Park Ranger Cites Militia Leader, Seizes His Gun

The Arizona Daily Star ^ | Monday, January 27, 2003 | Tim Steller

[Spiff]

Park Ranger Cites Militia Leader, Seizes His Gun

By Tim Steller
© 2003 Arizona Daily Star

A National Park Service ranger cited militia leader Chris Simcox Sunday for carrying a loaded weapon and operating without a permit at Coronado National Memorial in southeastern Arizona.

The chief ranger at the park south of Sierra Vista, Thane Weigand, said it appeared Simcox and William Dore were conducting a patrol of the border. "They were doing a special activity inside the park that's not sanctioned by the park," Weigand said.

Simcox, founder of the Tombstone group Civil Homeland Defense, has been conducting citizen patrols of the border area, but he said that's not what he was doing Sunday afternoon. He said he was simply hiking with Dore.

They were driving along Border Road when they came to a fence with a sign that said no vehicles were permitted, Simcox said. So they parked the van and walked past the fence along the road, not knowing the fence was the park boundary, Simcox said.

"Next thing I know, there's somebody waiting in the bushes for us," Simcox said.

It was a park ranger, who said she had been watching the pair, knew who they were and what they were up to, Simcox said. He and Dore were detained for about 3 1/2 hours, and some belongings were seized, Simcox said. Those belongings included a scanner, two two-way radios, his camera, a cell phone and his pistol.

Weigand said the charges against Simcox and Dore are misdemeanors.

[CyberCowboy777]

She said she knew who they were and was watching and waiting.

This agent had an agenda and should be prosecuted.

I would endorse the same of any LEO that used the law to forward an agenda. They are not mature enough to wear the badge.

[dirtboy]

Philosophy doesn't hold a candle to practicality, when push comes to shove. What would you have had the gentleman in Arizona do, draw down on the Park Service person?

Exactly. Just about everyone on this site is in basic agreement on the 2nd Amendment as a right of the individual to bear arms. But the political and legal realities are far different nowadays. If someone wants to engage in civil disobedience regarding these laws, more power to them. But the battle for the two men in question is illegal immigration.

[justshe]

From http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/e-mail/weapons.htm

Weapon Regulations

---

Possession or use of firearms or other weapons in all National Park System (NPS) areas is prohibited (except as otherwise provided in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36 parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations). With rare exception (such as times when controlled hunting is allowed) weapons are to be dismantled completely and cased while visiting in NPS areas in the United States. In order to transport weapons through NPS areas they must be dismantled and adequately cased or packed in such a way as to prevent their use. Loaded weapons are subject to confiscation by park authorities.

Please contact the Chief Ranger or Superintendent of the park(s) you will be visiting for additional information concerning weapons, traps and nets.

Following is a reprint from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property. It is Section 2.4 Weapons, Traps and Nets.

Code of Federal Regulations
Title 36, Volume 1, Parts 1 to 199
[Revised as of July 1, 1998]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 36CFR2.4] [Page 19-20]
TITLE 36--PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY

CHAPTER I--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 2--RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION

Sec. 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets.
(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net (2) Weapons, traps or nets may be carried, possessed or used: (i) At designated times and locations in park areas where: (A) The taking of wildlife is authorized by law in accordance with Sec. 2.2 of this chapter; (B) The taking of fish is authorized by law in accordance with Sec. 2.3 of this part. (ii) When used for target practice at designated times and at facilities or locations designed and constructed specifically for this purpose and designated pursuant to special regulations. (iii) Within a residential dwelling. For purposes of this subparagraph only, the term ``residential dwelling'' means a fixed housing structure which is either the principal residence of its occupants, or is occupied on a regular and recurring basis by its occupants as an alternate residence or vacation home. (3) Traps, nets and unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use. (b) Carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in a motor vehicle, vessel or other mode of transportation is prohibited, except that carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in a vessel is allowed when such vessel is not being propelled by machinery and is used as a shooting platform in accordance with Federal and State law. (c) The use of a weapon, trap or net in a manner that endangers persons or property is prohibited. (d) The superintendent may issue a permit to carry or possess a weapon, trap or net under the following circumstances: (1) When necessary to support research activities conducted in accordance with Sec. 2.5. (2) To carry firearms for persons in charge of pack trains or saddle horses for emergency use. (3) For employees, agents or cooperating officials in the performance of their official duties. (4) To provide access to otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible. Violation of the terms and conditions of a permit issued pursuant to this paragraph is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit. (e) Authorized Federal, State and local law enforcement officers may carry firearms in the performance of their official duties. (f) The carrying or possessing of a weapon, trap or net in violation of applicable Federal and State laws is prohibited. (g) The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States. [48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 18450, Apr. 30, 1984; 52 FR 35240, Sept. 18, 1987]

[Ruger1099]

I went through this a couple of years ago here in Indiana. I was on another website and someone gave me some crap about carrying concealed handguns in State and National Forests. The guy said it was illegal at all times. Well I couldn't let that slide so I did some research. Come to find out that it is illegal in National Parks and most state properties, this includes State Forests, whether or not you have a permit!

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources told me no handguns on any state property were allowed. I asked them to show me on my permit where it said I couldn't carry on state property. They said it's the law and it was my duty to be aware of it.

I called the Indiana State Police and asked them and they told me I could carry anywhere as long as it wasn't posted somewhere prohibiting it. The Indiana State Police was not aware of the IDNR rules when it came to handguns on state property! Here in Indiana you can carry openly with a permit.

The only National Forest in Indiana is the Hoosier National Forest. I called the United States Department of Agriculture, the agency that oversees the forest. They said there were no restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in the Hoosier National Forest except the campgrounds, which is prohibited.

I guess the 2nd Amendment doesn't always apply when your on public land. I wonder if they restrict other parts of the constitution when your on public land too?

[Chemist_Geek]

There. I think my impression of the politically-tin-eared, mouth-breathing libertarian FR poster is spot-on.

Actually, you just did a dandy impersonation of someone oblivious to modern political realities.

Err, those are one and the same. Precious few people around here lately seem to understand political reality.

[freddy]

were TOLD this by someone? Which is it?

Told to me by what I consider a reliable source and seems completely possible/probable...

[dirtboy]

Loaded weapons are subject to confiscation by park authorities.

Thanks for the post, justshe. Spiff, check this out - the ranger under the regs could confiscate the weapon, but nothing gives her the power to confiscate the other items.

[thatsnotnice]

So they parked the van and walked past the fence along the road, not knowing the fence was the park boundary, Simcox said.

I’m not sure I completely buy that. At various times I lived on land that sided a state wildlife reserve, an Indian reservation, and a state park. I was always well aware of where the boundaries were, even as a kid.

I also can’t imagine (but then, I was from Texas) crossing a fence line without permission or without any idea of whose property I was on. People usually don’t like it when some stranger wanders around in their pasture for no reason. If it happens to be some rancher that has had a problem with theft or vandalism he really isn’t going to like finding you there. It can get you shot. I’d think they’d be smarter than that.

[MineralMan]

"From Spiff's post #52, it looks like the ranger had the draw on them."

It does, doesn't it. OTOH, with a screen name like "Dead Corpse," you gotta wonder. Maybe he _would_ draw down on a Park Service Ranger. I dunno. But, sometimes, discretion makes a lot more sense than foolishness.

Probably the worst slogan pro-2nd Amendment folks have ever come up with is the "out of my cold, dead hands." There are plenty of people who see that as a positive end, not a negative.

As you said, the issue for these good folks in AZ is calling attention to the illegal immigrant problem, and the lack of official response to it. That's their battle. The 2nd Amendment is a different battle.

[DuncanWaring]

The park ranger was probably acting at the behest of new Congresscritter Raul Grijvala.

Grijalva calls for Federal investigation of Arizona Border Groups.

[azsportsterman]

Recent articles in the Sierra Vista Herald and the Tucson Citizen quoted several ranchers on this point. I agree that incidents like this provide ammunition, but limiting the activities of the watch groups to certain areas would probably render them useless. It won't take the coyotes and drug runners long to learn what areas are open to them, and they'll avoid the patrolled areas. No detections, no news coverage. As you stated, the groups will have to be more aware of the situation and act accordingly.

[dirtboy]

Probably the worst slogan pro-2nd Amendment folks have ever come up with is the "out of my cold, dead hands." There are plenty of people who see that as a positive end, not a negative.

You got that right.

[CyberCowboy777]

And they (the Feds and State's) continue to buy up land in each state and county.

The county I live in is something like 70% "public lands". I live in the boonies 45 minutes from a metro area.

[dirtboy]

One other matter, Spiff, Simcox needs to go back and see if the fence was clearly marked as a Park Service boundary either at or clearly visible from the road. That would definitely be a factor in any trial.

[RKV]

Change it to "Over your cold dead body"? Acutally I like "molon labe," myself, but then I like ancient history.

[MineralMan]

"Yes. They should have defended their property against "official oppression"."

That's ridiculous. Then they'd end up in prison for life. Say they took exception to this Park Ranger and the guy _did_ draw and shoot her. How do you think that would further the cause of 2nd Amendment rights?

There are smart ways to do things, and stupid ways to do things. Apparently you prefer the second.

[Dead Corpse]

So where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the power to make such a regulation?

Even gun grabbers like Roscoe affirm that the FedGov is prohibited from passing such restrictions.

This should go to court and these two guys should win.

[Dead Corpse]

Why would he have had to shoot her? She drew on him and was attempting to steal his property. What is so wrong about that? Even if he did, self defense.

Would you just sit there and let just anyone come up and start taking things away from you? Do you own a BMW? I'll be right over!!!

Gutless wonders who won't fight for their Rights are why we are in such bad shape these days.

Stupid? Keep a civil tongue in your head.