National Parks self defense ban - END GAME

Status
Not open for further replies.

Smurfslayer

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,296
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Ladies and gentlemen,

In light of the decision in Heller, PLEASE, go to the regulation.gov website and comment on the NPS weapons regulations amendment. There is less than 1 week left t comment, so it is URGENT that your get involved and get others involved commenting on the regulation proposal NOW!


http://www.bighammer.net/timeline.html#06/26/08

Go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648053d497 - this is www.regulations.gov document number 1024-AD70

Suggested comments:



Pursuant to the US Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Dick Heller, both the existing and proposed National Park Service & National Wildlife Refuge weapons regulations are invalid, unconstitutional and void. The Virginia Citizens Defense League and over 4 dozen co-petitioning organizations advised the Parks service of this as long ago as 2004. Since the holding in Heller is that their total ban on handguns infringes the 2nd Amendment, DOI and NPS should accept the VCDL petition language as follows and implement the regulation IMMEDIATELY after the comment period closing:


I support the proposed change to permit loaded firearms / weapons in National Parks and Wildlife refuges but comment that the proposed regulation should be amended as follows:


Title 36--Parks, Forests, and Public Property

CHAPTER I?NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DOI

PART 2?RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION

1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 17j-2, 462.

2. Amend § 2.4 by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§ 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets.

* * * * *

(h) A person may possess, carry, and transport loaded, and operable firearms or other weapons within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport loaded and operable firearms or other weapons in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.

Title 50--Wildlife and Fisheries

CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DOI

PART 27--PROHIBITED ACTS

1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 614, as amended (16 U.S.C. 685); Sec. 5, 43 Stat. 651 (16 U.S.C. 725); Sec. 5, Stat. 449 (16 U.S.C. 690d); Sec. 10, 45 Stat. 1224 (16 U.S.C. 715i); Sec. 4, 48 Stat.402, as amended (16 U.S.C. 664); Sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270 (43 U.S.C. 315a); 49 Stat. 383 as amended; Sec. 4, 76 Stat. (16 U.S.C. 460k); Sec. 4, 80 Stat. 927 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) (5 U.S.C.685, 752, 690d); 16 U.S.C. 715s).

Subpart D -- Disturbing Violations: With Weapons

2. Amend § 27.42 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 27.42 Firearms.

* * * * *

Under existing legal doctrine, once a law is held unconstitutional, it is stricken; in the case of the park service CFR 36, regulation 2.4, it is almost exactly the same as the District of Columbia, and therefore void. Further, the DOI proposed regulation with it's flawed "analogous state lands" language and is thereby also in violation since any state level bans on bearing arms in analogous state lands would also be implicated under Heller. The Department of the Interior is hereby instructed to IMMEDIATELY amend the current regulations pursuant to the VCDL petition language, copied below and the decision of the US Supreme court rendered in Heller. The Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right protecting the rights to keep arms and bear arms which supersedes CFR 36 regulation 2.4.


end.

EVEN IF you already commented, you can submit an amendment to your comments with the above text.

Thanks!
 
Thank you.

Well, I tried, but none of the fields allowed me to select that document ID # which you referenced (1024-AD70 ). Therefore, my only choice was to allow to submit to the "General" Park Service regulations. This is the message I got after submitting:

Thank you. Your comment on Document ID: FWS-R9-NSR-2008-0062-0001 has been sent.
Quite a different document ID # - not even close to the same *format*, let alone the same number/alpha combo.

Does that mean that my comment will find it's way to the proposed changes on carrying in parks, or not?
 
Let's also not forget today's Heller ruling, that said that having a gun for self-defense is an individual right.
 
It's a good idea IMO. I have hiked and camped in many parks myself.

My only concern, as a citizen who has a deep respect and love for the outdoors and the few remaining vestiges of our wild heritage that are contained within these national parks, is poaching. Poachers will now have an excuse to be armed when encountering rangers. Thoughts?
 
My only concern, as a citizen who has a deep respect and love for the outdoors and the few remaining vestiges of our wild heritage that are contained within these national parks, is poaching. Poachers will now have an excuse to be armed when encountering rangers. Thoughts?

Poachers with concealed handguns? How would the ranger ever even know, and how would the poacher hide the body of the dead deer?

-T
 
Poachers will now have an excuse to be armed when encountering rangers

If they are armed , with no dead animal present , they are not "poachers" yet . If they have a dead animal , killed by them , and have a firearm , they are poachers.

We don't want to go down the road of "preventative" measures , which is what most gun laws are based on . "Why would he NEED a gun unless he's going to commit a crime?"





.
 
Did anybody else notice that Scalia went out of his way to condemn English "game laws" as being a thinly-disguised personal self defense ban?
 
I don't see how anyone could be successfully prosecuted for merely possessing a self-defense handgun in a national park after the Heller decision. That doesn't mean someone wouldn't have to spend a lot of money possibly fighting unconstitutionally brought charges, but ultimately they should have the case dismissed. Still, I hope the DOI makes this a non-issue, and repeals their ban.
 
One more round in the breach..... The NPS is a federal agency, so there should be no incorporation concerns with any of their regulations. I would be surprised if they were not already combing through all of their paperwork - blacking out all the wording inconsistent with a (correct) individual right 2A.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top