Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure they've asked all the friends if this guy was in the habit of taking a gun with him everywhere, for no reason, you know, just because. We don't have open carry in California, btw, and it's not easy to get a concealed carry permit. In other words, just his being in possession of a loaded gun while walking in the park would most likely have been a misdemeanor, if not a felony. It's not the kind of thing most people would risk just because their girlfriend has been annoyed by a stalker who is probably a hundred miles away.
It's not illegal to carry a handgun in a National Park.
Quote:
Firearms
As of February 22, 2010, federal law allows people who can legally possess firearms under applicable federal, state, and local laws, to legally possess firearms in this park.
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.
Federal law also prohibits firearms in certain facilities in this park; those places are marked with signs at all public entrances.
It's not illegal to carry a handgun in a National Park.
As your link indicates, in units of the National Park system, it is legally to carry a handgun if it is legal to do so in the state where that unit is located. In California, it is difficult - though not impossible, depending upon the county in which one lives - to get a CCW. The couple was from Orange County, where there are fewer than 15,000 permits out of a population of 3+ million. So while it's possible that he was carrying legally, it is highly unlikely.
That said, I wouldn't ascribe that disregard (or ignorance, as the case may be) of the law as a nefarious indication of murderous intent.
As your link indicates, in units of the National Park system, it is legally to carry a handgun if it is legal to do so in the state where that unit is located. In California, it is difficult - though not impossible, depending upon the county in which one lives - to get a CCW. The couple was from Orange County, where there are fewer than 15,000 permits out of a population of 3+ million. So while it's possible that he was carrying legally, it is highly unlikely.
That said, I wouldn't ascribe that disregard (or ignorance, as the case may be) of the law as a nefarious indication of murderous intent.
State laws do not trump federal laws. The state has no jurisdiction in a national park. That article clearly says it is legal to carry firearms in Joshua Tree National Park. You must check with the California Attorney General's website for information on how to comply with the law, before entering the park, not in the park. If he legally owned that gun, then it was legal for him to carry it in the park.
I'm confused by the wording in that statement about guns in national parks. It talks first about complying with applicable state (and local, federal) laws. Also, it doesn't say it is legal to "carry" a gun, but that it is legal to "possess" a gun.
Many people possess legally owned firearms in California, but they are neither able to open carry (prohibited in most cases) or concealed carry (because they lack a license, which is hard to get). So it sounds to me as though "complying with all state laws" means I can bring my legally owned, unloaded gun into a national park and leave it in the locked trunk of my car, but I can't carry around a loaded weapon.
Is that wrong?
ETA: I am finding conflicting info by googling. For instance, this:
Quote:
The National Parks (not Forests - that's a completely different bureaucracy) must allow firearms in the Parks, subject to all State laws. Here in California, we have a concealed ban, a loaded ban, an unloaded open carry ban, etc. And the loaded and open carry bans are applicable anywhere shooting is prohibited. And the NPs have banned ALL shooting. Therefore, loading and open carrying are not legal, per state law, as a result of NP no-shooting policy.
“The Federal laws,” the bill continued, “should make it clear that the Second Amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.”
Today, the national parks system makes clear: “That means people can openly carry legal handguns, rifles, shotguns and other firearms and also may carry concealed guns as allowed by state statute.”
If he had been carrying illegally wouldn't that have likely made it into all these news stories too? Yet there is no mention of even hint in this regard.
I'm confused by the wording in that statement about guns in national parks. It talks first about complying with applicable state (and local, federal) laws. Also, it doesn't say it is legal to "carry" a gun, but that it is legal to "possess" a gun.
Many people possess legally owned firearms in California, but they are neither able to open carry (prohibited in most cases) or concealed carry (because they lack a license, which is hard to get). So it sounds to me as though "complying with all state laws" means I can bring my legally owned, unloaded gun into a national park and leave it in the locked trunk of my car, but I can't carry around a loaded weapon.
Is that wrong?
ETA: I am finding conflicting info by googling. For instance, this:
If he had been carrying illegally wouldn't that have likely made it into all these news stories too? Yet there is no mention of even hint in this regard.
Well, that settles that! And as a security guard, he'd have a license to carry a concealed weapon.
Well, that settles that! And as a security guard, he'd have a license to carry a concealed weapon.
Not necessarily. When someone works armed security, the weapon is exposed. A CCW (concealed carry weapons permit) is extremely hard to get in CA. But anyone can buy a gun if they pass the background check, though.
Not necessarily. When someone works armed security, the weapon is exposed. A CCW (concealed carry weapons permit) is extremely hard to get in CA. But anyone can buy a gun if they pass the background check, though.
OK, so that would mean that he was carrying the gun illegally. Why weren't the police all over that, in the investigation? Is "because she'd had a stalker, recently" a plausible excuse? An acceptable reason to break the law?
OK, so that would mean that he was carrying the gun illegally. Why weren't the police all over that, in the investigation? Is "because she'd had a stalker, recently" a plausible excuse? An acceptable reason to break the law?
If it is illegal to carry a firearm then there is no valid excuse. You can't just say you feel you or someone's life is in danger. However if you can prove that your life is in danger (restraining order against a hostile stalker) or your job carries extra risk (armored truck) then these will be good causes to get a CCW approved. Still no guarantees though. In OC there's an estimated 9300 CCW permits for 2016 for a population of over 3 million.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
