Should we be allowed to carry in National Parks?

[GMan 19]

Yahoo Poll:

http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=41341

[Robb Jensen]

Yahoo Poll:

http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=41341

You're a few days late.

http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

[GMan 19]

You're a few days late.

http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

Yes, I know it got passed but that isn't what this poll is about. Yahoo is asking the people what they think and if we should be allowed to carry in National Parks. ;)

[Macx]

The majority of respondants got it right. 58% are on the smart side at 9:19p on Sunday.

[sixboysdad]

This should be a non-issue. Last I heard, the National Parks were in America. We should not have to justify, clarify, or even request permission to have to carry weapons.

I am glad that some sanity has emerged over this, but it has little impact upon my status in the backcountry of Yellowstone.

[BWYoda]

Amen Sixboys the whole bloody issue should have been a non-starter.

[Iraqgunz]

So here is a question for our astute personnel. Is open carry allowed at National Parks now (as long as your state allows it) or does it have to be concealed? The way I understand it this ruling was implemented to be in line with the states current law as it pertains to CCW. But, what if your state also allows for open carry?

[ToddG]

If you haven't read the actual Final Rule (http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf), you ought to. Some of the things the Dept of the Interior says in there are monumentally important. For example, they point out that the mere statistical unlikelihood of needing a CCW is not a reason to deny citizens the right to carry. The Department also expressly points out that while they have LEOs who work hard and do their best to protect citizens in parks, the cops can't be everywhere all the time and the DOI cannot guarantee the safety of individuals within the park.

Iraqgunz, the Final Rule also specifically comments on your question pointing out that for the time being, their goal was to address the narrow issue of honoring state CCW permits within the parks. As I read it, that's a no-go on open carry. Now if you want to get really picky, the regs refer to "concealed, loaded, and operable firearms." One could argue, if one were really so inclined, that this phrase was broadening rather than limiting. In other words, one would assume that a concealed and operable but unloaded firearm is also legal. Therefore, a loaded and operable but not concealed firearms might also be deemed legal.

Still, I'd stick to concealed carry until some other schmuck decides to make the evening news by volunteering as the test case for open carry in national parks.

[sixboysdad]

Iraqgunz,
I also do not know about open carry in the Parks, but I do know that at the gate of Yellowstone's South entrance, the sign used to read (paraphrased), "Firearms must be unloaded and disassembled."

I believe that having a revolver unloaded was considered in compliance with that, and that removing the magazine from a semi-auto also complied.

Still, I don't like having someone publicly announce that "WOW! You can have your rights back!" like it is some kind of grudging concession made to Americans, instead of us just saying, "well, duh."

[FLGator]

Legal or not. I used to carry when camping if my wife was along. I don't want any Deliverance stuff going down.

[ToddG]

Iraqgunz -- I'd decline to offer a specific interpretation without reading it in more detail and cross-checking with the broader set of regs, etc.

However, I believe it is noteworthy that a major federal agency recognized that (a) citizens have an individual right to protect themselves with concealed firearms, (b) "you're probably safe" is not a reason to deny CCW, and (c) law enforcement, no matter how professional and hard working, cannot protect us during a sudden violent encounter.

In other words, the Department of the Interior recognized the things you and I take for granted but which an army of anti-2A folks would have us believe are paranoid. That's monumental.

Now, could BHO reverse this? Not simply. It was a major regulation change that went through a long period of public comment. They'd probably need to go through that again to reverse it, and barring some kind of bad press (i.e., some jackass goes on a killing spree in a park or starts sniping bald eagles) it will be hard to show any evidence that the rule needs to be changed. Could it happen? Sure. But I don't see it as likely. But remember, I'm the guy who also doesn't think gun control is going to be on BHO's radar any time soon.

[Iraqgunz]

Todd,

Spoken like a true politician. :D Thanks for your insight though. Don't worry you aren't the only one who thinks it's not on his radar anytime soon. I would venture to say at least 2 years.


Iraqgunz -- I'd decline to offer a specific interpretation without reading it in more detail and cross-checking with the broader set of regs, etc.

However, I believe it is noteworthy that a major federal agency recognized that (a) citizens have an individual right to protect themselves with concealed firearms, (b) "you're probably safe" is not a reason to deny CCW, and (c) law enforcement, no matter how professional and hard working, cannot protect us during a sudden violent encounter.

In other words, the Department of the Interior recognized the things you and I take for granted but which an army of anti-2A folks would have us believe are paranoid. That's monumental.

Now, could BHO reverse this? Not simply. It was a major regulation change that went through a long period of public comment. They'd probably need to go through that again to reverse it, and barring some kind of bad press (i.e., some jackass goes on a killing spree in a park or starts sniping bald eagles) it will be hard to show any evidence that the rule needs to be changed. Could it happen? Sure. But I don't see it as likely. But remember, I'm the guy who also doesn't think gun control is going to be on BHO's radar any time soon.