Posted on 10/27/2016 12:37:56 PM PDT by marktwain
Image from nbc29.com
The National Park Service is giving bad legal advice to people who visit their web page and attempt to find out about firearms policy at various national parks.
For Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming, they claim that firearms "cannot be used as a wildlife protection strategy". From nps.gov:
Federal law also prohibits firearms in certain facilities in this park (such as visitor centers, government offices, etc.); those places are marked with signs at all public entrances. Firearms may not be discharged in this national park (except during legal hunting seasons) and can not be used as a wildlife protection strategy. Bear spray and other safety precautions are the proven methods for preventing bear and other wildlife interactions. See the Bear Safety and Wildlife Viewing pages.Having a firearm as a "wildlife protection strategy" is not illegal. It is not something the park has any say over. It is ruled by state law, not park regulations. The Supreme Court has ruled that the carry of firearms for self defense is a constitutional right, in Heller v. District of Columbia.
It is the responsibility of visitors to understand and comply with all applicable state, local, and federal firearms laws before entering this park. As a starting point, visit the California Attorney General's website.Discharging a firearm for defense of self and others is legal. You may have to show that your purpose was defense, and that a reasonable person would have done what you did, but it is not illegal.
Federal law also prohibits firearms in certain facilities in this park; those places are marked with signs at all public entrances. Discharging a firearm for any reason is illegal.
Q. Why was the National Park Service allowed to ignore the Second Amendment for nearly a hundred years?
A. The ban on firearms was an administrative rule designed to reduce poaching in the parks. As the penalties were small compared to the costs of challenging an administrative rule on constitutional grounds, the National Park Service ignored the Second Amendment until the people pushed Congress to act.
Q. I am frightened by firearms and am leaving the park. Can I have my entrance fee refunded? My annual pass refunded?Have any refunds ever been given? Perhaps it could be determined with a FOIA request.
A. Park superintendents have the authority to provide a refund if the circumstances warrant it.
Mark Magnuson, the chief ranger at Rocky Mountain National Park, was hard-pressed to come up with examples of the law's effects. But one was immediate confusion from visitors.It is time for the National Park Service to move into the 21st Century, and do away with their 20th Century prejudices.
"The year after the law change, we had several complaints from visitors about people openly carrying firearms -- which was now legal," he said. "So it was a little bit of an educational learning curve for members of the public, but not a huge deal."
“wildlife interactions”
They even have to be politically correct with bears?
Then why are Federal Park Rangers armed?
Firearms may not be discharged in this national park (except during legal hunting seasons) and can not be used as a wildlife protection strategy
GOOD, Then EVERY EMPLOYEE of the Park Service should be IMMEDIATELY PROHIBITED from Carrying ANY FIREARM AT ANY TIME.
Where is Paul Rino on pushing this legislation through???
by the way, when Government Employees put stuff like this out there for Public Consumption, a REAL Speaker of the House would RAMROD through Legislation making them LIVE BY IT!!!
Black bears matter.
That’s quite alright National Park Service, when my life or the life of my family is at stake I couldn’t not give the smallest rat’s a** what the legal ramifications are....
What do you do if they are wearing a face mask and attack you?
You better let them kill you becuase if you shoot in self-defese, it’s iilegal.
Yes, liberals ARE that stupid...
It looks like someone needs to sue the National Park Service to allow people to defend themselves by guns if attacked by a marauder or a bear.
Instead, give them a big ol’ bear hug.
An incident may be addressed as an “affirmative defense” invoking “doctrine of competing harms”, to wit:
“Yes, I shot that bear. Yes, that was illegal. HOWEVER, I am legally excused in doing so because obeying the law would have caused far greater harm (grave injury or death) than disobeying it.”
Just one of those weird ways laws work.
In true statist, bureaucratic fashion now, the de-facto rule is: if you have to shoot a bear to defend yourself, then don’t tell anyone.
illegals
A big FU to them!
What were ya doin’ to make that bear soooo angry?
It’s ironic that, in a supposedly “free country”, that public spaces are such bastions of tyranny.
Husband: What a beautiful day. Let’s go for a hike in the National Park.
Wife: That’s not a good idea. There are Grizzly bears out there and they have cubs this time of year.
Husband: Not to worry my dear; I have my trusty 9MM in my pocket.
I wouldn’t feel good about shooting a bear with a 9mm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.