Re: Maine seeks to stymie federal law on guns in parks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022403921_pf.html

Maine seeks to stymie federal law on guns in parks


AUGUSTA, Maine -- Lawmakers in Maine, home to one of the nation's most-visited national parks, are considering whether to override a new federal law that allows guns in the sanctuaries.

A law that took effect Monday lets licensed gun owners take firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges - provided state law doesn't say otherwise. No states have laws that supersede the new policy, officials say.

The Maine bill would outlaw guns in Acadia National Park and the St. Croix Island International Historic Site.

"There are places where we don't carry guns. There's families in this state that really appreciate that," said Sen. Stanley Gerzofsky, a Brunswick Democrat who is co-chairman of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee - and a hunter and gun owner. "Now, there's also families in the state that also want to be able to pack bazookas, but that's a little different story."

But Wayne Bosowicz, a seasoned hunter and licensed guide from Sebec, said Wednesday that he wished he'd been allowed to carry a gun when a bear confronted him in Yellowstone National Park two years ago.

"If there's something that brings a level of comfort to folks, why not?" said Bosowicz, adding that he sees the new federal law as "a little like going back in time to apple pie and motherhood." .....

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

If we need guns to have apple pies, then we really do need to rethink this society.

In addition to seasonal ranger experience in the early 70's, I have been a Wyoming peace officer for the past 27 1/2 years, and I urge caution and restraint on this issue. I, for one, have absolutely no plan to carry an assembled and undeclared firearm into any park. There are too many variables in what some might think to be easy and cut/dried topic, and I have no desire to be a legal guinea pig in a federal court. Wyoming is relatively firearm friendly, but there are three types of NPS jurisdiction: Exlusive (Yellowstone), Concurrent (Grand Teton) and Proprietary (Fossil Butte). The State of Wyoming has only civil jurisdiction in the first, theoretically equal in the second and theoretically the highest in the third. I more than suspect the US Attorney for Wyoming will have to establish separate protocols for each type of jurisdiction. As for Yosemite, the situation probably gets even more confusing for firearms approved for possession within California; "Sorry, your particular weapon has been deemed to be inherently unsafe in this state."

I plan to wait until the dust settles...

Quote
Dearborn
Wyoming is relatively firearm friendly, but there are three types of NPS jurisdiction: Exlusive (Yellowstone), Concurrent (Grand Teton) and Proprietary (Fossil Butte). The State of Wyoming has only civil jurisdiction in the first, theoretically equal in the second and theoretically the highest in the third. I more than suspect the US Attorney for Wyoming will have to establish separate protocols for each type of jurisdiction. As for Yosemite, the situation probably gets even more confusing for firearms approved for possession within California; "Sorry, your particular weapon has been deemed to be inherently unsafe in this state."

I plan to wait until the dust settles...

So does that type of jurisdiction have much to do with Yellowstone being established before Wyoming became a state?

I suspect that Yellowstone's establishment in 1872 has something to do with the exclusive jurisdiction, but I believe that Yosemite might also have exclusive jurisdiction. I would imagine that Section 35 in Wawona would be an exception, however, because of the private inholdings.

Until some clear determinations are made on the new firearms legislation, I would certainly encourage a cautious approach.

Quote
Dearborn
I suspect that Yellowstone's establishment in 1872 has something to do with the exclusive jurisdiction, but I believe that Yosemite might also have exclusive jurisdiction. I would imagine that Section 35 in Wawona would be an exception, however, because of the private inholdings.

Until some clear determinations are made on the new firearms legislation, I would certainly encourage a cautious approach.

I looked it up:

http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/DOrder9.html

By the same token, I've heard of some LE rangers being deputized by county sheriffs in order to have legal authority to enforce state/county laws. Point Reyes NS had a notorious case of one LE ranger who had been praised for some actions, as well as faulted for some crazy stuff he did, including pepper spraying some unarmed kids walking away from him well off NPS land. My understanding is that initial incident was because he decided to conduct a traffic stop for a missing license plate - off NPS land. Later on, the Marin County Sheriff Dept clarified that they didn't deputize NPS LE rangers so that they could conduct routine enforcement actions of NPS land, although technically they couldn't stop them from doing it. My understanding is that often law enforcement agencies try not to mess with other jurisdictions unless they see something like a serious crime in progress. For instance, I've almost never seen local law enforcement in California issue tickets on freeways. I've heard that the CHP tend to make a fuss when that happens.

http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/nov10_04/sheriff_v_rangers.html

As for carrying firearms, apparently there are groups that are insistent that they should "demonstrate" their rights. However - even in NPS areas I thought that certain rights are subject to limits. Free speech rights are actually allowed in NPS areas, but one is required to seek a permit before handing out literature or holding a rally. I'm just wondering why the law as written didn't clarify that firearms should be declared at the earliest possible convenience. As it is now, I'm thinking this is going to be a drag on LE rangers in Yosemite. I've read that California law mandates that anyone open carrying must submit to an inspection of the weapon by a peace officer. I saw a photo of this happening with a group of open carry advocates, and the guy leaned up against a wall like he was being arrested, while the officer checked his gun to see that it wasn't loaded.