National Park Carry
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I don’t think this changes anything for us Tennesseans, since carry in state parks is illegal. Am I reading that right?
Hopefully with Naifeh out we can turn that around, too.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Meanwhile in progressiveville:
http://www.knoxviews.com/node/9840
It is not gay terrorist bears I am concerned about.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
The U.S. Department of the Interior recently changed the federal regulation banning licensed concealed handguns in Federal National Parks and Wilderness Areas: http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html .
This rule change for National Parks now matches the Federal rules to the laws for concealed carry of the state in which the park is located.
However, it is not clear to me at all whether the DOI rule change now means I can legally carry my licensed concealed handgun in a federal park in Texas, as Texas Administrative Codes do not allow concealed carry of my licensed handgun in a Texas State Park.
That is, when I enter a Federal Park or Wilderness Area in Texas, is licensed concealed handgun carry governed under Title 10, Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code (which lists several prohibitions to concealed carry) or under Texas Administrative Code Title 31, Part 2, Chapter 59, Subchapter F, Rule §59.134, (f), which says that in a Texas State Park:“….it is an offense to:
(1) possess a firearm with a cartridge or projectile in any portion of the mechanism, except when authorized by the commission or the director;
(2) display a firearm, except when authorized by the director or the commission; and
(3) discharge across, in, or into a state park any arm, firearm, or device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal or damaging or destroying public or private property, except when authorized by the director.”
From the DOI press release:
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication and is available to the public on http://www.doi.gov.
I note that the new rule does not refer to the state park rule above, but only to my status as a CHL holder. Any guidance you or your readers can provide would be appreciated.
December 6th, 2008 at 12:38 am
In 1998 the Texas Parks director issued an Executive Director order that clarifies the issue. TSRA has a copy of the order here.
From the above:
December 6th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Cute, but since we have the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution, why do we need a “final amended version of changes to rules”? Why is the Department of Interior acting like the arbiter of Constitutional rights? They should just step aside and get out of the way, instead of pretending that they are in a position to make our decisions for us. America is ruled by the Constitution, not by a bunch of self-important bureaucrats who condescendingly allow us rights we already possess.
“The Executive Director reserves the right to prohibit the carrying of all firearms during certain events or in certain locations on Departmental lands.”
Oh, really. Well, what if a U.S. citizen reserves the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the Constitution against a constitutionally unauthorized and arbitrary bureaucratic edict to the contrary? Could get ugly! Might be a better idea to just allow Americans their freedom. That’s something that’s worked throughout our history, and hopefully it’s not “too American” for our contemporary bureaucrats to accept.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:31 am
The new progressive argument is that there isn’t a powerful enough handgun to stop a bear so people shouldn’t be allowed to carry. Always an excuse.
December 6th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Interesting.. and here in AZ, we have good reason to cheer..
I see this as a victory for the “incremental” approach to gun rights, as opposed hollaring “shall not be infringed” and ticking off (or frightening) everyone in sight.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Thank you, Aubrey Turner, for clarifying the Texas situation, and making me aware of the 1998 “change” to the rules.
I am now interested in why the Executive Order linked above has not been included in the Texas Administrative Code which I cited. The “clarification” significantly changes interpretation of the Administrative Code rule on firearms in state parks. Why would it not be noted on the TX Admin Code webpage?
December 6th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Park Carry from January 12 to whenever his Most Royal Obamaness breaks out that Executive Order pen. Thanks for the bone, you RKBA-supporting Bush administration!
December 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Yeah, Hartley it sure is. As long as you want to go beg the states permission and get a concealed carry PERMIT you have a right.
Those who don’t want to be poked, prodded, registered get jack shit. The right to keep and bear arms is trampled by the non-existent or enumerated right to “not be scared.” The only “incremental” thing happening here is the growing case for registration.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
If anyone ever wanted to see why gun owners are their own worst enemies the comments here provide a good example.
We get a small but significant victory for gun rights but because it didn’t include a repeal of the GCA and the NFA it’s worthless.
Typical.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Anyone know how long a final rule has to be in effect before it is necessary to go through the whole rule making process again to revoke it?
December 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
To be fair, Captain Holly, your comment only applies to certain gun owners, and a statistically insignificant percentage at that.
The rest of us see this as a victory, yet another win for all firearm owners and rights advocates, and a launching point for further wins.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
It’s not worthless, but it is tiny. Think of this as the first and smallest step forward in individual rights [1] the executive and legislative branches since Reagan. And that one came with a half a step backwards.
While we have made judicial strides forward, I’m going to have to temper that with all those “bong hits 4 jesus” decisions that come along with the judicial shift.
That’s with a pro-NRA majority ((D) and (R) both) in congress and a president that first made his mark when he promised to sign the carry law in Texas.
Sometimes I think that the NRA is cited as being the most influential lobbying group because they give out lots of money, are well represented by actual voting members, and don’t really ask any more from their congress-things than to fight a holding action. They’re pretty damn generous with those ‘A’s and ‘B’s.
So, while I’ll hold off on the “rope, tree & politician, some assembly required” jokes, I’d really rather see some better progress than something I find akin to Clinton supporting voting representation in DC by slapping on a pair of tags on the limo on his way out of town.
[1] although we did get a wee bit for some individuals when they strengthened NICS
December 9th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Yay for us! Assuming, of course, that Obama doesn’t reverse it the minute he takes office…