.S. 949, 53 L.Ed.2d 266.

________________________________________________

47 USC 1733 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any such regulation which is lawfully issued pursuant to this Act shall be fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned no more than twelve months, or both."

Full text of statute set out below:


(a) Regulations for implementation of management, use, and protection requirements; violations; criminal penalties

The Secretary shall issue regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Act with respect to the management, use, and protection of the public lands, including the property located thereon. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any such regulation which is lawfully issued pursuant to this Act shall be fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned no more than twelve months, or both. Any person charged with a violation of such regulation may be tried and sentenced by any United States magistrate judge designated for that purpose by the court by which he was appointed, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions and limitations as provided for in section 3401 of Title 18.

(b) Civil actions by Attorney General for violations of regulations; nature of relief; jurisdiction

At the request of the Secretary, the Attorney General may institute a civil action in any United States district court for an injunction or other appropriate order to prevent any person from utilizing public lands in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary under this Act.

(c) Contracts for enforcement of Federal laws and regulations by local law enforcement officials; procedure applicable; contract requirements and implementation

(1) When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations. The Secretary shall negotiate on reasonable terms with such officials who have authority to enter into such contracts to enforce such Federal laws and regulations. In the performance of their duties under such contracts such officials and their agents are authorized to carry firearms; execute and serve any warrant or other process issued by a court or officer of competent jurisdiction; make arrests without warrant or process for a misdemeanor he has reasonable grounds to believe is being committed in his presence or view, or for a felony if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; search without warrant or process any person, place, or conveyance according to any Federal law or rule of law; and seize without warrant or process any evidentiary item as provided by Federal law. The Secretary shall provide such law enforcement training as he deems necessary in order to carry out the contracted for responsibilities. While exercising the powers and authorities provided by such contract pursuant to this section, such law enforcement officials and their agents shall have all the immunities of Federal law enforcement officials.

(2) The Secretary may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out his law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources. Such designated personnel shall receive the training and have the responsibilities and authority provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(d) Cooperation with regulatory and law enforcement officials of any State or political subdivision in enforcement of laws or ordinances

In connection with the administration and regulation of the use and occupancy of the public lands, the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the regulatory and law enforcement officials of any State or political subdivision thereof in the enforcement of the laws or ordinances of such State or subdivision. Such cooperation may include reimbursement to a State or its subdivision for expenditures incurred by it in connection with activities which assist in the administration and regulation of use and occupancy of the public lands.

(e) Uniformed desert ranger force in California Desert Conservation Area; establishment; enforcement of Federal laws and regulations

Nothing in this section shall prevent the Secretary from promptly establishing a uniformed desert ranger force in the California Desert Conservation Area established pursuant to section 1781 of this title for the purpose of enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands and resources managed by him in such area. The officers and members of such ranger force shall have the same responsibilities and authority as provided for in paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of this section.

(f) Applicability of other Federal enforcement provisions

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as reducing or limiting the enforcement authority vested in the Secretary by any other statute.

(g) Unlawful activities

The use, occupancy, or development of any portion of the public lands contrary to any regulation of the Secretary or other responsible authority, or contrary to any order issued pursuant to any such regulation, is unlawful and prohibited.

CREDIT(S
 
Jeremae,

National parks and national forests have totally different rules. The parks are for elitist liberal thug carry only. No guns whatsoever in national parks i.e. Blue Ridge Parkway, appalachian trail, or any other national PARK. I called recently about this because I have to venture onto the Blue Ridge Parkway regularly as part of my job. Any weapons must be unloaded in a locked case and absolutely inaccessable by any person or persons. Preferably disassembled too. Needless to say I now venture the long way around to reach my final destination. As for national forests they still allow the full extent of rights that our constitution's 2nd amendment provides. In fact, for me, locally there is a shooting range that is maintained by the national forest service. We'll see how long this lasts.
 
The AT and Blue Ridge Parkway

Are you sure that isn't just North Carolina Law? As far as the AT, I was under the inpression that it is just a trail. Sure in the Smokies it is in a National Park, but outside of the Smokies, doen't State law govern the trail?
 
No4Mk1*,

I'm pretty sure you're right. The AT starts (or ends) in Georgia, and winds through lots of regular national forest land. No signs or anything else indicating any restrictions about firearms on the trail.

In the Smokies, or the Shennandoah's <sp?>, it's a different matter.
 
The Blue Ridge Parkway runs north along the top of mountains through Virginia to the area where I-64 crosses Afton Mountain between Charlottesville and Waynesboro. From there north to Front Royal it's the Skyline Drive through the Shenandoah National Park. One road, different owners. Still hard feelings decades later because the feds evicted many families from their farms to build the park.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top