National Parks--are they Constitutional?

[BerettaNut92]

Are they?

And to keep it gun related, do state gun laws apply in the national parks? (i.e. even if I can't carry with my CA permit, can I have an AR-15 unloaded and not readily accessible?)

 

[50 Freak]

Are they consitutional? NO

But I still carry my Glock20 with full powered loads when I pack through the woods. It's not for the four legged critters, but for the 2 legged drunk critters that usually inhabit the national forest. Not that the G20 wouldn't work on a four legged critter.

 

[dave3006]

Skunk, how did you get an AR-15?

I think you can have a gun disassembled in a locked case (please check for accuracy). I know it is illegal to carry with your CCW in the Nat'l Park. For educational purposes, that is why God invented Smartcarry with an untucked shirt. No flashing or printing is possible. With this approach, it is more likely that a meteor will fall on your left foot than you will get caught.

 

[Malamute]

I don't know the letter of the law, but there are signs at the entrances of Yellowstone park saying that firearms have to be unloaded and broken down if possible, inaccessable and cased etc.

When living in Az years ago, we would ride motorcycles into the Grand Canyon park, the gate rangers told us to unload and put our pistols in our saddle bags.

 

[Cosmoline]

The NPS is a paramilitary organization. They keep caches of M-16's on hand and are prepared to serve as adjuncts to the military if the need arises. They also rule the parks as their exclusive territory. Unlike other federal land management agencies, the NPS has its own set of laws and could give a wet slap what the states think about it. It shouldn't be constitutional, but the courts let it happen anyway.

 

[45crittergitter]

Pretty much 99% of gun control laws ARE NOT constitutional, period. :banghead:

 

[Jeff White]

Moving to Legal and Political..Jeff

 

[TallPine]

I pretty much avoid National Parks (victim disarmament zones) for that reason, as I also avoid places like New Jersey and Red China.

Though I did visit the Big Hole Battlefield a couple years ago. No weapons allowed, even on the trail. No harming of wildlife either - including rattlesnakes I suppose ...?

I wonder what they would do if they knew I slapped and killed a few dozen government mosquitos ?

Anyway, the disarmament of the peasants is just about fitting for a place where the Army massacred men, women, and children. The only reason it isn't the "Big Hole Massacre" is because the Nez Perce managed to form a counterattack and whip the soldier's butts.

 

[richyoung]

Actually, the Parks themselves are unconstitutional. The Federal Government is not authorized to own land inside the United States except under the Constitution's Article 1 Section 8, Clause 17, which reads:
"Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings,"

The Tenth Ammendment reads thusly:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."

The combination of the two LIMITS what the Federal governemnt can own - it has to be either part of D.C, or a "fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard," or other "needful building", and it has to be with the consent of the legislature of the State in which it is in. Otherwise, if the government can just own anything, why have the Section 17 in the first place? Since you have it, and the Constitution it was in was modified by the Tenth, the right to own parks, forrests, wilderness areas, etc, is reserved to "the States...or the people thereof..: That's why the Oklahoma land-rush and various other land disbursement schemes were enacted - the Fed COULDN'T retain ownership of the land, especially after the teritory became a state! Then Teddy Roosevelt came along, and decided not to tet the law of the land ruin his fun....

 

[Henry Bowman]

and it has to be with the consent of the legislature of the State in which it is in.

LOL. Oh, yeah. I can see that happening.

 

[BerettaNut92]

The combination of the two LIMITS what the Federal governemnt can own - it has to be either part of D.C, or a "fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard," or other "needful building", and it has to be with the consent of the legislature of the State in which it is in. Otherwise, if the government can just own anything, why have the Section 17 in the first place? Since you have it, and the Constitution it was in was modified by the Tenth, the right to own parks, forrests, wilderness areas, etc, is reserved to "the States...or the people thereof..: That's why the Oklahoma land-rush and various other land disbursement schemes were enacted - the Fed COULDN'T retain ownership of the land, especially after the teritory became a state! Then Teddy Roosevelt came along, and decided not to tet the law of the land ruin his fun....

Yeah that's what I was going for originally but tried to keep it gun related. I know the 10th Amendment but missed the section 17.

Sorry Jeff White thought I posted in L&P. Probably had multiple windows open, oops!

So BLM land (the more relatively gun-friendly land in CA) is unconstitutional as well?

 

[Wiley]

Am I the only one who knows of:
The 'Yellow Stone Dock Yard'?
The 'Chattahoochee River Air Craft Carrier Maintenance Facility'?
The 'Painted Desert Drydock'?

Oh.... I guess I wasn't supposed to tell. Something like 40% of the land west of the Mississippi is Federaly "owned". To bad the owners can't get to it.

 

[richyoung]

That would be the way I read it - that land should either have been disbursed to the people, (homesteads, land rush), a business (railroad land grants, land patents), or reverted to State ownership at the time of statehood (Texas uses theirs to support public universities). The fact that they weren't is the subject of much rumbling on the part of western states like Arizona, who have to supply services, (roads, etc) to areas that are permanently off of the tax base. Silly them, they feel like they should have hte same rights as New York or Georgia...

 

[sumpnz]

Otherwise, if the government can just own anything, why have the Section 17 in the first place?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Silly boy. That's like asking why the Commerce Clause exists.

 

[KriegHund]

I for one am glad of national parks.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am also glad that national parks exist, but I do not agree with their being victim disarmament zones.

To the person who started this thread: National Parks are "No Guns Allowed." Period.

You may be confusing national parks with national forests. National forests, in general, defer to the laws of the state(s) in which the forest is located.

 

[LAR-15]

Guns are not allowed in national parks so people aren't poaching animals.

"Look Jim a 6x6 bull elk. Lemme see your .44!"

 

[BerettaNut92]

The ones I've been to said that guns were permitted so long as they are, something like, 'unloaded and stored in a manner where they are not readily accessible.'

I like the national parks too. I just found it un-libertarian of me. (yeah my acquaitances online will blackball me if they find out I'm a liberal )

 

[Harve Curry]

I think the Parks and Nat. Monuments like Grand Canyon, YellowStone, Saguaro National Monument (around Tucson Az) all require you DO NOT have any firearms by thier regulations, that are enforced as law. Same with Az. State Parks. If I'm riding horseback or hiking through part of Saguaro N.M. in the Rincon Mnts. which borders and is part of the Coronado National Forest , I cannot have a firearm in any way or condition with me.

It plainly is not Constitutional. It's not even a law, another regulation that is enforced as a law.

 

[Browns Fan]

They become unconstitutional when:

1. They become no-gun zones (already duly noted).

2. They grab private land.

 

[TheEgg]

Constitution? Whats that? :banghead:

 

[cloudkiller]

I think the rule ought to read...

What if the rules on National Parks actually prohibited the USE of firearms, except in self defense?

Basically, poaching, target shooting, etc. would be illegal. That is what the laws are intended to prevent. A. Wildlife B. Innocent bystanders who shouldn't have to worry they are in the line of fire.

It would be funny if they banned rifles and shotguns but allowed handguns?

 

[Molon Labe]

National Parks--are they Constitutional?

Based on today's ruling by the Taco Supreme Court, everything is Constitutional...

 

[Snake Eyes]

Harve--

I believe you are mistaken about AZ State parks. All the state parks I frequent post signs that weapons are not allowed unless authorized under (insert statute number for concealed carry here).

A ruling in the last few years forced that change, which allows CCW permitees to carry in parks.

I suppose I could look up all the relevent laws and rulings, but I'm lazy and I might find out I'm wrong.

 

[Art Eatman]

richyoung, the Article you referenced applied only to the seat of government.

See Article IV, Section 3, second paragraph: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States..."

So, Congress has the authority to enable the NPS as to what land and what rules pertain--which has been done since Teddy Roosevelt pushed the effort to start the NPS.

Art