Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
After a bit of searching I was able to find the exact text of the NPS amendment to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. And here it is!
Soooooo... one reading of that seems to indicate that the DOI may not in any way limit the 2nd A. rights of a citizen to any extent beyond what the state where that park is located already does. Period.
However, the DOI previously had very specifically called out "Federal Buildings" as still off limits. From the original DOI rule change press release last April:
Which may be simply because the Secretary does not have the authority to allow weapons in Federal Buildings whether he wants to or not, so his ruling reversing the no-weapons policy in Parks could have no bearing on the legality of doing so in the buildings on that property.
The only other way I can read this is for the Act to declare park buildings to not be "federal buildings" -- so the host state's rules apply within them. It doesn't specifically say that, either.
So, after a lot of reading, I'm still confused.
-Sam
SEC. 512. Protecting Americans from violent crime.
(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.
Soooooo... one reading of that seems to indicate that the DOI may not in any way limit the 2nd A. rights of a citizen to any extent beyond what the state where that park is located already does. Period.
However, the DOI previously had very specifically called out "Federal Buildings" as still off limits. From the original DOI rule change press release last April:
...The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. ... Existing regulations regarding the carrying of firearms remain otherwise unchanged, particularly limitations on poaching and target practice and prohibitions on carrying firearms in federal buildings
Which may be simply because the Secretary does not have the authority to allow weapons in Federal Buildings whether he wants to or not, so his ruling reversing the no-weapons policy in Parks could have no bearing on the legality of doing so in the buildings on that property.
The only other way I can read this is for the Act to declare park buildings to not be "federal buildings" -- so the host state's rules apply within them. It doesn't specifically say that, either.
So, after a lot of reading, I'm still confused.
-Sam
Last edited: