National Park Carry Bill Passed

[A-R]

What has carry in national parks got to do with consumer credit card rights?

"Don't leave home without it."

nicely done, sir

[Aric]

(b) PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO BEAR ARMS IN UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AND THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM.—The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any
regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if—

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

This says they cannot prohibit in a NPS unit. Does this mean I can also carry inside a building in the park if the state says its ok to?

[Liberty]

This is really stupid. What has carry in national parks got to do with consumer credit card rights? If a bill can't stand on it's own two feet and get passed, it shouldn't become law. And the last thing you need in a national park when a bear or mountain lion is coming at you is a concealed handgun when you should be open carrying a rifle, shotgun or large caliber handgun. This is an absolutely idiotic piece of legislation of little consequence, a leftover of the brain dead Bush administration brought back to life by a brain challenged Obama administration and it's lackey congressional majority.

I tend to agree with you about the bills, Bills not being able to stand on their own they shouldn't get passed in principal. but legislators work with the rules they are dealt with. Ever since the Missouri Compromise Senators have been tacking stuff onto bills. If the other side does it our side would be negligent not doing it. Perhaps they should change the rules, but as long as they exist in their present form I expect my Senator to take full advantage of the rules as they exist to promote my interest. I also would have rather have seen no bill passed. The Credit Card bill is all part of the Marxist agenda, but why should we denied some small benefit if it is going to pass anyway.

The new law also allows us to have Rifles and shotguns if it is legal in the state we are at. Using your logic the last thing we need when in the urban jungle and a 250 drug starved being comes charging at us is a concealed handgun. A 9mm or larger would be more effective than nothing at stopping a wolf or black mid meal while chewing on ones children. I understand that allowing the creatures to eat and eliminating our children is considered the green thing to do, but it seems extreme to me. I really can't understand and objection to a law that basically only extends our state laws into the National Parks and Wildlife reserves. Why should the national parks be any different than our local city parks? I have 2 areas within 30 miles of me that I will soon be able to bring my guns into. :)

[stevie_d_64]

My Dad is up in the Yellowstone area again this week...This will not effect him this time as it will probably not go into effect even if it is signed by the President soon...Probably will have some lag time as the parks will not recognize this law until they are notified by their prospective Department Secretary...And that might take a while...

Just my opinion...

[Locksmith]

No longer valid

[Aric]

This says they cannot prohibit in a NPS unit. Does this mean I can also carry inside a building in the park if the state says its ok to?

I believe the way it works is: If there is no law saying you that "CAN NOT DO IT"... Then you can do it.

Then this bill would be better than bush's executive order since it said no NPS buildings.

[Liberty]

This says they cannot prohibit in a NPS unit. Does this mean I can also carry inside a building in the park if the state says its ok to?

I believe the way it works is: If there is no law saying you that "CAN NOT DO IT"... Then you can do it.

Then this bill would be better than bush's executive order since it said no NPS buildings.

Yup, I hope the Brady's are happy with themselves. They caused a pretty good rule to be changed into an even better law.

[barres]

This says they cannot prohibit in a NPS unit. Does this mean I can also carry inside a building in the park if the state says its ok to?

I believe the way it works is: If there is no law saying you that "CAN NOT DO IT"... Then you can do it.

But state laws don't override Federal laws, and there is already a law in the Federal Codes prohibiting carrying a firearm into buildings where Federal employees work. I wouldn't count on being able to carry in the buildings, yet. Maybe things will be cleared up before Feb 10th. As always, IANAL, IMHO, YMMV, etc.

[Liberty]

This says they cannot prohibit in a NPS unit. Does this mean I can also carry inside a building in the park if the state says its ok to?

I believe the way it works is: If there is no law saying you that "CAN NOT DO IT"... Then you can do it.

But state laws don't override Federal laws, and there is already a law in the Federal Codes prohibiting carrying a firearm into buildings where Federal employees work. I wouldn't count on being able to carry in the buildings, yet. Maybe things will be cleared up before Feb 10th. As always, IANAL, IMHO, YMMV, etc.

I agree this will come out in the wash before February, but I believe that the new federal Law allowing us to bring the guns into the park would override the preexisting rules. After all, that is the whole point isn't it? From what I can tell, all they have to do at the parks is to post a 30.06 on any of the buildings. I believe the 30.06 posting in the Texas Park buildings would be legal. It looks to me though that carry should be legal otherwise in the buildings.

[Oldgringo]

I think the 30.06 sign is unique to Texas. Perhaps other states have their version of our 30.06...anybody know?

BTW, has His Obamaness signed the bill with the CHL provision in it yet?

[Liberty]

I think the 30.06 sign is unique to Texas. Perhaps other states have their version of our 30.06...anybody know?

BTW, has His Obamaness signed the bill with the CHL provision in it yet?

Just about every state has a version of sign that prohibits conceal gun carry into a building. Some use the no Beretta signs some require specific wording. I don't any are as specific as the Texas 30.06 is though.

[boomerang]

From what I can tell, all they have to do at the parks is to post a 30.06 on any of the buildings. I believe the 30.06 posting in the Texas Park buildings would be legal.

Depends what you mean by legal. 30.06 says

It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[Oldgringo]

Liberty wrote:

Just about every state has a version of sign that prohibits conceal gun carry into a building. Some use the no Beretta signs some require specific wording. I don't any are as specific as the Texas 30.06 is though.

We're gun-totin' RV travelers. I guess there is somewhere one can find the various no-guns allowed signs? So far, we've not seen one in TN, AL, MS, LA, NM, CO,ID, WY or MT. We're thinking about going over to the left coast later this summer and everywhere there is off-limits for Texas CHL holders.

[barres]

From what I can tell, all they have to do at the parks is to post a 30.06 on any of the buildings. I believe the 30.06 posting in the Texas Park buildings would be legal.

Depends what you mean by legal. 30.06 says

It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

I don't remember where, but Texas law defines a governmental entity as a state, county, or municipality, or their subdivisions, IIRC. The Federal government is left off of that list.

[dicion]

30.06 Also says

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

So, only the 'owner' or someone working under the apparent authority of the owner can post valid 30.06 signs.
Since the 'owner', eg, the fed, just stated in law that they're cool with allowing guns to whatever extent the state law allows, obviously anyone who posts a sign is not acting with the authority or knowledge of the 'owner', so they would be invalid.


That would be similar to if I I owned a large business. Say that I was the owner of a large restaurant (not a 51% facility).
Say I posted in the newspaper, that I fully allow & support the public to carry concealed weapons on my property.
Seeing my newspaper post, a manager in my restaurant, unknown to me, posts 30.06 signs.

Obviously he was not acting under my authority, and my authority on the subject was well published, it should not hold water in court.

My interpretation :)