Good News- National Park Carry

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by GeorgeF

So this would effectively eliminate that 'gray area' of Center City where the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall are? I wouldnt have to worry about being arrested for walking around there or even visiting these areas while carrying concealed?

yes, if both the proposed changes to the CFR are enacted and PA HB1845 as amended becomes law, then you could legally carry there.

(currently, if those places are considered national parks...and i think they are...it is not a "gray area", it is just plain illegal to carry there...which is BS, of course, but hopefully that won't be the case for too much longer.)

[WhiteFeather]

LRT post is on target on state parks issue it has nothing to do with firearms in national parks.

State parks is a DCNR regulation problem only. We are now currently attempting to fix this over stepping of its regulatory power by the DCNR. As LRT correct stated the amendment to HB 1845 if enacted, will correct the problem that or someone getting busted for violation of this DCNR regulations, then fighting it to the PA supreme court would also fix it that 100,000 plus in lawyer fees / court cost.

The original correction in state park was HB 1292 read it here with other proposed anti or pro legislation.
http://acslpa.org/n-legislative/pa_p...egislation.htm

[WhiteFeather]

Here is another article on same subject if you read the actual language of the proposed regulation that I posted; you would be able to with a LTCF permit carry in any national park in PA.

"This is purely and simply a politically driven effort to solve a problem that does really exist" I changed this comment in article by another AG not getting their way, that will be sending lots of AG letter not to do this.

Lots of people and groups all over the country have worked very hard on this to get this done politically so PLEASE do your part and send postive comments to support this concept or.......don't do anything "yuk".



http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5744099.html

Interior chief wants to ease gun ban in national parks

WASHINGTON — Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed new regulations Wednesday that would allow people to carry a concealed weapon in some national parks and wildlife refuges.

The new rules would allow someone to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and the state where the park or refuge is located allows guns in parks, Kempthorne said.

The proposal would overturn a 25-year-old regulation that has restricted loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. The regulations require that guns be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

"The safety and protection of park and refuge visitors remains a top priority for the Department of the Interior," Kempthorne said in a statement.

The proposed rule change would incorporate current state laws authorizing the possession of concealed firearms "while continuing to maintain important provisions to ensure visitor safety and resource protection," he said.

Park rangers, retirees and conservation groups protested the plan, saying it will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

"This is purely and simply a politically driven effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist," said Bill Wade, chairman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

There is no data to suggest that the public would be served by allowing visitors to parks to possess concealed handguns, Wade and other critics said. They cited statistics showing that national parks are among the safest places in the country. The probability of becoming a victim of a violent crime in a national park is 1 in more than 708,000 — less likely than being struck by lightning, the groups said.

"This proposed regulation increases the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife rather than reducing it," Wade said.

Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino said the rule change would give great weight to state and local laws. In Washington, D.C., for instance, which has a lot of national park land, guns would not be allowed since the city has banned handguns.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called the rule change confusing.

"This change makes no sense. It would create an incoherent, ineffective and inconsistent patchwork of policies," she said, noting that in some cases, rules would be different within the same national park. For example, Death Valley National Park is in both California and Nevada. California prohibits loaded and accessible weapons in state parks, while Nevada does not, Feinstein said.

"So which state law would apply at Death Valley National Park?" she said. "This sort of inconsistency would be an open invitation to poachers, would be almost impossible to enforce and would seriously place public safety at risk."

Paolino said that in a park that straddles more than one state, the law would differ depending on where a person was.

"When you are in the part of the park that allows concealed weapons and carry of those weapons within a state park, you will be allowed to do so in a national park," Paolino said. "When you cross the state boundary, those laws would change, depending on which state you venture into."

Kempthorne's announcement follows letters complaining about the gun restrictions from half the Senate — 41 Republicans and nine Democrats. The lawmakers called the existing guidelines confusing, burdensome and unnecessary.

The public has 60 days to comment on the new proposal, which was published Wednesday in the Federal Register.



PLEASE do your part and SEND POSITIVE COMMENTS TO SUPPORT this change in REGULATIONS for national parks

[LittleRedToyota]

that whole "confusion" issue is a bunch of crap.

national forests already follow the laws of the states they are in and that seems to work out just fine.

and, of course, the whole "allowing people to have guns makes us all less safe" argument has been proven fallacious in every single state that has instituted a CCW law.

[WhiteFeather]

More Info on where or how to send comments to support this

NEWS RELEASE
CCRKBA URGES GUN OWNERS TO COMMENT ON PROPOSED NAT’L PARK RULES CHANGE

BELLEVUE, WA – American gun owners, especially those licensed to carry concealed handguns, are urged to comment on a proposed Interior Department rules change that would allow concealed carry in national parks and national wildlife refuges.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms supports this rule change.

“Citizens do not leave their right of self-defense at the gates of a national park or the boundary of a wildlife refuge,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, co-author of America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age. “Millions of Americans legally carry concealed for personal protection, and contrary to the rhetoric of anti-gunners, parks and refuges are not immune to crime.

“According to National Park Service data,” he continued, “between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults. Opponents of this rule change dismiss those numbers as insignificant, but those crimes are very significant to the victims!”

To comment on-line, simply visit www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for making public comment.

You can mail comments to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1024-AD70; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

“Opponents of this sensible rule change are already spreading hysteria with claims that it will lead to poaching and reckless target shooting, and make parks dangerous,” Gottlieb said, “and that is simply a lie. It is the same extremist nonsense that anti-gunners preach when they oppose state right-to-carry laws, and none of their wild predictions have ever come true. Studies indicate that concealed carry actually reduces violent crime.

“Changing the rules to recognize the progressive changes in state laws over the past 25 years is both reasonable and responsible,” he concluded. “Legally armed citizens have just as much right to enjoy national parks as anyone.”

[WhiteFeather]

http://newsminer.com/news/2008/may/0...parks/?opinion

Guns in parks
National Park gun rules ask for some attention

Published Friday, May 2, 2008


The general sentiment behind a current push to make National Park Service lands’ concealed carry laws consistent with state laws is a good one. Any measure to reduce confusion between state and federal management lines is a good idea.

Some national parks cross state boundaries, and some of these land masses even share boundaries with corresponding Canadian parks. Concealed carry laws vary from place to place.

In much of the national park and preserve lands in Alaska, carrying firearms is already allowed. For example, in Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, carrying a firearm for bear protection is allowed within the park. Hunting is allowed in the preserve area, so that naturally involves carrying loaded guns. Hunting also is allowed on National Wildlife Refuge lands in Alaska.

Two very popular areas do stand out in Alaska: the road through Denali National Park and the old part of Katmai National Park at Brooks Falls. A person can transport a firearm through these parks, but it must be unloaded and stored in an area that is not immediately accessible.

The potential change would allow a person to carry a loaded weapon on their hip.

Critics of this idea point to a stellar safety record on parklands and a long history of peace. The same could have been said of our schools some years ago. But the argument for change should not center on safety records. Nor should it revolve around whether allowing people certified to carry concealed weapons to exercise their rights somehow destabilizes a safe environment.

This is a debate about a protected right of the people, as well as one of practicality. If an Alaskan can walk down the street with a concealed handgun, certainly they can safely and responsibly drive down a park road with one.

Parks do not hold a magical quality that make them any more or less safe than any other place. If an individual wishes to carry a firearm for protection, then they should be allowed to do so.

We can see some room for balance, however. In a situation such as Brooks Falls, individuals are guided into a situation where they are very close to bears and visitors’ actions are under close watch of park guides. It would seem logical, then, that if these expert guides see loaded weapons as a potential problem, they should be allowed the authority to ask people to leave guns at home or at least back in their cabins.

In general, however, consistency between state and federal laws within the borders of a state’s geographic boundaries serves the public interest.

A 60-day public comment period is underway, after which the Department of Interior will review its existing gun rules. Alaskans should participate in the process. The easiest method is online at www.regulations.gov.

[Cookster]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24788485/

Wildlife refuges fall prey to drug labs, illicit sex
Lack of funding, staff let criminals take advantage of land, group says

The Associated Press
updated 9:05 a.m. ET, Fri., May. 23, 2008

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - America's wildlife refuges are so short of money that one-third have no staff, boardwalks and buildings are in disrepair, and drug dealers are using them to grow marijuana and make methamphetamine, a group pushing for more funding says.

"Without adequate funding, we are jeopardizing some of the world's most spectacular wildlife and wild lands," said Evan Hirsche, president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association and chairman of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement.

The cooperative said in a report released Thursday to Congress that the nation's 548 refuges and the 100 million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System — about the size of California — is underfunded by 43 percent. The refuge system needs at least $765 million a year but is receiving only $434 million, the report says.

A decrease in law enforcement has left the refuges vulnerable to criminal activity, including prostitution, torched cars and illegal immigrant camps along the Potomac River in suburban Washington, D.C.; gay sex hookups in South Carolina and Alabama; methamphetamine labs in Nevada; and pot growing operations in Washington state.

"The refuge system has been underfunded for years but it has really mushroomed in the past several," Hirsche said.

The cooperative is recommending Congress increase funding for fiscal year 2009 to $514 million and that full funding be reached by 2013. The House and Senate are expected to take up the issue in coming weeks.

The report says the refuge system has cut 300 staff positions. Without more funding, a plan to reduce staffing by 20 percent will continue. The system needs 845 law enforcement officers but has 180.

"In some cases, we find that drug operations have set up shop in refuges," Hirsche said.

Staff cuts, maintenance backlog
Alaska has 76 million acres of refuge lands and accounts for 83 percent of land in the refuge system. Managing those lands can be particularly daunting given the sheer size and remoteness of many of the state's 16 refuges, said Todd Logan, regional chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska.

It's even harder when money is tight, he said. For example, the visitor center at the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge is inadequate, the exhibits should be updated and the carpet needs cleaning, he said. The boardwalk suffered ice and water damage this winter.

"We have a pretty significant maintenance backlog," Logan said.

The report says the nation's refuges receive 40 million visitors a year and contribute an estimated $1.7 billion to the economy. They provide more than 27,000 jobs.

This Memorial Day weekend, hundreds of thousands of Americans will visit one of the nation's wildlife refuges, only to find at many there is no one to greet them, Hirsche said.

The nation's refuge system was created in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt after a trip to tiny Pelican Island in South Florida. There, giant shotguns were being used to kill hundreds of birds to satisfy the market for fashionable feathers. Roosevelt went on to create 50 more refuges, stretching from Florida to Alaska.

Rob

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Zef_66

I don't have faith in our governor anymore.

Did you EVER have faith in him? I know I didn't...

[jack76590]

Please do write. I have written rules for the US govt. - no I did not sign the rules, just wrote them for comment and was the contact person for questions and comment and summarized comments. And a major problem is people who favor the rule tend to not comment. The people in opposition are more likely to comment. The person writing the rule, collecting, summarizing comments (that was me, mid level bureaucrat) 95%+ of the time wants the rule to be finalized, because if nothing else this is good for his career. So give the guy some "ammunition" to make the rule final. Believe me, it is tough if 30 people write in opposition to the rule and only 5 write in support. Tough to make the case a lot of people in favor did not write. And yes I have seen rather important rules that received less than 50 total comments.

Anyhow attached is what I wrote. As already suggested be polite, short, but make a few points the person can use. Often when they write a final rule they will summarize some public comments in preamble, so give the person some ideas to support the rule. Anyhow text of my response.



Public Comments Processing
ATTN: 1024-AD70
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Suite 222
Arlington, Va 22203

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing in support of the adoption of your rule published for comment, identified as1024-AD70.

I believe people should be permitted to carry firearms for protection or other legitimate purposes on public land. Many States have recognized the need for citizens to carry firearms for protection. These needs are as valid on public lands as they are on the streets of our cities. More valid perhaps, because of the often isolated conditions encountered on public lands, the lack of quick response by law enforcement personnel, and often even the means to contact law enforcement, especially if cell phone coverage is not present.

Thank you for consideration of my views and for publishing this important and needed rule for comment.

Sincerely,

[knight0334]

Hey guys..

I've started to notice new posters at DCNR managed lakes, located at the bulletin boards, stating exemption for those that carry under the subsection 6106/6109.

I've seen the new posters at several places from Somerset Co to Jefferson/Clearfield Co's.

I know prior to the newer print, the old posters absolutely forbidden all firearms, except .22rf with shotshells for taking frogs during that season. So, things are looking a little better.

Your mileage may vary though for your local DCNR places.