No Guns Sign at Gettysburg NMP Visitor's Center

[ROCK-IT3]

I was at the Gettysburg Visitor's Center today, and just happened to glance at the sign on the column outside the entry doors. I know firearms are not permitted in Federal buildings, but the park grounds are subject to the laws of the state where they are located. I know I looked at these signs after the law allowing carry in National Parks was passed, and I do not recall seeing this language. Is someone trying to pull a fast one here? Has anyone seen this language on any other Federal buildings at a National Park?

[JAKIII]

Should have OC'd your sharps carbine... you'd have blended right in. Sorry, couldn't resist.

I agree, it seems they're pulling a fast one.

[Manxdriver]

As I understood it, the building has federal employees inside so it is subject to federal restrictions, but unoccupied buildings are not. I'm often wrong, or so says my wife and daughter!

[ROCK-IT3]

^^^^ That's how I understand it, too. The sign says "On the property at.." though. That implies the areas outside of the buildings, maybe even the parking lot. The visitors center was built in partnership with the Gettysburg Foundation, (of which I just renewed my membership today, before noticing the sign), which is a private non-profit organization. As I look at that sign, there is no Federal Gov't markings on it, just the Gettysburg Foundation name. I recall other signs as referencing the Federal statute. I bet they are trying to regulate possession on the grounds as a private property owner. A phone call to the foundation is in order, and then perhaps to the Gettysburg NP director. I will wait for more replies here, and gather some pertinent info, and then make some calls in the next few days.

[Kid k]

Visitors center is not owned by the park service. But own the the Gettysburg foundation, witch is a private organization and can prohibit firearms. Once the visitors center paid for its susposed to be turned over to the national park service

[ROCK-IT3]

Visitors center is not owned by the park service. But own the the Gettysburg foundation, witch is a private organization and can prohibit firearms. Once the visitors center paid for its susposed to be turned over to the national park service

I saw on the GF website that the visitors center is privately owned by the GF. So the question becomes: Can a private organization set rules inconsistent with Federal law when the property is being used by a Federal entity? Similar to this: could a private owner who leases to the Postal service decide it is OK to carry firearms in a post office on its property, in opposition to Federal law or regulation? Is it OK for a private organization to discriminate (e.g. deny Constitutional rights) on property being used for Federal purposes and governed by Federal laws? I think, no.

[Kid k]

Simple question. Who owns it currently? Private organization. Aka pivate property right? Pa law state property owner set rules right ?

Edit: As i recall the center was build off the park service property on what used to be private property so the center would not be on battle field ground.

[ROCK-IT3]

Simple question. Who owns it currently? Private organization. Aka pivate property right? Pa law state property owner set rules right ?

Who owns the property? Was the property part of the National Park prior to the building being built? Is the property still part of the NPS, or is it owned by the GF? I don't know, I am asking.

And no, it is not so simple. A property owner allowing a Federal agency to use a property surely cannot discriminate against people regarding enumerated Constitutional rights.

[Kid k]

The property as a recall was previously owned by someone who constructed a veiwing tower. I remember it in the 80s-90s. But was demolished oh some 12-15 years ago I believe.

[ROCK-IT3]

Also, I am sure this is wording was not on the original signage (moveable placards) that were posted when the law allowing carry in NP's first went into effect. I think somewhere along the line the GF and GNMP decided they could try to prohibit carry on the grounds based on a private property right, and quietly changed the signs to something very similar to the previous signs, minus the Federal Statute information. That is an attempt to deceive, and puts law-abiding people in jeopardy of prosecution (for trespassing at a minimum, Federal firearms violations as a possibility). Either it is a NP subject to Federal law, or it isn't, not some mixture of the two creating benefits to the Gov and reducing rights to the people.