Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

USFWS Announces Firearms-Possession Policy Change

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

February 19, 2010

USFWS Announces Firearms-Possession Policy Change

By Dave Hurteau

From a US Fish and Wildlife Service press release:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced that effective February 22, 2010, the rules governing possession of firearms on National Wildlife Refuges will change as a result of legislation enacted by Congress. After this date, the law allows an individual to lawfully possess a firearm within the boundaries of a National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with federal and state firearms laws. . . .

The new law applies to all 551 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as well as the National Monuments and the 392 units of the National Park System.

While the law will change the application of rules regarding possession of firearms, it has no impact on the authorized uses of firearms on National Wildlife Refuges. The law does not allow visitors to fire or discharge the firearms in any way, brandish the weapon in the view of others, or any other use of the firearm. Enforcement of regulations concerning firearms use remains under the purview of the Department of the Interior.

In short, the law does not expand hunting opportunities or any other authorized use of a firearm beyond what is already allowed within the Refuge system. But—and this is the bottom line--it does let you possess a firearm in a bunch of places where you previously couldn’t.

Comments (18)

Top Rated
All Comments
from dukkillr wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Great. It's about time.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

This is a step in the right direction.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RichardF wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Maybe by the time my kids are my age they will be able to draw a permit to hunt one of these sacred areas.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from alabamaoutlaw wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

AMen it has been a drawn out processand glad it's finally enacted.This statement will always stay with me."I rather be fined than to spent eternity in a pile of bear scat"

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jerry A. wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

I would skip wearing a firearm in a national Wildlife Refuge if the bears, cougars and wolves would give up their rights to have teeth and claws.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from jeffo52284 wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

haha well said jerry and alabama. glad this finally passed

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ggmack wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

I have always carried at least one weapon, be it edged or other wise, on me ever since the rabid dog came after me a few years ago. I hold no ill feelings towards four legged predators it is their nature. it is the two legged ones that I have a real issue with.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

I called USFWS and got clarification on this new/change of regulation. Basically the law still forbids the position of Firearms in a Federal Buildings, Court House etc. that hasn’t changed at all. In other words, what they have done is to recognize the State Law of the position of and the carry of a firearm. Nothing has really changed, just recognizes the State Law of Position. This new law does not give you any authorization to discharge of a firearm what so ever with the only exception of Self Defense in according to your State and Local Law period! If your State authorizes you for open carry, use common sense not to be brandishing any firearm to attract unwanted reaction and of course you want to give consideration to those around you not to rattle them of the position of a firearm. The really good news about this, this change now allows Hunters to cross Federally Owned Property by legal means, motorized vehicle or on foot to access land which was previous land locked by surrounding private property, other Federal Land etc. Military installations this does not apply!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Sigh...It's about time! Nuff said.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RonDak wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

For months and months before the election, countless threads on this site bashed Obama as anti gun and oh no he is going to take my guns and oh no we are screwed. Now he allows this legislation to go through, and surprise, nobody gives him praise..... I guess they didn't give much attention to this topic on Fox....

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

A win for us and added protection in the back country ...both from wildlife and a potential deliverance moment (had to add that to get a chuckle)
but lets face it everyone we encounter outdoors ain't exactly our freind and case in point Californias ongoing battle with the Mexican pot growers in a National Forrest

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

When I called to get clarification for the new change in regulations for USFWS, I wound up calling the Department of Interior in Washington DC. I was both shocked and surprised after about an hour and a half of being passed from here to there and back again the was finally directed to the right place to an individuals who knows exactly what the new regulation in tales. The Gentleman I spoke to was actually excited over the change and expressed He too now has access to areas he couldn’t get to prior to this change. It’s nice he said to have a regulation that is now standard and has common since in all Government Controlled Lands and the possession and carry is now the same as State level. The change in regulation all boils down to common since law at the State level laws and regulation of possession and carry. He did say, don’t be brandishing a firearm. In other words, unless you feel really lonely and desiring to meet new people who don't like you!!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Freedom Jones wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Just out of curiosity where in the constitution does it ALLOW congress to make it illegal in the first place. I read the article and several comments here and for a bunch of hunting and fishing enthusiasts not many here actaully understand what the difference is between a right and a privilege. Everyone of you needs to read and understand the constitution before the government comes in and takes your rights (any of them).

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sourdough Dave wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Amen Mr. Jones and a +1 for you. Took the words right off my keyboard.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Freedom Jones

Very good point, the same as having the privilege not the right to travel on a roadway from one town to another. Roads are built to do what? For Commerce to pass from one point to the other, in other words for commerce to be regulated, not for a Sunday drive!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Notice the -1 like on JohnR, the idiots can't handle it!

JonR, I gave ya a +1 to correct that bastardly deed!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joel Panian wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

This is nice to hear. I'd love to hike the Appalachian Trail one day, but doing it without some form of firepower never sounded like a good idea to me.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

this just gives the drug dealers and sexual predators one more place where they will have to think twice before making someone a victim. you just never know what you will encounter when you attack someone.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

To give the devil his due, this did happen on Obama's watch. But on the other hand, it doesn't give us anything more than we already had in the rest of the state in which a National Wildlife Refuge is located.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

I am amazed that this could happen under the present adminstration. Hopefully other firearms laws will pass in the gunowner's favor. Being a retired law enforcement officer, President Bush signed a bill into law that we can carry a concealed weapon everywhere in the US. I hope that we will get a nationwide right to carry law passed soon so that the average gunowner is allowed to carry nationwide if they have a concealed carry permit from their home state . I think crime would be less. Let's all keep working on our lawmakers.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bluecollarkid wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

"the law allows an individual to lawfully possess a firearm within the boundaries of a National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with federal and state firearms laws"

"The law does not allow visitors to fire or discharge the firearms in any way, brandish the weapon in the view of others, or any other use of the firearm."

Alright, so according to the text and most likely strict interpretation of the law, one can carry a firearm but not discharge it within the refuge/park (i.e. for self defense purposes or "any other use"). The legal wording has made the right and fight to carry arms in national parks a nullity unless I am missing something here.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

This should be good news for people traveling to certain National Parks. Every year, several people are amuled/ killed in Glacier every year. It does not make national or even state news. Other than that, Laws do not do much for social control. Most people are going to avoid trouble anyway. A few are going to trample the rights of the rest of despite any laws passed. They are born not caring or otherwise unwilling to mind their own business.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from alabamaoutlaw wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

AMen it has been a drawn out processand glad it's finally enacted.This statement will always stay with me."I rather be fined than to spent eternity in a pile of bear scat"

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jerry A. wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

I would skip wearing a firearm in a national Wildlife Refuge if the bears, cougars and wolves would give up their rights to have teeth and claws.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Freedom Jones wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Just out of curiosity where in the constitution does it ALLOW congress to make it illegal in the first place. I read the article and several comments here and for a bunch of hunting and fishing enthusiasts not many here actaully understand what the difference is between a right and a privilege. Everyone of you needs to read and understand the constitution before the government comes in and takes your rights (any of them).

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from ggmack wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

I have always carried at least one weapon, be it edged or other wise, on me ever since the rabid dog came after me a few years ago. I hold no ill feelings towards four legged predators it is their nature. it is the two legged ones that I have a real issue with.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from dukkillr wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Great. It's about time.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

This is a step in the right direction.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jeffo52284 wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

haha well said jerry and alabama. glad this finally passed

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Sigh...It's about time! Nuff said.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

When I called to get clarification for the new change in regulations for USFWS, I wound up calling the Department of Interior in Washington DC. I was both shocked and surprised after about an hour and a half of being passed from here to there and back again the was finally directed to the right place to an individuals who knows exactly what the new regulation in tales. The Gentleman I spoke to was actually excited over the change and expressed He too now has access to areas he couldn’t get to prior to this change. It’s nice he said to have a regulation that is now standard and has common since in all Government Controlled Lands and the possession and carry is now the same as State level. The change in regulation all boils down to common since law at the State level laws and regulation of possession and carry. He did say, don’t be brandishing a firearm. In other words, unless you feel really lonely and desiring to meet new people who don't like you!!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

this just gives the drug dealers and sexual predators one more place where they will have to think twice before making someone a victim. you just never know what you will encounter when you attack someone.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RichardF wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Maybe by the time my kids are my age they will be able to draw a permit to hunt one of these sacred areas.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

I called USFWS and got clarification on this new/change of regulation. Basically the law still forbids the position of Firearms in a Federal Buildings, Court House etc. that hasn’t changed at all. In other words, what they have done is to recognize the State Law of the position of and the carry of a firearm. Nothing has really changed, just recognizes the State Law of Position. This new law does not give you any authorization to discharge of a firearm what so ever with the only exception of Self Defense in according to your State and Local Law period! If your State authorizes you for open carry, use common sense not to be brandishing any firearm to attract unwanted reaction and of course you want to give consideration to those around you not to rattle them of the position of a firearm. The really good news about this, this change now allows Hunters to cross Federally Owned Property by legal means, motorized vehicle or on foot to access land which was previous land locked by surrounding private property, other Federal Land etc. Military installations this does not apply!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sourdough Dave wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Amen Mr. Jones and a +1 for you. Took the words right off my keyboard.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Freedom Jones

Very good point, the same as having the privilege not the right to travel on a roadway from one town to another. Roads are built to do what? For Commerce to pass from one point to the other, in other words for commerce to be regulated, not for a Sunday drive!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

Notice the -1 like on JohnR, the idiots can't handle it!

JonR, I gave ya a +1 to correct that bastardly deed!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joel Panian wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

This is nice to hear. I'd love to hike the Appalachian Trail one day, but doing it without some form of firepower never sounded like a good idea to me.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

To give the devil his due, this did happen on Obama's watch. But on the other hand, it doesn't give us anything more than we already had in the rest of the state in which a National Wildlife Refuge is located.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

I am amazed that this could happen under the present adminstration. Hopefully other firearms laws will pass in the gunowner's favor. Being a retired law enforcement officer, President Bush signed a bill into law that we can carry a concealed weapon everywhere in the US. I hope that we will get a nationwide right to carry law passed soon so that the average gunowner is allowed to carry nationwide if they have a concealed carry permit from their home state . I think crime would be less. Let's all keep working on our lawmakers.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

A win for us and added protection in the back country ...both from wildlife and a potential deliverance moment (had to add that to get a chuckle)
but lets face it everyone we encounter outdoors ain't exactly our freind and case in point Californias ongoing battle with the Mexican pot growers in a National Forrest

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bluecollarkid wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

"the law allows an individual to lawfully possess a firearm within the boundaries of a National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with federal and state firearms laws"

"The law does not allow visitors to fire or discharge the firearms in any way, brandish the weapon in the view of others, or any other use of the firearm."

Alright, so according to the text and most likely strict interpretation of the law, one can carry a firearm but not discharge it within the refuge/park (i.e. for self defense purposes or "any other use"). The legal wording has made the right and fight to carry arms in national parks a nullity unless I am missing something here.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

This should be good news for people traveling to certain National Parks. Every year, several people are amuled/ killed in Glacier every year. It does not make national or even state news. Other than that, Laws do not do much for social control. Most people are going to avoid trouble anyway. A few are going to trample the rights of the rest of despite any laws passed. They are born not caring or otherwise unwilling to mind their own business.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RonDak wrote 2 years 13 weeks ago

For months and months before the election, countless threads on this site bashed Obama as anti gun and oh no he is going to take my guns and oh no we are screwed. Now he allows this legislation to go through, and surprise, nobody gives him praise..... I guess they didn't give much attention to this topic on Fox....

-2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs