Comments on: NPS Struggling With New Regulations

By: Chas S. Clifton

Chas S. Clifton — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:55:15 +0000

RAH is correct: it’s bellyaching.

Colorado (and many other states) also have laws for “car carry.” Ours reads as follows:

(3) (a) a person who may lawfully possess a handgun may carry a handgun under the following
circumstances without obtaining a permit and the handgun shall not be considered concealed:
(I) the handgun is in the possession of a person who is in a private automobile or in some other private
means of conveyance and who carries the handgun for a legal use, including self-defense

——-

So the NPS should be aware of that too.

By: RAH

RAH — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:16:09 +0000

The is just belly aching about the NPS having to adjust to the rule. Prior to 1976 there was no problem, of course nobody opened carry in visitor centers Since this is for CCW only, NPS should presume that CCW citizens are no worse when carrying then they are when not, and treat all visitors the same, because they will not know who is and who isn’t. Most facilities should not be restricted and those that are posted should have a gun locker room like a secured coat check. Then when you go to the facility you declare your CCW and check the gun. When you leave get your gun. Not a big deal

As to the varying state laws I would enforce the most liberal state law. So if a CCW from Idaho, who get Idaho law throughout the park and only other CCW that has reciprocity with IDAHO has the same presumption. That would encourage that laws would standardized the most liberal gun laws.

This is just because the nanny state liberals in NPS over the last 30 years do not like citizens being armed. We really need to have the public get over this idea that a man with a gun is a criminal. Get rid of that underlying assumption and most of these problem fade.

I want people to realize that many of these interpretations are made by people employed at NPS over the last 30 years of liberal anti gun bias. That is why it is important not to allowed liberals to be voted into federal office since the staff tends to trend the same bias and attitudes that affect what rules they promote and enforce.

There are entrenched Clintonistas in many government agencies that will stonewall changes and make petty policies that are anti gun. Now we will get more and the Obamaphiles. At least with McCain they would not have added more left liberals in agencies and leadership positions. But we lost that fight, because GOP wanted perfect and that is the enemy of good.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:42:54 +0000

It would take more than a declaration, it would take an Act of Congress to fix that. Independence National Historical Park is one such park — you have to enter through he Liberty Bell pavilion, which is posted.

By: joated

joated — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:41:00 +0000

Many parks have an entrance that is within an enclosed facility. To get into the park, you must pass through the building. I would push for a declaration that such buildings–entrance kiosks in reality–are NOT facilities that could bar firearms.

By: Carl in Chicago

Carl in Chicago — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:45:33 +0000

I guess to some folks out there, this article screams “oh my god, repeal this nightmarish rule change.”

To me, it simply speaks for a uniform standard of reciprocity.

By: Carl in Chicago

Carl in Chicago — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:42:10 +0000

Enter … “The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009.”

By: N.U.G.U.N.

N.U.G.U.N. — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:33:15 +0000

Does notice have to state no firearms or that it’s a Federal facility?

What about post-offices. These are always annoying.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:04:21 +0000

Because the Court House probably has rangers taking tour groups in and out, it would be a federal facility under federal law, but they probably won’t post it. Of course, it just says no one shall be convicted if they don’t post. It does not say they won’t take your firearm and arrest you.

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:56:46 +0000

You know, if some law making critters would just realize that imaginary lines don’t lessen threats nor cause people to go nuts, they could do away with this all together and make life easier.

However, if they did that, it would be harder to control the populace by threatening them with charging them for crimes they cannot possibly be able to avoid.

But then again, I’m cynical like that.

By: Gregory Morris

Gregory Morris — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:54:40 +0000

Interesting. I was personally wondering about Appomattox Court House… Last time I visited there, I had to go unarmed. Next time I can carry on the grounds, but what about the vaioud buildings? They have a bunch of historical buildings, staffed with re-enactors… it would seem that under 18 USC 930 these are “federal facilities”.