Firearms are now allowed in National Parks ?

[Mike Stanton]

I believe this has been discussed before, however....

https://www.nps.gov/jofi/learn/management/lawsandpolicies.htm

"Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings. These places are marked with signs at public entrances."​

No one wants to be a "Test Case", and I am no Lawyer. I get all my knowledge from the internet.

I visited the Lowell National Park yesterday, and the kids (and me) enjoyed the Canal Boats and Trolley. Highly recommended.

I did not carry, because I am law-abiding, and was unsure if it was legal or not.

Today I have been investigating online, and as a layman, the information published on nps.gov leads me to believe that CC by a person who can do so legally in Mass, can do so in the Lowell National Park.

I did pay careful attention to the signage at the Visitor's Center, and there are most definitely no signs that address firearms.

Like everyone says - wisely - concealed means concealed.

But after reading nps.gov I think CC anywhere in this park is legal.

What do you think ?

​

 

[milktree]

I hope this has changed, but my understanding from when carry became legal in national parks (subject to state laws), it still *excluded* federal buildings.

So, you can go into the park, but the bathroom shacks are off-limits, because they're buildings.


I'd like see an update to this that either confirms or denies that, the above interpretation is *logical*, but really stupid policy.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There was a change a few years ago. In general, carry in national parks is now allowed (if permissible under state law), but any buildings fall under the "federal building" ban and are off limits by law.

 

[Mike Stanton]

"Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings. These places are marked with signs at public entrances."

The Lowell Visitor's Center has no such notices.

Yeah, I know the 2A seems pretty clear, too.



Wouldn't it be nice if both the State and the Feds just posted SIGNS where Firearms are prohibited ? Is that so much to ask ?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Wouldn't it be nice if both the State and the Feds just posted SIGNS where Firearms are prohibited ? Is that so much to ask ?

The lack of a sign is an affirmative defense, however, the courts have held that a sign posted inside a federal facility is adequate notice you cannot bring a gun into said facility.

 

[Mike Stanton]

The lack of a sign is an affirmative defense, however, the courts have held that a sign posted inside a federal facility is adequate notice you cannot bring a gun into said facility.

Yeah, I know. You are right.

Gun Owners are boned no matter what.

We had a good 1/2 hour to wander about inside before the Tour began, and as far as I could see there were no "Firearm" signs inside, either.

No matter. Still, I think we can agree that a firearm, unloaded, in a locked case, inside your vehicle, parked in a National Park, is legal. As well as simply walking about.

It's only the BUILDINGS we need to be concerned about. Which is a major improvement.

We need Justice Cavenaugh more than ever.

 

[milktree]

The lack of a sign is an affirmative defense, however, the courts have held that a sign posted inside a federal facility is adequate notice you cannot bring a gun into said facility.

If I'm reading you correctly, a sign you can only see after you've violated the law is considered "adequate notice"?

 

[Mike Stanton]

If I'm reading you correctly, a sign you can only see after you've violated the law is considered "adequate notice"?

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

[oldgunner]

I rarely allow signs to dictate to me where I do and don't carry. Concealed means concealed!

 

[Len-2A Training]

If I'm reading you correctly, a sign you can only see after you've violated the law is considered "adequate notice"?

Yes. Or no sign at all. We spend 5 days in Acadia NP last year. No signs about guns/weapons to be seen anywhere in/outside any buildings. But it would still be illegal to carry in the buildings.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

It's only the BUILDINGS we need to be concerned about. Which is a major improvement.

We need Justice Cavenaugh more than ever.

Unless you need to take a leak.

Bob

 

[Mike Stanton]

Yes. Or no sign at all. We spend 5 days in Acadia NP last year. No signs about guns/weapons to be seen anywhere in/outside any buildings. But it would still be illegal to carry in the buildings.

I realize that a few words, even on an Official Government Web Site, are not the Law. The intent of every Law is settled in Court.

But here it is, from NPS.GOV:

"Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings. These places are marked with signs at public entrances."

How do they twist their minds around that ?

Any reasonable person, IMHO, would conclude "NO SIGN = FIREARMS NOT PROHIBITED".

Just before they were arrested.

 

[milktree]

I realize that a few words, even on an Official Government Web Site, are not the Law. The intent of every Law is settled in Court.

But here it is, from NPS.GOV:

"Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings. These places are marked with signs at public entrances."

How do they twist their minds around that ?

Any reasonable person, IMHO, would conclude "NO SIGN = FIREARMS NOT PROHIBITED".

Just before they were arrested.

Have you ever seen those signs in restaurants or in the kitchen of the gun club that say, "this sink is for hand-washing only"?

They don't mean, "all hand washing must be done in this sink", they mean, "this sink has a specific reserved function, which is hand washing." That sign has no bearing on other sinks.

"certain" doesn't exclude "all". So, the existence of some signs at some buildings does not mean the absence of a sign means it's legal.

 

[Tallen]

Excuse me while I petition for separate but equal facilities. The bathrooms and water fountains will be clearly marked: "GUNS" and "NO GUNS". Which do you suppose will be more heavily trafficked?

 

[Mike Stanton]

Have you ever seen those signs in restaurants or in the kitchen of the gun club that say, "this sink is for hand-washing only"?

They don't mean, "all hand washing must be done in this sink", they mean, "this sink has a specific reserved function, which is hand washing." That sign has no bearing on other sinks.

"certain" doesn't exclude "all". So, the existence of some signs at some buildings does not mean the absence of a sign means it's legal.

Let's just say I buy that reasoning. Which, BTW, is exactly what I fear our corrupt government would likely argue.

In Lowell there is only one Visitor Center - it has no signage.

Just because there is some NPS Visitor Center, somewhere, that has signage, I don't believe that sign applies to a different NPS location miles away.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Yes. Or no sign at all. We spend 5 days in Acadia NP last year. No signs about guns/weapons to be seen anywhere in/outside any buildings. But it would still be illegal to carry in the buildings.

And in the park at all, unless you have a non-resident or resident permit (despite the state otherwise being Constitutional Carry).

 

[milktree]

Let's just say I buy that reasoning. Which, BTW, is exactly what I fear our corrupt government would likely argue.

In Lowell there is only one Visitor Center - it has no signage.

Just because there is some NPS Visitor Center, somewhere, that has signage, I don't believe that sign applies to a different NPS location miles away.

You're wrong.

You're wrong because the law says that guns are not allowed in any federal building.

The law says nothing about necessary signage, or even that there ought to be signage. It's just illegal, period. Signage is irrelevant.

The existence of a sign at federal building "A" has absolutely no bearing on the legality at federal building "B"

The sign is 100% unnecessary for the law to be in force.

Don't believe me? Try removing a sign and then claiming it's legal to enter the building. It's not THE SIGN that makes it illegal to take a gun into the building. The sign is informational only.

 

[Mike Stanton]

Just more government nonsense:

https://home.nps.gov/wica/learn/management/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=3153015

Q. Can I take a firearm anywhere I go in the park? A. No. Federal law prohibits firearms in “federal facilities,” which are generally defined as federallyowned or -leased buildings where federal employees work on a regular basis. Buildings that meet this definition will have signs posted at public entrances noting the prohibition on firearms. In addition, privately-owned or -operated facilities within park boundaries may not allow firearms, consistent with the laws of that state.

I'm betting it boils down to the NPS gets a teeny-tiny slap on the wrist (if that) for not posting signage, while the Gun Owner gets Jail Time.

 

[Mike Stanton]

And in the park at all, unless you have a non-resident or resident permit (despite the state otherwise being Constitutional Carry).

That's a State matter.

A MA LTC is invalid pretty much everywhere but MA.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

You're wrong.

You're wrong because the law says that guns are not allowed in any federal building.

The law says nothing about necessary signage, or even that there ought to be signage. It's just illegal, period. Signage is irrelevant.

The existence of a sign at federal building "A" has absolutely no bearing on the legality at federal building "B"

The sign is 100% unnecessary for the law to be in force.

Don't believe me? Try removing a sign and then claiming it's legal to enter the building. It's not THE SIGN that makes it illegal to take a gun into the building. The sign is informational only.

Exactly.

Meanwhile in Maine there are laws about not carrying in bars... however the law specifically states that the sign must be posted, otherwise, you're all set.

That's a State matter.

A MA LTC is invalid pretty much everywhere but MA.

You'd be surprised, however you need no LTC to carry open or concealed in Maine (from any state). Why they didn't address at a state level (since it is a state level issue) the need for a Maine license to carry in Acadia is beyond me, when the licensing overhaul went through I mean... Maybe we'll see it before LePage goes.

 

[milktree]

Just more government nonsense:

https://home.nps.gov/wica/learn/management/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=3153015

Q. Can I take a firearm anywhere I go in the park? A. No. Federal law prohibits firearms in “federal facilities,” which are generally defined as federallyowned or -leased buildings where federal employees work on a regular basis. Buildings that meet this definition will have signs posted at public entrances noting the prohibition on firearms. In addition, privately-owned or -operated facilities within park boundaries may not allow firearms, consistent with the laws of that state.

I'm betting it boils down to the NPS gets a teeny-tiny slap on the wrist (if that) for not posting signage, while the Gun Owner gets Jail Time.

You're missing the point: Websites do not make law. They don't define the limits of law. If THE LAW doesn't specify signage, then signage is irrelevant. Period.

"generally defined"?? What the hell does that mean?

 

[Mike Stanton]

You're wrong.

You're wrong because the law says that guns are not allowed in any federal building.

The law says nothing about necessary signage, or even that there ought to be signage. It's just illegal, period. Signage is irrelevant.

The existence of a sign at federal building "A" has absolutely no bearing on the legality at federal building "B"

The sign is 100% unnecessary for the law to be in force.

Don't believe me? Try removing a sign and then claiming it's legal to enter the building. It's not THE SIGN that makes it illegal to take a gun into the building. The sign is informational only.

I totally believe you.

My confusion is why the NPS even bothers to state "Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings. These places are marked with signs at public entrances."

If the actual law is "Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in park facilities and buildings."

 

[Mike Stanton]

You're missing the point: Websites do not make law. They don't define the limits of law. If THE LAW doesn't specify signage, then signage is irrelevant. Period.

"generally defined"?? What the hell does that mean?

That's what I'd like to know.

Those are the published words of the NPS, not mine.

 

[milktree]

I totally believe you.

My confusion is why the NPS even bothers to state "Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings. These places are marked with signs at public entrances."

If the actual law is "Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in park facilities and buildings."

Because people are lazy and stupid, or just mistaken.


I would totally believe that someone said "they don't actually care about bathrooms and probably won't enforce it there" and through a game of telephone whoever wrote the text for the website misunderstood.

 

[Mike Stanton]

Exactly.

Meanwhile in Maine there are laws about not carrying in bars... however the law specifically states that the sign must be posted, otherwise, you're all set.




You'd be surprised, however you need no LTC to carry open or concealed in Maine (from any state). Why they didn't address at a state level (since it is a state level issue) the need for a Maine license to carry in Acadia is beyond me, when the licensing overhaul went through I mean... Maybe we'll see it before LePage goes.

Gun Laws suck so bad.

 

[BUMPA01603]

I would lock my gun in my car and make sure I have one or two knives on me, maybe three....

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A MA LTC is invalid pretty much everywhere but MA.

There are a number of stated including TX, NV and IN that recognize a MA LTC.

 

[Mike Stanton]

I would lock my gun in my car and make sure I have one or two knives on me, maybe three....

In the Glove Box.

 

[Mike Stanton]

There are a number of stated including TX, NV and IN that recognize a MA LTC.

That shocks me.

Good to know.

 

[Editor]

A MA LTC is invalid pretty much everywhere but MA.

Looks to me a Massachusetts LTC is recognized in 27 other states, though that number does include the handful of states with constitutional carry.