[TiredPete]

I am planning a kayak camping/fishing trip to Garden Key in the DTNP and while browsing the website I found this, http://www.nps.gov/drto/faqs.htm#CP_JUMP_121103:
"Can I have a firearm in the Park? Carrying or possessing a loaded firearm is prohibited in federal facilities, including the fort. All other areas of the park is regulated by state law."
It looks like they are calling the entire fort a Federal Facility, not just the Visitors Center, Park Headquarters and the Park Rangers living quarters which are located inside the fort. I went and looked up Fort Sumter, which is similar in nature and only found the normal rules. Looks like an overreach to me...

 

[bttbbob]

Maybe this should help.......make sure you read the bolded part............This change was made in all National Parks as of Feb 22 2010




New Firearms Law Takes Effect Monday - National parks now subject to state and local firearms laws


WASHINGTON – A change in federal law effective Monday, February 22, allows firearms in many national parks. People who can legally possess firearms under federal and state law can now possess those firearms in the national parks in that state. The new law (Sec. 512 of P.L. 111-24) was passed by Congress and signed last May by the President.

Prior to February 22, firearms have generally been prohibited in national parks – except in some Alaska parks and those parks that allow hunting.

State and local firearms laws vary. Visitors who would like to bring a firearm with them to a national park need to understand and comply with the applicable laws. More than 30 national parks are located in more than one state, so visitors need to know where they are in those parks and which state’s law applies.

“For nearly 100 years, the mission of the National Park Service has been to protect and preserve the parks and to help all visitors enjoy them,” National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said. “We will administer this law as we do all others – fairly and consistently.”

Federal law continues to prohibit the possession of firearms in designated “federal facilities” in national parks, for example, visitor centers, offices, or maintenance buildings. These places are posted with “firearms prohibited” signs at public entrances. The new law also does not change prohibitions on the use of firearms in national parks and does not change hunting regulations. Park websites have been updated to include links to state firearms laws to help visitors understand the law and plan accordingly.

Sec. 512 of P.L. 111-24, an amendment to the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009, also directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to follow state and local firearms laws in national wildlife refuges

 

[Brian75]

I think Bob pretty much covered it. Here is a link and photos to the last time it was discussed.

http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?22703-Fort-Jefferson-Dry-Tortugas

 

[Rvrctyrngr]

As discussed in the linked thread, since there are federal park rangers working/living in the fort, itself, me thinks it would definitely be considered a 'federal facility'.

Also as stated in the linked thread, I know who is NOT going to be a test case.

 

[guns and more]

It looks like they are calling the entire fort a Federal Facility, not just the Visitors Center, Park Headquarters and the Park Rangers living quarters

The fort is actually bigger than the island.
Visitors center? What visitors center?
I highly recommend the trip. Keep in mind there is (was) nothing to buy other than two postcards. NO FOOD OR WATER. That's how it became know as "Dry" and "Tortuga" because there were a lot of turtles.
It's totally beautiful in a historical way.
We went on our boat and stayed a week. Canoe? Eh.

 

[TitleIIToyLover]

The park service continues to cite 18 USC 930 as their authority to ban legal firearms from their facilities.

I will continue to argue that the park service does not have the statutory authority to ban legally carried firearms until they provide a authority other than 18 USC 930 and so far they have NOT.

The USPS and VA clearly cite their authority, because thy have such. I can only believe that the park service continues to rely on citations of 930 because they do not have the authority that they suggest.
opcorn

With that said, I'm not volunteering to be the test case.

My test case limit is "open carry to and from".

18 USC 930
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly
possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous
weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility),
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon
be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes
to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal
facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of
subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal
facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon,
or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as
provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to -
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer,
agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political
subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a
Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such
possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
purposes.

 

[dwkfym]

The fort is actually bigger than the island.
Visitors center? What visitors center?
I highly recommend the trip. Keep in mind there is (was) nothing to buy other than two postcards. NO FOOD OR WATER. That's how it became know as "Dry" and "Tortuga" because there were a lot of turtles.
It's totally beautiful in a historical way.
We went on our boat and stayed a week. Canoe? Eh.

A seasoned kayaker can definitely make the trip. I used to paddle a total 14 miles on a crappy sit on top on each kayak fishing trip! Someone in a real sit-inside can definitely make the trip.

I sailed to Key West from Marathon in my little 17 foot pocket cruiser. I wish I'd gone all the way to dry tortugas! My crew were inexperienced and landsick so I didn't want to push it.

 

[guns and more]

A seasoned kayaker can definitely make the trip. I used to paddle a total 14 miles on a crappy sit on top on each kayak fishing trip! Someone in a real sit-inside can definitely make the trip.

I sailed to Key West from Marathon in my little 17 foot pocket cruiser. I wish I'd gone all the way to dry tortugas! My crew were inexperienced and landsick so I didn't want to push it.

The Dry Tortugas are 75 miles west of Key West. You traverse the Marquesas Keys, where there is a pretty good current. I came in from the north, making the jump from Sanibel to Garden Key, about 100 miles, but deep water. Either way, you will be out of radio range, and have to bring all your supplies. (food and water). You can take a seaplane, or there are tourist boats. My boat was very capable at 33',
but it was still a rough crossing. I felt like Columbus when I spied the lighthouse on Long Key shortly after sunrise. The dolphins swam under the bow and the water was super clear. Do it, but go safely.:2thumsup

 

[dwkfym]

I don't know why I thought it was only 35 miles away? Please disregard my advice above. I amend my 'advice' to include only the most hardcore kayakers.. lol!

Is your boat a sailboat? Do you need crew sometimes? I definitely have big boat envy. My boat feels like one of those liferafts on big ships. Hard to sink but as uncomfortable as a sailing vessel can be.

Total mileage for the trip was about 130 miles; mainly because of the limitations of a sailboat going upwind. It was chance of scattered thunderstorms all week; only did it because seas were very flat for the conditions. We'd sail or motor sail (winds were very variable), then at night when everything picks up we'd just anchor out in protected waters. It was kind of hard core; sometimes anchor watchmen would be out there with lightening all around him if the storm passed overhead. My boat is very very seaworthy for its size but its still under 20 feet; its biggest enemy is waves; she can handle a good blow no problem, but getting broadsided by a wave, which only needs to be about 4-5 feet before its higher than my deck, is NOT fun in my boat.

I want to try a bahamas/bimini crossing, then probably try for dry tortugas Then I want a bigger boat, or a faster dinghie. Sorry, going off topic here..!

 

[deadeyedick]

I went out to Fort Jefferson last year (by ferry, not kayak :grin) and had a great time. They do have a 'no weapons' sign posted inside the fort; whether or not it is legally enforceable is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. You will definitely not need a firearm while you're there.

http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?22703-Fort-Jefferson-Dry-Tortugas

 

[TiredPete]

I will be taking the Ferry out, $180 plus $20 for the kayak round trip. 4 days, 3 nights on the island camping, fishing, snorkling, etc. The only reason I started this thread was because I thought it was an overreach by the DTNP to declare the whole fort a federal facility, when most other forts in the park system that I have been to only declare specific buildings or locations, not a whole fort including open grounds.

 

[TitleIIToyLover]

I will be taking the Ferry out, $180 plus $20 for the kayak round trip. 4 days, 3 nights on the island camping, fishing, snorkling, etc. The only reason I started this thread was because I thought it was an overreach by the DTNP to declare the whole fort a federal facility, when most other forts in the park system that I have been to only declare specific buildings or locations, not a whole fort including open grounds.

It is most certainly an overreach. See my previous post concerning 18 USC 930. Not only can they not ban firearms carried for legal purposes from the facility, the fort is not a facility...it's not a building...

18 USC 930...
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

I wish I was rich an could challenge the whole 930 issue.:banghead2

Until I win the lottery, my limit on test cases is the open carry "to and from" thingy.

 

[guns and more]

Not only can they not ban firearms carried for legal purposes from the facility, the fort is not a facility...it's not a building...

Like all things legal, the place to argue is court.
I guarantee there is no court at Ft Jefferson, no cops, no lawyers.......well, maybe some lawyers trying to get away.
So, if you want to make a point, lock and load.
I'd have to say, my time at the Dry Tortugas was probably safer than at
the airport. It's the last place anyone goes to rob someone, there's nothing to steal. Hell, you can't even buy anything.
So, I understand the "rights" thing, but is this the place you want to make your point? All the "jack booted thugs" you'll see are a couple of young kids working in the park and living in the cells.

By the way, Dry Tortugas National Park doesn't really fit any definition because the park is underwater. Ft. Jefferson is just one part, there are 7 (I think) islands. Some tiny (SUV sized) and a couple pretty big ones.
We visited the Coast Guard station on Long Key, and all the doors were open and there was no one there. We could have walked off with the pool table, except it wouldn't fit in the dingy. The dog wagged his tail, and we moved on.
Chill.

 

[Sully]

It is most certainly an overreach. See my previous post concerning 18 USC 930. Not only can they not ban firearms carried for legal purposes from the facility, the fort is not a facility...it's not a building...

18 USC 930...
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties. .

I agree, that is the last place you need a firearm. But just because I like a civil debate... Part thereof is where they can cover anything that someone can hide behind. An example.... just after 9/11 the military bases had random posts they made out of sand bags and a tarp.

 

[TitleIIToyLover]

I agree, that is the last place you need a firearm. But just because I like a civil debate... Part thereof is where they can cover anything that someone can hide behind. An example.... just after 9/11 the military bases had random posts they made out of sand bags and a tarp.

OK, I will be accused of causing thread drift, but Sully, you missed my point - even if the fort was a federal facility, lawful firearms are not banned by 930. See post #6 above.

My original point is that 18 USC 930 does not ban firearms from federal facilities other than courthouses. 930 is being used improperly by the park service as statutory authority to ban otherwise legal guns from areas such as visitor centers.

Just Sayin!

 

[Sully]

I would agree that 930D3 makes anyone licensed to carry immune to 930. But I would definitely say that messing with the feds is like wrestling with a tiger. At some point it is going to bite you

 

[notalawyer]

I would agree that 930D3 makes anyone licensed to carry immune to 930. But I would definitely say that messing with the feds is like wrestling with a tiger. At some point it is going to bite you

Below is, so far, the only case dealing with 18 USC 930(d)(3)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v HOWARD DE LA CRUZ-BANCROFT
United States District Court, D. New Mexico.
October 5, 2009
A Magistrate Judge ruled:

In pertinent part, 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) criminalizes the possession of a firearm in a federal facility, and there is evidence before the Court that Defendant entered the federal facility in question with a holstered firearm. However, 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3) provides an exception to § 930(a) for the "lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purpose." It is clear to the Court that Defendant was carrying a holstered firearm for a lawful purpose prior to his entry into the federal facility, therefore the exception applies in this case. Count 1 of the Information is dismissed.

Then a District Judge overruled:

Defendant argues that § 930(d)(3) permits carrying a firearm into any Federal facility if one was carrying firearm lawfully outside of the Federal facility. However, this interpretation of the exception in § 930(d)(3) suffers from several defects. First, it does not give full effect to the entire statute, which requires a lawful purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. If mere lawful possession of the weapon outside the facility were enough, then there would be no need for the phrase "hunting or other lawful purposes." Thus, the Court concludes that in accordance with the statute, the factfinder should determine Defendant's purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. Second, Defendant's interpretation of § 930(d)(3) would largely swallow the prohibition set forth in § 930(a) generally prohibiting firearms and other dangerous weapons in federal facilities. If mere lawful possession of the firearm outside the Federal facility were enough to permit someone to bring it inside, virtually anyone could bring such a weapon inside a Federal facility for any reason, particularly in a state like New Mexico which liberally permits individuals to carry unconcealed firearms. Finally, Defendant's interpretation would result in inconsistent results. As the parties have pointed out, state laws regarding possessing and carrying weapons in public vary considerably. Some states, like New Mexico, permit citizens to carry unconcealed firearms in public without a license, while others have more restrictive laws. Thus, under Defendant's interpretation of the statute, his act of bringing an unconcealed weapon into a Federal facility would not be unlawful in New Mexico, but would constitute a crime in some other states. There is no indication that Congress intended such an uneven result when it enacted this law to protect those who work and conduct business in Federal facilities.

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record regarding defendant's purpose in bringing the firearm to the Federal facility at 500 Gold on February 27, 2008. As stated above, the statute requires that the purpose be lawful, and that it relate to the Federal facility in some way. At the December 17, 2009 hearing, defendant's counsel suggested that many Americans carry firearms for personal security and self-defense, a purpose that is embraced by Article 2, section 6 of the New Mexico constitution, which authorizes carrying unconcealed firearms in this State. However, from the record it appears that there has been no fact finding as to what the defendant's actual purpose was in bringing the firearm to the Federal facility, whether that purpose was lawful, or whether it related to the Federal facility as required by § 930(d)(3).

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that there is insufficient factual information in the record to determine whether or not 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3) applies to the defendant.
. . .
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's order [Doc. No. 46] dismissing Count I of the Information is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The first judge ruled it as a matter of law, the second said it was a matter to be decided by the finder of fact (judge in bench trial, or jury)

I can find no information on this case since this 1/4/2010 order.

 

[Sully]

How hard is it to prove self defense inside a building of unarmed personnel in the event that such buildings security is breached. Then site Virginia tech shootings and the disarmed victims who carry on a day to day basis for personal protection. Then add the 2nd amendment as the right to bear arms to defend one self from all enemies including the government in argument that the federal building is a "safe" environment. And lastly, any documentation of carrying outside of the federal building for the same purposes to include a carry license of some sort (depending on the jurisdiction in which that federal building is located in) predating the event sited for the trial. For example CWFL from 98-present and event in question occurred in 2011.