Good News- National Park Carry

[Shawn.L]

National Park Service Gun Ban Expanding
-- 600-mile Trail to be added to NPS
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place,
Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408http://www.gunowners.org

ACTION: Urge your two senators to support S. 2619 -- a bill introduced bySen. Tom Coburn -- to repeal the gun ban on National Park Service lands.Also, please urge them to stand with Sen. Coburn against the strong-armtactics of Majority Leader Reid, who is trying to silence Coburn and thwarthis pro-gun agenda.
You can skip to the bottom and use the pre-written letter below to contact your two senators right away. Or, you can first read the following alert to better understand the battle Sen. Coburn is embroiled in and how Sen. Reidis trying to use his position as Majority Leader to trample Coburn (and theSecond Amendment).

Wednesday, July 23, 2008
On July 10, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Trail, which stretches 600 miles from Rhode Island to Yorktown, Virginia, as a National Historic Trail. Such a designation would place the trail under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior and theNational Park Service, thus subjecting the Washington-Rochambeau to thecurrent NPS gun ban.
Carrying firearms on land controlled by the NPS is prohibited, even if the state in which the land is located allows firearms. The only way you can legally have a firearm anywhere on National Park land currently is by having it unloaded and inaccessible, such as locked up in your trunk.
While the Interior Department recently (after seven years of foot-dragging)proposed new rules to partially reverse the gun ban, they have not yet taken effect. If and when they do go into effect, most gun owners would still not be allowed to possess firearms on these lands because, among other problemswith the rule, open carry would remain prohibited.
Congress still needs totake action to make the gun ban repeal complete and permanent. Before the bill passed the House, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) filed an amendment with the Rules Committee to protect the Second Amendment on the trail. His amendment would have required that state and local laws govern firearmspossession and carrying on the trail.
The Rules Committee changed thatlanguage and made it apply only to hunting. Rep. Bishop denounced the Committee during debate on the measure, pointingout that the committee "did not defend all of the Second Amendment, only theso-called hunting rights, which is not, not the purpose of the SecondAmendment." Rep. Bishop made a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to restore the pro-gun language. His motion narrowly failed,211-202. The bill (H.R. 1286) now heads to the Senate where the situation is muchmore complex.
Dr. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has been a leader on repealing the NPSgun ban. Sen. Coburn previously introduced a bill (S. 2619) to rescind theban, but it remains bottled up by senate leadership. Earlier this year,Sen. Coburn entered into a so-called unanimous consent agreement with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get a vote on his repeal language, but Sen.Reid reneged on his promise and blocked the vote. Sen. Coburn remains committed to forcing a vote on killing the NPS gun ban,and Sen. Reid seems equally committed to blocking that vote. Reid's most recent maneuver to silence Coburn is to introduce (as one measure) a package of bills that Coburn has held up on constitutional grounds. Rolling many bills into one, loaded with pork and pet projects to dole out to a varietyof senators, is a transparent attempt to erode the widespread support Sen.Coburn has among his colleagues. If Reid is successful in passing so many bills at one time without debate,the ability of individual senators to force deliberate consideration and roll call votes on important legislation will be threatened.
The reason each state has two senators is stop large population centers(such as an unholy alliance of NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles) from dictating their will upon the rest of the country. Historically, the rules of theSenate have always allowed any individual senator to keep the full body from acting in an unconstitutional manner. If other senators allow Reid to act as the dictator of the senate, Coburn's ability to stop the expansion of the NPS gun ban will be severely threatened. Unless Sen. Coburn's effort is successful in repealing the gun ban, the 600mile Washington-Rochambeau -- which encompasses parts of major thoroughfaressuch as I-95 -- will become yet another Second Amendment infringement zone effecting hundreds of thousands of gun owners up and down the East Coast.
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.
And, you can call your Senators at202-224-3121 or toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator,
Senator Tom Coburn is leading the fight against the National Park Service gun ban. While the Interior Department recently (after seven years of foot-dragging)proposed new rules to partially reverse the gun ban, they have not yet takeneffect. If and when they do go into effect, most gun owners would still notbe allowed to possess firearms on these lands because, among other problemswith the rule, open carry would remain prohibited. Senator Coburn is the sponsor of a bill, S. 2619, to make the gun ban repealcomplete and permanent. I urge you to become a cosponsor of thislegislation. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has used unprecedentedprocedural maneuvers to silence Dr. Coburn and to keep this bill or asimilar amendment from coming to the floor of the Senate. Please stand withSen. Coburn against the strong-arm tactics of Sen. Reid and support therepeal of the NPS gun ban.
Sincerely,

[WhiteFeather]

For everyone that wrote a letter supporting this change

A BIG THANK YOU your letters made the differance.

Thank you to all the people that worked with the elected Reps to make this common sense change in our national parks.

National Parks Concealed Carry Victory


National Parks Victory!



Not only did we get corrective legislation removing the restriction on concealed carry in State Parks this year, but we’ve also gained victory in our National Parks!



From: Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL)VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right. VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org
The two Petitions for Rule Making that the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL) submitted to the Department of the Interior helped push this issue forward!

This is a STRONG win for gun owners with concealed handgun permits or for those gun owners in states that don't need permits to carry concealed!!! And there’s no “state park” contingency.

Basically, if a state allows a person to carry a concealed, loaded, operable handgun, then that person can carry a concealed, loaded, operable handgun in a National Park.

We were concerned that the proposed regulation had an "analogous lands" provision, but it is gone!

Here is a link to the press release:

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

Here is a link to the final rule:

http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf

Here is the new regulation:

Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property

Chapter 1 - National Park Service, DOI

Part 2 - Resource Protection, Public Use, and Recreation

2.4 Weapons traps and nets. (new paragraph (h))

(h) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable federal law."

----

DO **NOT** CARRY IN NATIONAL PARKS OR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES YET!

The new ruling will take effect 30 days AFTER it appears in the Federal Register next week. So, I would say it will be effective no
later than January 12th!

Here is a story from the AP:

http://tinyurl.com/68kdgo

Dec 5, 2:54 PM EST

New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- People will now be able to carry concealed firearms in some national parks and wildlife refuges.

An Interior Department rule issued Friday allows an individual to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge - but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon, and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows loaded firearms in parks.

The rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.

The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can
lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.

The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called inconsistent and unclear.

A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for
visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.

The park rule will be published in the Federal Register next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

this one from Second Amendment by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

NEWS RELEASE
CCRKBA HAILS INTERIOR DEPT. RULING ON CONCEALED CARRY IN NATIONAL PARKS
BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s announcement that the Interior Department has amended its rules and will henceforth allow licensed concealed carry in national parks was hailed as a victory for the Second Amendment by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“No longer will American citizens be required to leave their right of self-defense at the gates of a national park,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This common-sense change in regulations reflects not only changes in the laws of 48 states, but more importantly the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment.”

Under the rule change, individuals may carry concealed handguns in national parks and wildlife refuges only if they are licensed to carry under the laws of the state in which the park or refuge is located. This new rule does not allow the illegal carrying of any firearm, nor will it allow hunting, target practice or poaching.

“We are delighted that the Interior Department has taken this step,” Gottlieb stated. “This was never an issue of opening parks to hunting or recreational shooting, and the extremist opponents of this measure know it. This has always been about personal protection in areas where law enforcement may be hours away, or not available at all, in an emergency.

“As with the adoption of concealed carry laws in dozens of states over the past several years,” he added, “we are confident that passage of time will prove that all the alarmist rhetoric about poaching and increase danger to families and especially children was deliberately misleading.

“With the nation facing drastic budget cuts,” Gottlieb said, “this rule change comes at the right moment. It recognizes the inability of park officials to provide adequate law enforcement services, particularly in the back country. We are confident that passage of time will prove that this rule change, like the adoption of sensible concealed carry laws in dozens of states over the past 20 years, improves public safety and deters criminal behavior.”

[akapjr]

So as of today,we are good to conceal carry in national parks?

[gnbrotz]

Yes.

Outdoors.

[WhiteFeather]

Lots of interesting points in this one, there is still lots more actvist work to fully restore our rights on Federal property.

Our rights were taken a slice at a time, so don't expect to get them back in one big change, still this is a major victory for our side.

Please carryfully READ self defense sections, numerous thread on PAFOA discussing what is thes standard of the application of law of defense.

http://acslpa.org/n-legislative/Jan09lcr.pdf

Interior okays CCW in national parks

by Dave Workman, Senior Editor

Barring a court challenge to block its taking effect, a new rule by the Department of Interior that allows the carrying of concealed handguns by licensees inside national parks will take effect in about two weeks.

Anti-gunners are furious and had threatened legal action prior to the holidays.
Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, was quoted by The Salt Lake Tribune stating, "This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a common-sense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades." -

Under the rule change, announced by Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty, citizens who possess valid concealed carry licenses or permits that are recognized by the state in which the park is located are essentially "good to go."

For example, if a national park is located in Washing¬ton State, residents of states whose licenses are honored by Washington statute should be able to carry while visiting Mount Rainier or Olympic National Park.

And, according to Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino, if a state has a regulation such as Washington's, which allows unlicensed concealed carry for persons engaged in legitimate outdoor activities including hiking, camping, fishing or horseback riding, it should apply within the national parks there.
What this regulation will not allow is hunting, target shooting or casual plinking on national park lands. Open carry will not be allowed, nor may armed citizens enter park buildings with their concealed handguns. That applies to visitor centers, ranger stations and even restrooms.

The same rule will apply to national wildlife refuges, with the exception that hunting is already legal on refuges, and that will not change. Opponents of the rule change had campaigned against it by asserting that parks would become venues for careless shooting activities.

Opponents of the original proposal were quick to react. Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers, was quoted by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution suggesting that this change will be bad for wildlife in the parks.

The rule was also opposed by the National Parks Conservation Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, After the rule change was announced, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke went on the attack, calling the change a "parting gift for the gun lobby" from the Bush Administration.

"We urge the proper authorities to use common sense," Helmke said in a press release, "and stop this senseless rule."

However, gun rights organizations- were supportive of the rule change.

"No longer will American citizens be required to leave their right of self-defense at the gates of a national park," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "This common-sense change in regulations reflects not only changes in the laws of 48 states, but more importantly the Supreme Court's ruling in June that upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment."

Chris Cox, head of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, issued a statement noting, "We are pleased that the. Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges."
Philip Van Cleave with the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a grassroots group that had also been actively pushing for the change, called the decision "a big win for gunowners."

"This victory has been years in the making," Van Cleave told Gun Week, "and VCDL is proud to have played an important role in expanding our freedoms."
An assistant US attorney in Seattle, WA, told Gun Week that in the event of a self-defense shooting in a national park, the FBI would investigate. Self-defense guidelines are essentially the same on federal land as they are on state land. That is, the validity of a self-defense claim is determined under what is generically called the "reasonable man doctrine." That is, what would any reasonable person do under the same circumstances, knowing what the shooter knew at the time?

As part of the instructions to a jury under a model from the 9th US Court of Appeals, when determining whether someone acted in self-defense, a jury would be told the following: "Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. How- ever, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

"Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

"The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in reasonable self-defense."

The New GUN WEEK, January 1, 2009

[WhiteFeather]

Lots of other excellent points in this one, you can use some of the talking points in other examples with your gun fearing friends and acquaintances to illustrate the error of their ways.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/37406554.html

http://tinyurl.com/8p3kyf

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'The weapons ban has worked well all these years'

MORE COLUMNSOn Dec. 31, the daily Miami Herald editorialized:

"The Bush administration last month gave the National Rifle
Association a parting gift by lifting a decades-long ban on concealed
weapons in national parks. ...

"These harmful new rules could take years to undo," warned the
suntanned statists. "Make no mistake, though, they must be taken off
the books before they can do too much damage. ...

"Beginning on Jan. 9, Everglades and Biscayne national parks ... and
the dozens of federal wildlife refuges and forests in Florida will be
open to visitors packing guns. Under the new rule, anyone in Florida
with a concealed weapons permit qualifies to bring a gun into a
national park. There are more than 537,000 Florida residents with
concealed weapons permits.

"Allowing visitors to carry firearms into these national treasures
makes no sense. The weapons ban has worked well all these years. It
has reduced poaching of endangered species and kept the level of
violence between people to a minimum."

The new rules, partially restoring a guaranteed civil and
constitutional right, "were promulgated by the Interior Department but
clearly came straight from the White House," the Herald complains. "So
the department that is charged with protecting our legacy of federally
owned parks, refuges and wildernesses instead has been forced to put
these lands and the people who visit them at greater risk. ..."

Goodness; where to begin?

Surely the top priority of the federal government (the reason
"governments are instituted among men") is to protect and defend our
liberties, among which one of the foremost is our right to keep and
bear arms. (Even the current "rules change" restores this right only
in part. Since most national park visitors come from far away, what
are the chances most will have the slightest idea how to obtain the
required "state permit?")

The statists at the Herald reply, "The weapons ban has worked well all
these years. It has reduced poaching of endangered species and kept
the level of violence between people to a minimum."

First, since we're talking primarily about the kind of self-defense
weapon for which I might receive a state "concealed carry permit," I
find the inclusion of this reference to "poaching" rather odd. In
fact, this supposed gun ban did little to limit the nearly industrial
levels of gator poaching by the locals which continued for decades in
the Everglades. The population of big cats down thataway also seems
suspiciously small, if no "poaching" or trapping has been going on
since the 1930s. (Fewer than 100 Florida panthers are believed to
persist in the wild.)

The federals -- who also operate the Corps of Engineers, which has
been diverting water away from the glades for 60 years -- haven't even
done a very good job of keeping most of the wetlands wet, for heaven's
sake.

Second -- while in an emergency you use what you've got -- anyone
intent on "poaching" a bear or other large animal with a small,
concealable handgun might, I suppose, get pretty much what he or she
deserves.

But what really puzzles me is what on earth these minions of
Washington City mean when they say, "The weapons ban has worked well
all these years. It has ... kept the level of violence between people
to a minimum."

Did going unarmed "work well" for unarmed hikers Mary Cooper, 56, and
her daughter, Susanna Stodden, 27, whose bodies were found, shot in
the head, alongside the Pinnacle Lake Trail in the Mount
Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest, east of Everett, Wash., by a hiker
on July 11, 2006?

Technically, since the National Forests are administered differently
from the National Parks and Monuments (though the folks at the Herald
don't seem to know that), the Seattle mother and daughter could have
gone armed in that National Forest, so long as they'd obeyed
Washington state law.

Perhaps it would have helped to encourage them, had as much signage as
they use to warn about forest fires been devoted to warning hikers
"We've only got a handful of rangers to protect an area the size of a
small state, here. Your protection is your own job."

(According to Washington Trails magazine, there were only five armed
law enforcement rangers working the entire Mount Baker/Snoqualmie
National Forest -- a patch of public land larger than the state of
Delaware -- when the women died. Was that number adequate to protect
public safety? Forest Supervisor Rob Iwamoto told the magazine "No.")

Our parks "today are some of the safest places in the country," the
Herald editorialists insist.

Tell that to Barbara Schoener, who in April of 1994 was attacked by an
82-pound female lion ... as she was jogging along a park trail in the
Sierra foothills northeast of Sacramento. The lion bit her neck and
crushed her skull. Then it dragged the unarmed woman three hundred
feet down a hill and ate her face, upper back, lungs, spleen,
pancreas, kidneys, stomach, liver and small intestines.

In the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 2006, one man was
stabbed to death by a drunk and, in a separate incident, a woman was
shot dead. Also that year, on the Blue Ridge Parkway, a woman parked
at an overlook and wearing headphones while studying for final exams
"was killed by a handgun by a suspect on a killing spree," the Park
Service reports.

How did the ban on carrying self-defense weapons "work well" for them?

And the "relatively small" count of 11 violent deaths in the national
parks in 2006 didn't include rapes, other non-fatal assaults, or
places from which law-abiding citizens are now de facto excluded, such
as the Saguaro National Monument west of Tucson, where locals say the
stream of illegal immigrants being hauled north by their "coyotes" can
make the place resemble an old-fashioned stock car track.

Yes, you could say our parks have been "some of the safest places in
the country" -- if you want to compare them to such other
victim-disarmament zones as the District of Columbia, New York City,
Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit ...

"If you're hiking in the back country and there is a problem with a
criminal or an aggressive animal, there's no 911 box where you can
call police and have a 60-second response time," explains Gary Marbut,
president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

"While park rangers now use bulletproof vests and automatic weapons to
enforce the law, regular Americans in states where conceal-and-carry
laws exist are denied the opportunity for self-defense," explained
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., back before the departing Bush
administration finally decided to help us law-abiding victims even up
the odds against our would-be assailants, just a little.


Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the
Review-Journal and author of "The Black Arrow" and "The Ballad of Carl
Drega." See http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/vin/.

[TonyF]

"..... nor may armed citizens enter park buildings with their concealed handguns. That applies to visitor centers, ranger stations and even restrooms."

WTF?

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by TonyF

"..... nor may armed citizens enter park buildings with their concealed handguns. That applies to visitor centers, ranger stations and even restrooms."

WTF?

I emote the same, WTF?!

However it is a good start. I'm sure we can work on the restrooms, ranger stations, and novelty shops in a revision. ...at least the restrooms.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by knight0334

I emote the same, WTF?!

However it is a good start. I'm sure we can work on the restrooms, ranger stations, and novelty shops in a revision. ...at least the restrooms.

I hate to say this but the next revision will be by Obama's folks so it will probably go back to no carry.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by TonyF

"..... nor may armed citizens enter park buildings with their concealed handguns. That applies to visitor centers, ranger stations and even restrooms."

WTF?

Originally Posted by knight0334

I emote the same, WTF?!

However it is a good start. I'm sure we can work on the restrooms, ranger stations, and novelty shops in a revision. ...at least the restrooms.

That's not the issue.

I can just see it now, of those who do exercise the option to carry in national parks, all the donning and doffing of pistols and holsters in parking lots is a recipe for ND's due to a general lack of gun handling skills among the public at large.