hand gun on natchez trace with permit?

[Fallguy]

So just to be sure I'm understanding this.....

After the 9th....we'll be allowed to carry on parks, including the smokies?

Reason I ask is b/c me and couple people are planning an hike up in the smokies and we've had some concerns about possibility of running into problems with bears so I would like to have it with me just in case

In NATIONAL parks. Under TN law state and local parks are still off limits.

[bteague2]

By who?

A federal marshal? A National Park ranger?

What was the charge, exactly?

- OS

A park ranger, I'm pretty sure I posted here about it when it happened.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

always ask the guy thats going to arrest ya, then if he's wrong gentley educate him.

[mac12]

So just to be sure I'm understanding this.....

After the 9th....we'll be allowed to carry on parks, including the smokies?

Reason I ask is b/c me and couple people are planning an hike up in the smokies and we've had some concerns about possibility of running into problems with bears so I would like to have it with me just in case

My understanding is that the state will have to change the law to make it legal to carry in State Parks. Then you can also carry in the federal parks in that state. If this happens, someone will probably screw it up by shooting at the wildlife.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

THE STATE HAS NO JURISDICTION ON FEDERAL PROPERTY

[Fallguy]

My understanding is that the state will have to change the law to make it legal to carry in State Parks. Then you can also carry in the federal parks in that state. If this happens, someone will probably screw it up by shooting at the wildlife.

That is incorrect. The orginal wording of the rule change did have language that said it would follow similar laws of the state on parks. But the final wording had that removed.

However they did word it where each state could pass laws to prevent carry in national parks within that state.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Fallguy

[Reservoir Dog]

THE STATE HAS NO JURISDICTION ON FEDERAL PROPERTY

Actually, that is not true. National parks operate under three different types of jurisdiction: exclusive, concurrent, and proprietary. Only under exclusive jurisdiction do state laws have no authority in national parks (Note: there is a sort of a subset of exclusive called "partial." This allows some state rights, but is pretty much like exclusive). Under concurrent and proprietary jurisdictions, state officers can enforce state laws on federal property to varying degrees. Under proprietary, the state actually has more enforcement authority than the feds. The law under which the national park was formed will determine the level of jurisdiction.

Here is a breakdown of the jurisdictions:

Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction: The Federal government possesses all the authority of the State, subject only to the right of the State to serve criminal and civil process for actions occurring outside the unit. Law enforcement must be provided by the United States since State law may not be enforced by a State officer within a NPS unit under this jurisdiction. Exclusive jurisdiction allows the NPS to enforce Federal criminal statues and also to assimilate State law under Title 18 U.S.C. 13, when no applicable Federal law or regulation exists.

Partial Legislative Jurisdiction: This type of jurisdiction is very similar to exclusive jurisdiction, except that the State has reserved the right to exercise certain authority, such as the right to tax or to sell fishing licenses. Partial legislative jurisdiction allows the NPS to enforce Federal criminal statutes and also to assimilate State law under Title 18 U.S.C. 13, when no applicable Federal law or regulation exists.

Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction: The United States and the States jointly hold and exercise all rights accorded a sovereign, with the broad qualification that such authority is held concurrently. The United States, however, has the superior right under the supremacy clause of the Constitution to carry out Federal functions unimpeded by State regulations. Concurrent jurisdiction allows the NPS to enforce Federal criminal statues and also to assimilate State law under Title 18 U.S.C. 13, when no applicable Federal law or regulation exits.

Proprietary Jurisdiction: The United States has no legislative jurisdiction or measure of the State’s authority over Federal land, but exercises all the rights of a property owner. The United States has, however, certain other constitutional powers that a private individual does not hold. Congress has delegated a measure of that constitutional authority to the NPS to make and enforce regulations (36 CFR Chapter 1) in all NPS areas (see 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h), 1c and 3). A State may exercise its legislative jurisdiction (police power) over the acts of private persons in park areas to the same extent as on privately owned lands. The State may exercise its full civil and criminal jurisdiction over private activities on Federal lands held under proprietary status. The State may not impose its regulatory power directly upon the United States without specific congressional consent, nor may it tax Federal land. The State also may not regulate in a way that would directly interfere with the performance of a United States function, law or regulation.

[Fallguy]

The roadway itself of the Natchez Trace Parkway is a National Park. So prior to the rule change you could NOT legally carry a loaded firearm while traveling on the parkway. I confirmed this last year directly with the rangers office of the parkway.

But when the new rule goes into effect on the 9th as long as you have a permit that is valid in TN, AL and MS you should be able to carry the whole length of it. I have just sent an e-mail to the same ranger asking him to confirm this.

Here is the response I got.

Mr. Fall,

Due to pending lawsuits, the National Park Service has ordered all contacts

concerning this matter be through the Washington Area Offices (WASO),of the

National Park Service. Please contact Tina Kreisher at (202)208-5256.

Thank you for your questions

Ranger Andy Atkins

Guess that is from Brady Bunch's dealings.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/kempthorne-complaint.pdf

[Oh Shoot]

My understanding is that the state will have to change the law to make it legal to carry in State Parks. Then you can also carry in the federal parks in that state. If this happens, someone will probably screw it up by shooting at the wildlife.

Sigh...

Maybe you should READ the RULE, since you won't take anyone else's say so.

- OS

[Guest D Mason]

I have called Tina, At washington office of National park service about carring a conceled weapon on the Natchez Trace Parkway and was told she thought I could if I had a state permit. but would transfer me to some one else to make sure, He was not there but said he would return my call as I left a voice mail..When I find out for sure I will post his answer

[Oh Shoot]

I have called Tina, At washington office of National park service about carring a conceled weapon on the Natchez Trace Parkway and was told she thought I could if I had a state permit. but would transfer me to some one else to make sure, He was not there but said he would return my call as I left a voice mail..When I find out for sure I will post his answer

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyle

Laverty, 202–208–4416.

EDIT: Oh, I see you DID call Washington...never mind my previous comments , which I deleted.

But I'm wondering if NPS is high enough on the bureaucracy to get an informed answer. I was thinking Dept of the Interior. I'm assuming the above number is DOI.

- OS

Edited January 6, 2009 by OhShoot

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Im just going by memory, Im too busy to look it up... but my point about jurisdiction is, even with all those type of jurisdictions... if you have a Federal officer on the scene, and a state officer on the same scene... I think the federal officer has to prosecute. If the federal officer says your good to go, the state officer cant prosecute. The federal officer overrides the state guy... this is a constitutional matter.... IMHO.

[Fallguy]

Im just going by memory, Im too busy to look it up... but my point about jurisdiction is, even with all those type of jurisdictions... if you have a Federal officer on the scene, and a state officer on the same scene... I think the federal officer has to prosecute. If the federal officer says your good to go, the state officer cant prosecute. The federal officer overrides the state guy... this is a constitutional matter.... IMHO.

I get what you are saying. In general a state or local officer couldn't prosocute a violation of federal law on federal property, right?

As far as carry on the NTP. It is a national park, right. The rule change allows for carry in National Parks in states that your permit allows you to carry in right. A TN HCP is valid in TN, AL and MS, right, So as long as the Brady Bunch doesn't win their lawsuit or get a judge to prevent the rule change from going into effect until the lawsuit is settled, we should be ok.

[Oh Shoot]

...

As far as carry on the NTP. It is a national park, right. ...

Well, it's under jurisdiction of the NPS, but they call it "Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail".

Probably doesn't matter, or does it? I still haven't read the whole rule either.

It's called "National Parkway" on Wikipedia's breakdown of all National "stuff", which is kind of interesting to browse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System

But it's definitely not a "National Park".

Law may specify all Dept of Interior Lands or somesuch, but dunno.

- OS

Edited January 6, 2009 by OhShoot

[Reservoir Dog]

Well, it's under jurisdiction of the NPS, but they call it "Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail".

Probably doesn't matter, or does it? I still haven't read the whole rule either.

It's called "National Parkway" on Wikipedia's breakdown of all National "stuff", which is kind of interesting to browse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System

- OS

Natchez Trace Parkway and the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail are different national parks. Both are administered by the Natchez Trace Parkway.

http://www.nps.gov/natr/

http://www.nps.gov/natt/

They are National Parks. It does not need to have "national park" in the name.

[Oh Shoot]

Natchez Trace Parkway and the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail are different national parks. Both are administered by the Natchez Trace Parkway.

http://www.nps.gov/natr/

http://www.nps.gov/natt/

They aren't classed as National Parks.

I refuse to read the new rule on this.

I don't even go to the Smokies since college.

But I can't believe nobody else here hasn't actually read it and commented.

- OS

Edited January 6, 2009 by OhShoot

[GLOCKMEISTER]

If you decide to go ahead and carry in a Fed. park...you show whomever stops you a copy of the new federal law... and there is no way they are going to prosecute you. Its too much in question right now, and if they make a mistake its their azz on the line.

[Reservoir Dog]

They aren't classed as National Parks.

You are getting hung up on semantics. Whether they are called a park, preserve, historic site, battlefield, parkway, recreation area, etc......they are all national parks, and part of the National Park System.

[Oh Shoot]

You are getting hung up on semantics. Whether they are called a park, preserve, historic site, battlefield, parkway, recreation area, etc......they are all national parks, and part of the National Park System.

Okay, counselor

- OS

[Reservoir Dog]

Okay, counselor

Nah, just a former NPS ranger (1992-1994). Ahh, good times.

[Fadex]

This reminds me why I didn't choose Political Science as a major in college.

[Guest D Mason]

Just talked to the Natchez Trace headquarters in Miss. and was told the Federal park law for conceled weapon that was going in effect tomorrow has been delayed. He did not know when it will be in effect. He did say if and when it went in effect you can carry the weapon on the Natchez Trace Parkway if you have a state permit. ....This I guess really answers my question from the DOGS MOUTH..

This was my first post and I thank you all for your input. As a new member I have had a blast and will continue to be on TGO......

[Oh Shoot]

Just talked to the Natchez Trace headquarters in Miss. and was told the Federal park law for conceled weapon that was going in effect tomorrow has been delayed. He did not know when it will be in effect. ...

Well, that's "interesting".

However, I'm quite skeptical of the statement, to say the least.

- OS

[Guest D Mason]

Following the lead set December 30 by a lawsuit by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, two park advocacy groups, the National Parks and Conservation and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, announced that they have filed a similar lawsuit to stop the Bush administration rule to allow loaded, concealed guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. Like the Brady Campaign, the two groups base their legal objection on failure of the Department of the Interior to prepare a environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

Here is the total text of the press release sent out by the two groups:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 7, 2009) - The nation’s leading voice for America’s national parks, the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees late yesterday filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that seeks an injunction against enforcement of the Bush Administration’s new regulation allowing loaded, concealed firearms in national parks, which increases the risk to visitors, park staff, and wildlife, and to have the new rule declared unlawful. The rule is scheduled to take effect this Friday, January 9.

“In a rush to judgment, as a result of political pressure, the outgoing Administration failed to comply with the law, and did not offer adequate reasons for doing so,” said NPCA President Tom Kiernan.

The Bush Administration last month finalized a National Rifle Association-driven rule change to allow loaded, concealed firearms in all national parks except those located in two states: Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not permit concealed weapons. The former rule, put in place by the Reagan Administration, required that firearms transported through national parks be safely stowed and unloaded.

“Our members, with over 20,000 years accumulated experience managing national parks can see absolutely no good coming from the implementation of this rule. More guns equal more risk,” said Bill Wade, Chair of the Executive Council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. “Apparently, the Bush Administration chose to ignore the outpouring of concern voiced during the public comment period,” added Wade.

According to the lawsuit, the Department of the Interior “adopted the Gun Rule with unwarranted haste, without following procedures required by law and without the consideration of its consequences that they are required to observe under law… The new regulation is an affront to the National Parks’ missions and purposes and a threat to the National Parks’ resources and values, which must be held unlawful and set aside.”

The groups are arguing that the rule is unlawful because the Department of the Interior did not conduct an analysis of the rule’s environmental effects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, including the effects of the rule on threatened and endangered species. The suit also argues that the Department of the Interior ignored the National Park Service Organic Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“Any reasonable person would have to conclude that changing these rules to allow more firearms in the national parks could have an environmental impact on park wildlife and resources,” Kiernan added.

In a letter sent to Interior Secretary Kempthorne on April 3, seven former directors of the National Park Service stated that there is no need to change the regulations. “In all our years with the National Park Service, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance,” the letter stated. “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”

The rule also was opposed by the current career leadership of the National Park Service and other park management professionals, including the Association of National Park Rangers and the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

The public agrees: of the 140,000 people who voiced their opinion on this issue during the public comment period, 73 percent opposed allowing loaded, concealed firearms in the national parks.

[Oh Shoot]

....

Here is the total text of the press release sent out by the two groups:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 7, 2009) - The nation’s leading voice for America’s national parks, the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees late yesterday filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that seeks an injunction against enforcement of the Bush Administration’s new regulation allowing loaded, concealed firearms in national parks, which increases the risk to visitors, park staff, and wildlife, and to have the new rule declared unlawful. The rule is scheduled to take effect this Friday, January 9. ...

. ...

Okay.

I can't find any mention that an injunction has been ordered?

You?

(had already done Google News and looked at ConcealedCarry before previous post)

I'm assuming that thousands of folks nation-wide will be packing in national parks tomorrow.

- OS

Edited January 8, 2009 by OhShoot