Source: http://thefederalregister.com/2008/12/10/E8-29249.html
Timestamp: 2018-05-23 12:44:50
Document Index: 373641844

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 27', 'art 2', 'art 27', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 27', 'ART 2', 'art 2', 'ART 27', 'art 27', '§ 27']

Federal Register | General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National Pa
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, Interior.
SUMMARY: This final rulemaking amends regulations codified in 36 CFR part 2 and 50 CFR part 27, which pertain to the possession and transportation of firearms in national park areas and national wildlife refuges. The final rule updates these regulations to reflect state laws authorizing the possession of concealed firearms, while leaving unchanged the existing regulatory provisions that ensure visitor safety and resource protection such as the prohibitions on poaching and limitations on hunting and target practice.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on January 9, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyle Laverty, 202-208-4416.
America's parks and wildlife refuges are an important part of our shared national heritage, and a source of inspiration and enjoyment for visitors from around the world. For nearly 100 years, Congress has vested the Secretary of the Interior with the responsibility for managing these lands and resources in a manner that ensures their preservation and seeks to provide for the safety of visitors and employees. In administering these lands, Congress has enacted various statutes authorizing the Secretary to work closely with respective State and local governments in the management of these areas. In the following decades, the Department has worked closely with its State, localgovernment and Tribal neighbors, and has adopted regulations in appropriate circumstances that look to the laws of the state in which that unit is located. This final rule is intended to extend similar treatment to non-conflicting state laws pertaining to carrying of concealed weapons.
On December 14, 2007, forty-seven United States Senators from both parties wrote to the Secretary of the Interior asking the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to “remove their prohibitions on law-abiding citizens from transporting and carrying firearms on lands managed by these agencies” by amending their regulations to allow “firearms consistent with the state law where the National Park Service's sites and the National Wildlife Refuges are located.”1 The Senators observed that the “regulations infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners” and that the “inconsistencies in firearms regulations for public lands are confusing, burdensome, and unnecessary.” On February 11, 2008, four additional United States Senators wrote to the Secretary in support of the effort, adding that existing regulations “preempt state regulatory frameworks for transporting and carrying firearms, thus invalidating concealed weapons permits and other state laws that allow law-abiding citizens to transport and carry firearms.”2
1 SeeLetter to the Honorable Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, dated December 14, 2007, from Senators Crapo (ID), Baucus (MT), Craig (ID), Johnson (SD), Inhofe (OK), Tester (MT), Vitter (LA), Pryor (AR), Smith (OR), Lincoln (AR), Hatch (UT), Dorgan (ND), Coleman (MN), Nelson (NE), Coburn (OK), Webb (VA), Gregg (NH), Murkowski (AK), Ensign (NV), Sununu (NH), Stevens (AK), Bennett (UT), Chambliss (GA), Cochran (MS), Isakson (GA), Bunning (KY), Allard (CO), Thune (SD), Grassley (IA), Corker (TN), Lott (MS), Hutchison (TX), Roberts (KS), Martinez (FL), Cornyn (TX), Shelby (AL), Hagel (NE), Graham (SC), Dole (NC), Enzi (WY), McCain (AZ), Barrasso (WY), Brownback (KS), Domenici (NM), DeMint (SC), Sessions (AL), and Kyl (AZ). A copy of this letter may be accessed athttp://www.doi.gov/issues/response_to_senators.html.
2 SeeLetter to the Honorable Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, dated February 11, 2008, from Senators Feingold (WI), Specter (PA), Bond (MO), and Wicker (MS). A copy of this letter may be accessed athttp://www.doi.gov/issues/response_to_senators.html.
The Department agrees with the 51 United States Senators that the regulations should be amended to reflect developments in state law, particularly where, as in this case, the deference can be achieved without impacting the visitors or resources the regulations are designed to protect. Accordingly, on April 30, 2008, the Department chose to address this issue proactively through the development of a proposed regulation, which it published in theFederal Registerwith a request for public comment.See73 FR 23388 (April 30, 2008). The Department initially provided a sixty-day comment period and subsequently provided an additional 30-day comment period. The Department received more than 125,000 comments during the comment period and thereafter formed a working group to carefully review and analyze the submissions.
We believe that in managing parks and refuges we should, as appropriate, make every effort to give the greatest respect to the democratic judgments of State legislatures with respect to concealed firearms. As stated in the proposed rule, Federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize the expertise of the States in this area, and Federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects “state prerogatives and authority.”SeeExecutive Order 13132 of August 10, 1999 (“Federalism”). As explained herein, the Department believes that this rule more appropriately gives effect to these federalism concepts as called for in the Executive Order, while simultaneously maintaining protection of visitors and the values for which these parks and refuges were established. We discuss these considerations more fully below.
II. Discussion A. Summary of the Final Rule
The Department's intent in adopting this final rule is to better reflect the decisions of the States in which parks and refuge units are located to determine who may lawfully possess a firearm within their borders, while preserving the Federal government's authority to manage its lands, buildings, and other facilities. Mindful of that objective, the Department's final rule amends the regulations to allow individuals to carry concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in Federal park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so under non-conflicting state law. By adopting state law in this manner, this rule is similar in approach to that already taken by NPS and FWS in various regulations pertaining to hunting, fishing, motor vehicles and boating. Additionally, the final rule treats state law in a similar manner to regulations adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS), both of which allow visitors to carry weapons consistent with applicable Federal and state laws.See36 CFR 261.8 (a)-(c); 43 CFR 8365.1-7.
During the pendency of our public comment period, the Supreme Court announced its decision inDistrict of Columbiav.Heller, 554 U.S.__ , 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268; 76 U.S.L.W. 4631 (June 26, 2008) (“Heller”), which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a government militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Several individuals, including two members of Congress, wrote the Department suggesting that the Court's decision in this case is of significance to the proposal, and that the Department should extend the public comment period to allow citizens to comment on the potential impacts of this case on the proposed rule. In our view, the Supreme Court's decision inHellerdoes not directly impact our proposal to revise existing Federal regulations to more closely conform our regulations to appropriate state laws.
Response 1:We recognize that Congress may enact comprehensive and preemptive statutes in a wide range of areas that involve national interests. In these instances, the Supreme Court has consistently held that Federal law preempts state law and does not permit further regulation by the States. The Property Clause of the United States Constitution authorizes the Congress to enact laws to maintain and administer the Federal lands, including the laws establishing the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System. These statutes are not necessarily preemptive of the field of law in that they allow for Federal agencies to appropriately adopt state law in a range of subjects, including law enforcement and firearms.See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 1a-3; 1a-6; 1531(c); 1535 (cooperation with states);see alsoCoggins, George C., Wilkinson, Charles F., Leshy, John D., and Fischman, Robert L.,Federal Public Land and Resources Law(6 Ed. 2007), p. 181 (“In most traditionally Federal areas where uniform national regulation is important, such as aliens, navigation, Indian affairs, labor, and civil rights, the Supreme Court has been quick to find preemption. Federal lands have never been regarded as such an area. Indeed, state law has always played an important role, applying to much private activity on federal lands.”). We believe that this principle applies here.
Response 2:We recognize that the proposed rule means that permissible activities in parks and refuges may vary from state to state. However, this circumstance is not unique and has not presented significant problems in other areas where state laws are adopted. For example, current NPS regulations adopt such an approach for hunting, fishing, motor vehicles and boating. Moreover, in the relatively few instances where parks and refuges are located in more than one state, we do not believe that this presents a situation any different than citizens already face. As is generally the case, and is also true under this rule, individuals remain responsible for familiarizing themselves with and obeying all applicable laws, including the laws of the state they are located within. We see no reason why citizens who are authorized to carry a concealed firearm are not capable of undertaking this same due diligence when they cross state boundaries within parks or refuges. In addition, the NPS and FWS will take appropriate steps to inform visitors about the applicable requirements when a unit is located in more than one state.
Response 3:We agree with the commenters that the reference to “similar state lands” in the proposed rule was ambiguous and led to confusion as to what rules would apply to particular Federal park areas and national wildlife refuges. A very diverse range of commenters raised these concerns, including the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), senior employees of the FWS, the State of Alaska, and the West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL). Several commenters suggest that the ambiguities in the proposed language may be readily cured by amending the language of the proposed rule and simply making a more general reference to state law.
Response 4:The available data indicates that National Parks and Wildlife Refuges are less prone to criminal activity than other areas in the United States. However, we also recognize that current statistics show an alarming increase in criminal activity on certain Federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior, especially in areas close to the border and in lands that are not readily accessible by law enforcement authorities. In 2007, for instance, the NPS reported 8 murders, 43 forcible rapes, 57 robberies, and 274 instances of aggravated assault. The fact that these crime rates may be lower than the national average does not mean that parks are free from violence, nor do these figures suggest that people should be less cautious or prepared when visiting a national park unit or national wildlife refuge. Congress recognized this fact in 1994 when it enacted a statute which requires the Department to (1) “compile a list of areas within the National Park System with the highest rates of violent crime” and (2) “make recommendations concerning capital improvements, and other measures, needed within the National Park System to reduce the rates of violent crime, including the rate of sexual assault.” 16 U.S.C. 1a-7a(b)(1)-(2).
Response 5:The Department believes that NPS and FWS law enforcement officers work hard and perform valiant public service in their respective capacities. We also recognize that the NPS and FWS together employ approximately 3,000 full and part-time law enforcement officers who are responsible for patrolling and securing millions of acres of land, a substantial portion of which is remote wilderness. In these circumstances, NPS and FWS law enforcement officers are in no position to guarantee a specific level of public safety on their lands, and cannot prevent all violent offenses and crimes against visitors. See, e.g.,Bowersv.DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no Federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection);Warrenv.District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981) (“the government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen”).
Response 6:We understand that a number of Federal courts of appeal, as well as the Idaho Supreme Court, have concluded that citizens have a right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures from government officials within tents and other temporary structures on public lands.United Statesv.Sandoval, 200 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2000), citingUnited Statesv.Gooch, 6 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir. 1993) (reasonable expectation of privacy in tent on public land).See also Statev.Pruss, 181 P.3d 1231 (Idaho 2008) (“If the travel trailer is protected against government intrusion, then so is the tent.”). However, we are not aware of any cases that have extended this reasoning to the Second Amendment and determined that an individual has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a tent or trailer located on Federal public lands. Until such a precedent is clearly established, the Department will continue to assume that the Supreme Court's decision inHellerapplies to a person's residential dwelling and not to a temporary dwelling on public land.See Heller, Slip Opinion at 56 (the Second Amendment proscribes the way the Federal government may place limits upon a citizen's “inherent right of self-defense [which is] central to the Second Amendment right.”);see also36 CFR 2.4(a)(2) (“weapons * * * may be carried, possessed, or used” within a “residential dwelling”); cf.Pruss, 181 P.3d at 1231 (“The respect for the sanctity of the home does not depend upon whether it is a mansion or hut, or whether it is a permanent or a temporary structure”);see also Millerv.United States, 357 U.S. 301, 307 (1958) (same).
Response 7:Many individuals authorized under State law to carryconcealed firearms are in possession of permits, the acquisition of which is conditioned on some form of training in the use and storage of firearms. Moreover, there is no data before us that would suggest that these citizens lack the requisite skills and/or training to properly use their firearms for self-defense. In fact, statistics maintained by the Justice Department show that from 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, and a majority of these individuals used their firearms during a violent crime. See United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft(1994);see alsoNational Research Council, Committee on Law and Justice,Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review(Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004), pp. 7.
Response 8:The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service and a number of state parks and refuges currently authorize the possession of concealed firearms consistent with the laws of the state in which they are located. The available data does not suggest that visitors to these lands misuse their legally permitted firearms for poaching or illegal shooting, or that there is additional danger posed to the public from lawfully carried concealed firearms. See, e.g., National Research Council, Committee on Law and Justice,Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review(Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004), p.6; Dodenhoff, David,Concealed Carry Legislation: An Examination of the Facts,Wisconsin Public Policy Research Institute (2006), p. 5; see also, Jeffrey Snyder,Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun(October 1997); Kopel, David, et al.,Policy ReviewNo. 78 (July August 1996).
Response 9:We disagree. The final rule continues to maintain existing prohibitions on poaching, unauthorized target shooting, and other illegal uses of firearms, including laws against brandishing a firearm in public. As with any other law or regulation, we expect visitors to obey those requirements. Individuals who break the law by using illegally their concealed firearms will be subjected to arrest and/or prosecution.
Response 10:The Department recognizes that long guns are an important part of America's hunting and recreation tradition, and that many individuals use these arms for self-defense of their home and person. Although we understand that there may be good reasons to update our policies with regard to these firearms, we have decided at this time to adopt a narrowly-tailored rule to give greater respect to state laws which authorize law-abiding citizens to possess and carry concealed firearms.
Response 11:The Department agrees that policies and rules which have a significant effect on the environment must be fully analyzed under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). Consistent with this commitment, we have analyzed the final rule under NEPA and concluded that (i) the action is subject to a categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210 since the final regulation is in the nature of a legal change to existing regulations, and (ii) no “extraordinary circumstances” exist which would prevent the proposed action from being classified as categorically excluded.Id.This decision is fully described in our decision document dated November 18, 2008, which is available to the public athttp://www.doi.gov/.
Response 12:Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides that Federal agencies shall “insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat.” We have analyzed the final rule and have concluded that it is solely a legal amendment to existing rules, and that it does not authorize any new uses or activities that may affect endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat.See50 CFR 402.14(a). For this reason, we have determined that the final rule has “no effect” on listed species or on designated critical habitat. Accordingly, we are not required to conduct a Section 7 consultation under the ESA for the final rule.
Response 13:The Department seeks to provide opportunities for all those who visit national park areas and national wildlife refuges to enjoy their experience. Insofar as the final rule adopts the State law that also governs outside the national park or refuge area, the Department believes that its applicability to these Federal areas will not diminish the experience of most visitors, particularly where, as here, NPS and FWS law enforcement officers already carry firearms which are visible to the public.
III. Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.).
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
The Department has analyzed the final rule under NEPA and determined that the action is subject to a categorical exclusion under applicable regulations.See43 CFR 46.210. First, the rulemaking is in the nature of a legal change to existing rules that will not have any actual effects on the environment. And second, the Department has determined that no “extraordinary circumstances” exist which would prevent the proposed action from being classified as categorically excluded.Id.This decision is fully described in our decision document dated November 18, 2008, which is available to the public athttp://www.doi.gov/.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 36 CFR Part 2 Section 2.4—Weapons, Traps, and Nets
50 CFR Part 27 Section 27.42—Firearms
List of Subjects 36 CFR Part 2
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend part 2 of title 36 and part 27 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: Title 36—Parks, Forests, and Public Property CHAPTER I—NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DOI PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:
Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DOI PART 27—PROHIBITED ACTS 1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows: Authority:
Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 614, as amended (16 U.S.C. 685); Sec. 5, 43 Stat. 651 (16 U.S.C. 725); Sec. 5, Stat. 449 (16 U.S.C. 690d); Sec. 10, 45 Stat. 1224 (16 U.S.C. 715i); Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 402, as amended (16 U.S.C. 664); Sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270 (43 U.S.C. 315a); 49 Stat. 383 as amended; Sec. 4, 76 Stat. (16 U.S.C. 460k); Sec. 4, 80 Stat. 927 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) (5 U.S.C. 685, 752, 690d); 16 U.S.C. 715s).]
Subpart D—Disturbing Violations: With Weapons 2. Amend § 27.42 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Dated: December 5, 2008. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.