DC v. Heller ==>> National Parks ?

[cyclist]

I followed a link from the Miami Herald story
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=319490
to the www.gunlaws.com pages where I found a link to their Secret Gun Ban Plan (Brady) article
http://www.gunlaws.com/Decommissioning Scheme.htm

In this it mentions :

This approach is already working in National Parks where possession of a working gun subjects you to immediate federal arrest, confiscation of your property, and endless aggravation. No criminal act of any kind is required, just legal possession of personal property -- any firearm. However, a gun in pieces so it cannot be fired, locked in your car trunk is allowed. Interestingly, no statutory authority for this denial of civil rights can be found. And of course, statutory denial of civil rights would be unconstitutional on its face.

This existing law basically sucks because if I want to bicycle from here to Oregon and want to visit a few National Parks along the way, and also want to bring along a .22LR revolver for target shooting along the way, I can't do so, not even if the revolver is locked in a case in one pannier and the ammo is in the pannier on the other side of the bike (at least I don't think so if I understand things correctly as they stand currently).

So, assuming DC v. Heller works to decommission the DC law (probably improper usage of the word but I wanted to use it here anyway), would this then lead to lifting the ban on firearms within National Parks? I'm sure it would have to be challenged by someone, or retroactively challenged by reviving a previous conviction which if the law is found potentially unconstitutional then any convictions garnered under an unconstitutional law should be overturned (to my thinking).

I'm just getting out the soup ladel to get ready to stir the pot and looking for the cupboard the can of worms is in.

I'd quote the whole article, but don't want to run afoul of any copyright rules.

Comments?

 

[El Tejon]

Getting way ahead of things. Maybe such a matter (carry of arms) would be addressed in the fourth or fifth wave of litigation assuming a favorable ruling in Heller.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Maybe such a matter (carry of arms) would be addressed in the fourth or fifth wave of litigation assuming a favorable ruling in Heller.

Agreed... the first wave will be incorporation.

 

[El Tejon]

Yes, incorporation. Sorry about getting Happy Feet on incorporation in the last Heller thread, LE45.

I did not distinguish between the COA decision and the SCt.'s question presented. Thanks for clarifying my misleading post.

 

[cyclist]

Maybe not "way" ahead, some plans and training takes months of prep work.

Oh well, I'll go sit on the patience stool in the corner and tap my feet on the foot rest.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(are we there yet?)

Thanks for the replies and head check.

 

[El Tejon]

Cy, you're dealing with courts and lawyers, best to think in geological ages.

Go practice your drawstroke, by the time we find out, it should be flawless.

 

[hugh damright]

This existing law basically sucks because if I want to bicycle from here to Oregon and want to visit a few National Parks along the way, and also want to bring along a .22LR revolver for target shooting along the way, I can't do so, not even if the revolver is locked in a case in one pannier and the ammo is in the pannier on the other side of the bike (at least I don't think so if I understand things correctly as they stand currently).

The law has a provision for transporting a weapon in such a manner:

"Traps, nets and unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use."

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....0.1.1.2.0.1.4

 

[lacoochee]

What is the actual penalty? Is it a felony? A misdemeanor? A ticket and confiscation?

I shudder to think how often I have broken this "rule" driving around Asheville and crossing the parkway time after time. Mostly I figure, it won't be discovered unless I use it and I figure that's better than ending up like the two girls camping along the Appalachian Trail in June.

And to add one piece more isn't the "no firearms" rule applied on a park by park basis? It was my understanding that in some Alaskan National Parks that firearms were recommended.