National Parks gun ban - time to go

[io333]

There are lots of "National Park" properties, that bear little relationship to a park, where I have to disarm even though I have CCW. Two examples come immediately to mind:

http://www.neworleansonline.com/tours-attractions/museums/jeanlafitte.html

http://www.seeamerica.org/byways/html/byways_pages/MSnatchez.html



The second link is interesting. It is a regular divided highway that cuts diagonally through the entire state of Mississippi. It is noted all over the place, including on maps, that you MUST not be armed when on the silly road.


This whole ban on federal property thing is rediculous. Nothing could more blatently "infringe."

 

[voilsb]

the ban on Post Offices which is statutory and would require an act of Congress and much public debate to overturn. Plus, the ban on Post Offices arose in response to shootings by postal employees and so carries more weight with the public

The ban on carrying in Post Offices is a Federal Regulation (CFR), not Federal Law (USC). It prohibits the carrying of firearms for unlawful purposes.

From this, we know that 1.) It's not a law, and does not carry the force of law and 2.) If you're not carrying for an unlawful purpose, it's not even against the regulation.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Actually, the CFR, as well as "state administrative code" ( not statutory law ) DOES carry the "full force of law". There are some exceptions WRT areas of conflict. Basically, in a nutshell an administrative code, or CFR violation would be defined as a particular 'misdemeanor' unless otherwise specified. Each section of statutory law which creates an entity of the State contains legalese which gives the entity the ability to create regulations with the full force of law. These regulations are legitimate, and have been routinely upheld in court. There are limited exceptions, such as when an administrative code, or CFR contradicts, is 'more strict', or otherwise attempts to criminalize that for which the State has 'already enacted a law in an express attempt to occupy the field'. Where there is a direct conflict between state law vs. state administrative rule, state law prevails. This doesn't mean you don't get arrested, or even that you won't be prosecuted. On the contrary, these "entities" know that failure to prosecute will embolden mere citizens, and accordingly if you dare to challenge them, they will attempt to make an example of you.
Similarly, Federal law - and perhaps CFR, I am not clear on the latter, trumps state Constitution, statutory, and administrative law. So even though in Virginia, for example, I am not otherwise prohibited by law from carrying on NPS land, it's still a violation of CFR, and I'll still get arrested, and get a court date if I were inclined to do this, and got caught.

The Post office, and NPS are different in the aspect that the Post Office has both statutory, AND CRF prohibitions, whereas the NPS has only the CRF to rely on.

Here's a Packing.org (pro carry) analysis. YMMV; Caveat Emptor.
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html

<question; or rather, thinking out loud>
I wonder if the NPS regulation could be challenged on Second amendment grounds? It's a 'weak' enactment, a direct violation ( remember "Bear arms" )of 2A and it could force a case. For example, if this were challenged in the 5th US circuit, the court would have to apply Strict Scrutiny to the CFR. because Emerson held that 2A protected an individual, fundamental right.... Any thoughts?

 

[Cosmoline]

The NPS has long had a very different attitude towards public land management than the BLM or Forest Service. The BLM and forest service are fairly low-key, budget-poor agencies. They have small staffing levels and rely heavily on the states to set policy for the lands they manage. For example, forest service lands in AK simply mirror state hunting regs.

NPS is radically different. It has long considered the lands it manages as its own land--not public land. It views citizens as tourists to be carefully managed and controlled. And it views the ideal relationship between wildlife and man as a brown bear sow ten yards from a tour bus or a boar eating salmon below a tour group on a walkway. In AK it has long taken a "****" attitude towards locals, to put it blutly. Objecting even to minimal use of "its" parks for snow machine travel in the winter. In its well-known fight with the Pilgrim family the NPS spent hundreds of thousands to keep them from driving on an old mining road nobody visited or even knew about. Frankly while the outfit does a good job with small historic parks, it stinks at large-scale land and wildlife management. The gun ban is just the tip of the iceberg. The term "JBT" fits their people quite well, unfortunately.

 

[yonderway]

Here is what some Park Rangers think about how dangerous US
Parks really are:
http://www.rangerfop.com/danger03.htm

Check your links; that one is no good.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Thanks for letting me know about the link. I was able to get a copy of the original, but won't be able to upload it to the web until tonight.