National Park Carry FAQ

[ZeSpectre]

National Park Carry FAQ

Q: When does this new law take effect?
A: 12:01am February 22, 2010

However, it is strongly recommended that you give it 12-24 hours of “buffer time” before exercising your right to carry.



Q: Is the new law for Concealed or Open carry?
A: It depends on your state laws.

The relevant section (612) of HR627/PubLaw 111-24 states
“The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.
In short, this means that the rules and restrictions are now the same as they would be anywhere else in the state.

So in Virginia, for example, if it is legal for you to own/possess a firearm, it would be legal to Open carry, and also to Concealed carry (with a valid CCW permit) that firearm. In some parks (Yellowstone) that cross multiple boundaries you also need to be aware of WHERE you are.



Q: What about information stations and concession stands?
A: Any restricted federal buildings must be clearly posted as such.

The interior of a federal building (this includes any rest stops, information centers, and concession stands bearing the National Park Service logo) falls under Title 18, Sec 930 “Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities” ( http://tinyurl.com/yg2zhwb )
However, Title 18, Sec 930 does stipulate the following
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each
public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility.

So there shouldn’t be any confusion as restricted buildings MUST BY LAW be “posted conspicuously” that weapons are not permitted. If it’s not posted, it’s not restricted (Unless you have been notified by an authorized person and asked to leave because then you've had "actual notice" under subsection H...<sigh>).



Q: What if I am confronted by a park official who doesn’t know the new law?
A: Co-operate with the park official and lodge an official complaint later.

If you are confronted by a park official who does not seem to know the changes in the law it is not unreasonable to ask if they are aware of the changes in the law, however you should cooperate fully with any instructions/directions from that park official while at the same time trying to collect enough information (name, rank, position, title, badge#) to enable you to lodge a formal complaint later.

However, if a park official asks you to leave a building (even one without a sign) you should do so without delay (see the note about "subsection H" above).





-------------------The boring details if you want them--------------------

Relevant Text from HR627/PubLaw 111-24 Section (512) “Protecting Americans From Violent Crime”
Available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00627:

[DOCID: publ024.111]
CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2009
HR 627 become Public Law 111-24
111th Congress

SEC. 512. <<NOTE: 16 USC 1a-7b.>>
PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.
Approved May 22, 2009.

(a) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

(2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that ``except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net''.

(3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not ``possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges'' of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(4) The regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals while at units of--
(A) the National Park System; and
(B) the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(5) The existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009--
(A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and
(B) the new regulations--
(i) are under review by the administration; and
(ii) may be altered.

(7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.
(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 627 (S. 414):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111-88 (Comm. on Financial Services).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 111-16 accompanying S. 414 (Comm. on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
Apr. 29, 30, considered and passed House.
May 11-14, 19, considered and passed Senate, amended.
May 20, House concurred in Senate amendment.
DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2009):
May 22, Presidential remarks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Relevant Text from Title 18, Sec 930
“Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities”
( http://tinyurl.com/yg2zhwb )
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS
Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly
possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in
a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to
do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be
used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be
present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or
attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of
subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal
facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or
attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided
in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer,
agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political
subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution
of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a
Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession
is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly
possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility,
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not
more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in
paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the
United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders
regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within
any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any
grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term ``Federal facility'' means a building or part
thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal
employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their
official duties.
(2) The term ``dangerous weapon'' means a weapon, device,
instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is
used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily
injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a
blade of less than 2\1/2\ inches in length.
(3) The term ``Federal court facility'' means the courtroom,
judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney
conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court
clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal,
probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court
of the United States.

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility,
and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each
public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be
convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a
Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility,
unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the
case may be.

[NavyLT]

There is a slight error in the FAQ:

So there shouldn’t be any confusion as restricted buildings MUST BY LAW be “posted conspicuously” that weapons are not permitted. If it’s not posted, it’s not restricted.

If it is not posted, the building may still be restricted, but the most they can do is inform you the building is restricted and ask you to remove your firearm from the building. At that point, continuing to carry your firearm in the building, after you have received actual notice, may result in criminal prosecution.

18 USC 922 (h):
and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.


I never could understand all the hooplah over this. When the new law takes effect, just pretend the National Park boundaries are non-existent. Whatever was legal outside the National Park in that state will be legal inside the National Park.

[ZeSpectre]

Thanks Navy LT, I went back and edited.

[JeffLrrp]

thanks very much. I was trying to dig up the relevant info so that when I go hiking in late February in the Shenandoahs, I've got a copy with me.

Much appreciated.

[BlueTrain]

I was checking yesterday and the Shenandoah National Park website makes no mention of weapons being allowed, so far. In fact, it still says that weapons (I think it said, instead of firearms) are prohibited in the campgrounds. I also checked the website for George Washington National Forest, the northern entrance being just a few miles from Front Royal, and it said pretty much the same thing.

Keep in mind that not only will state laws regarding concealed carry apply but also fish and game laws.

I wonder who will be the first to kill a bear after February?

[ZeSpectre]

I was checking yesterday and the Shenandoah National Park website makes no mention of weapons being allowed, so far. In fact, it still says that weapons (I think it said, instead of firearms) are prohibited in the campgrounds. I also checked the website for George Washington National Forest, the northern entrance being just a few miles from Front Royal, and it said pretty much the same thing.

Something that needs to be very clear right off the bat. There are National FORESTS and there are National PARKS and they are NOT the same thing.

National PARKS (National Park Service)

Is part of the Dept of Interior

National FORESTS

Are U.S. Forestry Service (US Dept of Agriculture).

They do NOT have the same set of rules and regulations. Our current concern is with regards to National PARKS.

But going slightly off topic for a little bit (just for information purposes), the "Forests" info page for George Washington National FOREST (U.S. Forestry Service) is in error. They say

All of the regulations are published in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations and are on file at all Forest Supervisor and District Ranger offices.

but title 36 is regulations for National PARKS not National FORESTS. Also in VIRGINIA (I can't say for other states), you ARE allowed to carry concealed in a National FOREST.

I am now in contact with someone from DOF to clarify and fix the their webpage information.

[BlueTrain]

I'm perfectly aware there are differences between National Forests and National Parks, big differences, too, and I assume everyone here knows the difference, too. But they're both federal just the same, though they have entirely different mindsets. I was assuming that anyone would as likely go to one place as the other. You still need a concealed carry permit just the same, in Virginia. And I'm still wondering who'll be the first to shoot a bear.

[ZeSpectre]

Mission successful.
If anyone goes to the GW Forest general information page (and hit refresh so you aren't seeing the old cached page) you will note that the information under Laws Regarding Firearms on National Forest Lands has been updated by the Forestry Service and is now correct with regards to GW National Forest and the State of Virginia.

[NavyLT]

You still need a concealed carry permit just the same, in Virginia.

Just curious... a concealed carry permit for what? Carrying in a National Forest? Does that apply to open carry as well in a National Forest by state law?

No permit is required for open carry elsewhere in Virginia, so, as of Feb 22 open carry will be allowed in National Parks in Virginia without a permit as well - is that different for National Forests?

[BlueTrain]

Well, a permit to carry a concealed firearm is what I meant. A quick reading of the regulations referenced in the second previous post suggests that open carry may not be permissible on National Forest lands because of the issue relating to hunting. In other words, if you are openly carrying a firearm, it is presumed that you are hunting. It doesn't say that in so many words, however, so you're free to make your own guess. But it does say that concealed carry is OK. It also says that you can't carry a loaded firearm on Sunday because there is no hunting on Sunday. I guess that means you can't carry a loaded firearm when it's dark, too. Kind of confusing. Overall, however, the basic law is the state law and federal regulations build on that, so to speak.

[ZeSpectre]

The following is valid for Virginia ONLY. (if you are in another state you'll have to check for yourself).

National Forests - Open carry is not allowed (due to Virginia hunting regulations) Concealed carry is allowed with a CCW permit.

National Parks - Open carry and Concealed Carry will be allowed after 12:01am on February 22'nd 2010.

All buildings in both National Forests and National Parks are still FEDERAL BUILDINGS and fall under Title 18, section 930 as detailed in the very first post.

That's as clear as I can make it.

[NavyLT]

I'm sorry, I should have posted back here that I found clarification on the National Forests in Virginia. The limitations are not in the Virginia Statutes but in the Virginia Department of Forestry regulations. And, yes, basically those regulations say that in National Forests in Virginia a handgun may be carried only by a permit holder and is prohibited by hunters when engaged in hunting during certain seasons, which makes absolutely no sense at all, but most gun laws don't anyway.

The above is just my quick reading of the forest regulations and may not be accurate....

Yes, I did edit this post to be more accurate in response to ZeSpectre's correction.

[ZeSpectre]

only by a permit holder and only during hunting activities

Not quite right.
-May be carried during -certain- hunting activities if you have a CCW permit.
-May be carried if you are NOT hunting, if you have a CCW permit.

[NavyLT]

It's way too confusing for me to figure out, ZeSpectre

And I have dragged your thread off topic anyway - sorry about that!

[BlueTrain]

Mostly it just goes to show you how difficult it is to write rules and regulations. And sometimes, those who ignore the rules the most are the ones that wrote them.

Most of the NPS websites have their special regulations somewhere on the site and a quick glance will show that each park generally has its own particular set of problems that they have to try and manage. For instance, National Seashores, which are part of the National Park system, will have paragraph after paragraph about vehicles on the beach. Vehicles on the beach represent a problem because different beach users have different ideas about how the beach should be used. Naturally the rules didn't come about overnight.

Firearms have generally been banned in the parks since the 1920s, more or less. I think the initial reason was because of problems with hunting. Again it is conflict among different users. Sometimes the park system will attempt to accomodate long-time users as best as they can, provided there is no real conflict with the general purpose of the park. Probably there won't be any logging in National Parks anytime soon but I'm sure there's someone who doesn't see any good reason not to.

Hunting is one thing (and you don't even need a gun) and simply carrying a firearm is another. I don't see any conflict of interests if all the rules are followed, which is always easier said than done. But all it would take to stir up a firestorm is for there to be a couple of "incidents." In the meantime, I've met rangers out on the trail--and they were armed.

[blume357]

Feb. 22nd... so that someone in the not quite so round office doesn't make a presidential decree.

actually, can the president do this? Wasn't the original ban from a presidential decree and not a law anyway... can the president now just re-ban this or will it have to go though congress and the senate? then again, can't they just get some judge to say it's not legal in the first place? They did that when Bush finally did something worth while about it.

[BlueTrain]

The previous president did pretty much anything he wanted. Why can't this one?

You have a good point about keeping quiet about it. It would also be a good idea to behave if you feel the need to carry a gun on National Park lands. As I said, all it would take is for there to be an "incident." Doesn't matter if the individual involved was carrying legally or not. The problem is misusing a firearm, not carrying illegally.

You are no doubt aware that not all rules and regulations you are bound to follow in your everyday lives are not the result of the deliberations of legislative bodies. Authority is granted by law to the various agencies, in this case to the National Park Service, to promulgate their own rules and regulations. In other words, they're legal.

It is unfortunate that park rangers also have to act as police but some park visitors behave in an uncivilized manner creating all sorts of problems for other visitors, wildlife and the park in general. So you have to have a lot of rules.

[ZeSpectre]

You have a good point about keeping quiet about it.

I disagree completely. This is an EXCELLENT example to bring out loud and clear. Think about it, what other gun-rights issue is so free of other taints (such as racism).

It would also be a good idea to behave if you feel the need to carry a gun on National Park lands.

I suppose you might even say it's a good idea to behave if you are armed....period

As I said, all it would take is for there to be an "incident."

It's not that fragile. We have many, MANY "incidents" from the past years. Even discounting the weapons chargers, all were deemed criminal. The point that you can't lump criminals with weapons into the same group as law abiding citizens has been well hammered home.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

You are no doubt aware that not all rules and regulations you are bound to follow in your everyday lives are not the result of the deliberations of legislative bodies. Authority is granted by law to the various agencies, in this case to the National Park Service, to promulgate their own rules and regulations. In other words, they're legal.

BlueTrain,

Have you actually read the law you are commenting on? The Coburn Amendment to the Credit Card Act allowing firearms to be carried in National Parks? Your statement above in bold is false. The Coburn Amendment specifically takes away and denies both the Department of the Interior (which the National Park Service is part of) and the Federal and lower judiciary systems the ability to regulate firearms possession in National Parks.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:publ024.111

(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the
National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation
that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an
assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System
or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from
possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the
law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System
or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

[BlueTrain]

I was only speaking in generalities, not to firearms regulations specifically. Obviously the authority of the National Park Service to regulate things is not unlimited. Now it is even more limited, I suppose you could say. But their regulations go on for pages and pages, you know. The parts about firearms amounted to about two paragraphs.

How do you suppose in-park vendors will react, referring to lodges and restaurants?

[NavyLT]

How do you suppose in-park vendors will react, referring to lodges and restaurants?

Probably the same way as those outside the park. The Federal law only prohibits the park service from prohibiting firearms, not private property owners/leasee's.

If the facility is operated by the National Park Service itself, AND there is a regularly employeed NPS Employee there, firearms will be banned.

If the facility is leased or owned by a private party, that private party may ban firearms within that facility if they choose to because then it would not be the Department of the Interior banning firearms, it would be the tenants/owners of the building banning firearms.

Whatever method they chose to post such leased/privately owned buildings would have to comply with the state laws.

[wally626]

In VA a lessee can not forbid carry of weapons onto to property owned by the State. So at least in VA in National Park Facilities (owned by a public entity) you should be good to go, except restaurants that serve alcohol (for CCW). Hopefully that restriction will end this year.

[NavyLT]

The National Park property would not be owned by the state. The building would be leased from the Federal government, not from the State of Virginia.

[wally626]

If the building was posted as a restricted building under federal law, then carry would be prohibited, but the Federal Government has that right not a non-federal lessee. Under VA State law carry would be legal.

[NavyLT]

Citation to the law that would say a private party leasing a building from the Federal government cannot prohibit firearms in the building they are leasing, please?