Joined
·
5,591 Posts
Please support the rule change to allow legal concealed carry in National Parks by submitting a comment on the proposed rule change.
All public comments are due by 30 June 2008.
Basically, this change makes it so that we can carry in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges in a manner consistent with state laws, i.e. if the state in which the National Park or National Wildlife Refuge resides (or partly resides) allows concealed carry in equivalent state parks, this change would allow us to carry in the National Park or National Wildlife Refuge within that state.
To post your comments, go to:
PROPOSED RULES - General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service
Then follow the directions in the "How To Comment" section.
This is very important to all of us. There are many areas in Utah where we are forced to be defenseless because we have so many National Parks. Let's change that!!!
So, simple or detailed, short or long, please comment on the proposed rule change. Numbers count on these things.
Here's my comment that I submitted:
All public comments are due by 30 June 2008.
Basically, this change makes it so that we can carry in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges in a manner consistent with state laws, i.e. if the state in which the National Park or National Wildlife Refuge resides (or partly resides) allows concealed carry in equivalent state parks, this change would allow us to carry in the National Park or National Wildlife Refuge within that state.
To post your comments, go to:
PROPOSED RULES - General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service
Then follow the directions in the "How To Comment" section.
This is very important to all of us. There are many areas in Utah where we are forced to be defenseless because we have so many National Parks. Let's change that!!!
So, simple or detailed, short or long, please comment on the proposed rule change. Numbers count on these things.
Here's my comment that I submitted:
Dear Sirs,
For many years now, the burdensome restrictions found within 36 CFR 2.4 and 50
CFR 27.42 have forced law-abiding citizens, who are allowed by their states to
carry loaded firearms for self-defense, to go defenseless when entering national
parks or wildlife refuges. Not only do the current regulations violate the 2nd
Amendment rights of Americans, they also establish large areas of land in which
criminals are emboldened by the knowledge that their potential victims are
forced to be defenseless.
Also, as a practical matter, speaking as a person who has lawfully carried a gun
for self-defense for several years, I can also state that the safest place for
my self-defense firearm is in its holster on my person -- not in the trunk of my
car where it is subject to being stolen by a criminal in a smash-and-grab type
of crime when I'm out of my vehicle.
Therefore, I am writing to support the proposed rule change (RIN:1024-AD70)
which will provide an exemption for those people who are authorized by their
states to carry a loaded firearm for self-defense.
The one issue of concern that I would like to raise about this proposed rule
change is this: Many states that allow the carrying of self-defense firearms do
not require that said firearms be kept concealed. I personally know many people
who carry their self-defense firearms concealed, but I know many others who
often carry their firearms openly. This is perfectly legal in many states
including mine. From the wording of the proposed rule change, I am concerned
that a person, who is authorized by the state to carry a self-defense firearm
openly or concealed, might inadvertently run afoul of Federal law enforcement
officers who might choose to interpret these rules to say that the firearms must
be concealed. Such an interpretation would violate the principle of Federalism
that was invoked in the introductory paragraph of this proposed rule change.
Therefore, I ask that the proposed rule change be modified to remove this
possible ambiguity, such that the rule is consistent with the laws of the states
in which the park or refuge is located.
Sincerest Regards,
J. L. Johnson