Wow I might actually go to a National Park now
| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/ |
|
| New Regs for Carry in National Parks http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=11009 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | SultanOfBrunei [ Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
someone1980 wrote: Who should we be sending thank you letters to? +1 |
|
| Author: | Srigs [ Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow I might actually go to a National Park now
|
|
| Author: | jdege [ Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Srigs wrote: Wow I might actually go to a National Park now There are National Park Service lands in the Mississippi river gorge: http://www.nps.gov/miss/parkmgmt/upload/Acro%202006%20OSPO%20Map%202.pdf |
|
| Author: | Tabsr [ Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | States Right |
So, you can carry if the state the NP is in allows it! |
|
| Author: | jdege [ Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: States Right |
Tabsr wrote: So, you can carry if the state the NP is in allows it! The way you phrase that makes it sound as if you meant that you can carry in a NP if the state the NP is in allows you to carry in that NP. That's not quite right. The rule allows you to carry in a NP if the state that the NP is in allows you to carry in the state. NOTE: The proposed rule allowed carry if the state allowed carry in "similar state lands". From http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf: Quote: During the course of the public comment process, a number of entities, including the State of Alaska and employees of the FWS, suggested that the Department's reference to "similar state lands" in the proposed regulation is ambiguous and confusing since individual States provide for various management regimes that make it difficult to determine what areas are actually similar. As discussed more fully below, the Department agrees with this concern and has deleted this language in the final rule. So it's not "you can carry in a National Park if you can carry in a State Park", which is what was being discussed some months ago. It's "you can carry in a National Park if you can carry in the State", which is what we had originally asked for. Great news. |
|
| Author: | Dee [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So, reciprocity would allow me to carry in a National Park in Utah or other state that recognizes the MN permit? |
|
| Author: | mnglocker [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dee wrote: So, reciprocity would allow me to carry in a National Park in Utah or other state that recognizes the MN permit? that's how I'm reading it. |
|
| Author: | Ramoel [ Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
But not before January 9, 2009. As we announced last week, the Department of Interior has released their new regulation that will recognize Right-to-Carry in national parks in those states that allow Right-to-Carry. It is important to note, however, that the new regulations do not take effect until 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register. The new rules, which were announced on December 5, were published in the Register on December 10. That makes January 9 the first day it will be legal to carry a loaded firearm in National Parks or refuges. Until then, the old regulations that ban possession of loaded firearms are still in effect. |
|
| Author: | MostlyHarmless [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The antis are trying to get this overturned in court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... eheadlines |
|
| Author: | ree [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MostlyHarmless wrote: The antis are trying to get this overturned in court. From that article: Quote: The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas." |
|
| Author: | Fiasco [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looks like the Obama administration has put a stop to this one. From the story... "This afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signed a memorandum sent to all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration," the White House said in a statement issued just hours after Obama took office." "Controversial late rules by the outgoing Bush administration include allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in some national parks..." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090121/pl_ ... egulations |
|
| Author: | phorvick [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As noted in another similar thread, the park rules are NOT pending, they are a done deal effective 1-9-09. |
|
| Author: | Fiasco [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
phorvick wrote: As noted in another similar thread, the park rules are NOT pending, they are a done deal effective 1-9-09. I wasn't aware of that. That means this story is misleading. Can you direct me to the other thread? |
|
| Author: | phorvick [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Fiasco wrote: phorvick wrote: As noted in another similar thread, the park rules are NOT pending, they are a done deal effective 1-9-09. I wasn't aware of that. That means this story is misleading. Can you direct me to the other thread? That is not to say that I am right, but this was not some whim by Pres. Bush; this was an ongoing battle/process for many years that happened to culminate and end on Jan 9th. Certainly Obama can begin the process to change the rule, but the same rule-making process would need be undertaken and that could take many many months. But...there is at least one lawsuit also on the matter...I suppose an injunction could issue as there are many unfriendly judges out there. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|