natchez trace parkway...legal to carry? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : natchez trace parkway...legal to carry?


Ridgeway
03-07-2007, 20:01
Spent the last couple days in Jackson apartment hunting.
As most of the nicer complex's are in the Ridgeland area it necessitates traversing Natchez Trace Parkway.
I glean that this is a national park, creating a ccdw quandry for me.
The signs to it from the expressway are brown to signify that it's a park. I know carrying in the park itself would be prohibited, but if carrying on the road itself is a no no, how can one get home? Must I disarm and break down the firearm each time I approach the parkway, or can I travel the roadway (again to/from my apartment)?

ty

Cliff Cargill
03-08-2007, 08:12
Nope, it's a felony. Separate the gun from the ammo. I had to drive through there on my way to an out of town match about ten years ago. I took my guns apart and put them in a plastic bag just to be sure.

Hope this helps.:thumbsup:

OXCOPS
03-08-2007, 08:18
The Trace is not a state roadway, but instead a federal park. Federal park rules apply.

NoloContendere
03-08-2007, 08:30
I will put an email in to Senator Ross to see if it matters that you are carrying in your car and not on your 'person.'

It should matter that the gun is in your car, but, i'll try to find out.

OXCOPS
03-08-2007, 09:07
Originally posted by NoloContendere
I will put an email in to Senator Ross to see if it matters that you are carrying in your car and not on your 'person.'

It should matter that the gun is in your car, but, i'll try to find out.

Not according to the NPS LE ranger on the Trace I talked to.

Ridgeway
03-08-2007, 10:30
hmm, bummer that will be a hassle


ty for the info

NoloContendere
03-08-2007, 11:20
Originally posted by OXCOPS
Not according to the NPS LE ranger on the Trace I talked to.

yeah, i hear ya... just wondering what the intent of the legislature was. and if it is like we think, then perhaps we can get it changed.

OXCOPS
03-08-2007, 12:11
Originally posted by NoloContendere
yeah, i hear ya... just wondering what the intent of the legislature was. and if it is like we think, then perhaps we can get it changed.

Can the state legislature do anything about a federal park? I am sure they could formally ask the NPS, but I doubt that would get anywhere.

NoloContendere
03-08-2007, 13:26
Originally posted by OXCOPS
Can the state legislature do anything about a federal park? I am sure they could formally ask the NPS, but I doubt that would get anywhere.

well, since the 2A only covers the fed. govt., perhaps we can challenge it on that. Lemme see what I can uncover.

sweetatergal
03-08-2007, 14:00
From my understanding you can't even carry in the vehicle unless gun is unloaded and ammo is seperate "area" of vehicle. Hubby was down in Jackson Alligator hunting last September and 2 of his buddies were in a seperate vehicle, pulling the boat, when he got stopped on the Natchez Parkway. When MHP saw the gun in the glove box (he opened it looking for his registration) she wigged out on them, went around to the passenger side of the vehicle, grabbed the gun, unloaded it, threw gun back in glove box and threw ammo in back of truck. Then let them go.

Does that help any?

Ridgeway
03-08-2007, 14:15
Originally posted by sweetatergal


Does that help any?

Seems like it not only effects ccdw then but also just going to & from the range.
Perhaps it's worth it to drive down a few more miles to grab another on ramp to I55.

Somehow I doubt they will want to change the regulation, even though that section of the parkway is in the middle of a high pop. density area.

OXCOPS
03-08-2007, 15:10
Originally posted by sweetatergal
From my understanding you can't even carry in the vehicle unless gun is unloaded and ammo is seperate "area" of vehicle. Hubby was down in Jackson Alligator hunting last September and 2 of his buddies were in a seperate vehicle, pulling the boat, when he got stopped on the Natchez Parkway. When MHP saw the gun in the glove box (he opened it looking for his registration) she wigged out on them, went around to the passenger side of the vehicle, grabbed the gun, unloaded it, threw gun back in glove box and threw ammo in back of truck. Then let them go.

Does that help any?


MHP doesn't run the Trace. Was it an NPS ranger instead?

sweetatergal
03-08-2007, 15:39
Originally posted by OXCOPS
MHP doesn't run the Trace. Was it an NPS ranger instead?

It very well could have been and the guys just thought it was MHP. They originally got stopped for going too slow.

PARAGON
03-08-2007, 19:27
Originally posted by NoloContendere
well, since the 2A only covers the fed. govt., perhaps we can challenge it on that. Lemme see what I can uncover. Personally, I think there are multiple angles to challenge it. First, it's intent was for hunting purposes: read the title
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/36cfr2_02.html

Secondly, it denies access to the 2nd amendment rights of US citizens, and, thirdly, it also conflicts with the castle doctrine that allows state citizens to defend themselves within their vehicles and the premise that their vehicles is an extension of the homes.

At the very minimum, a provision to allow persons with concealed carry permits to exercise this right could be had. Even an off-duty LEO not carrying out his lawful duties, riding on the Trace would be in violation of this provision.

Again, it's apparent is was placed to limit hunting situations, not personal protection. Something should be changed.

OXCOPS
03-08-2007, 20:10
Originally posted by PARAGON
Personally, I think there are multiple angles to challenge it. First, it's intent was for hunting purposes: read the title
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/36cfr2_02.html

Secondly, it denies access to the 2nd amendment rights of US citizens, and, thirdly, it also conflicts with the castle doctrine that allows state citizens to defend themselves within their vehicles and the premise that their vehicles is an extension of the homes.

At the very minimum, a provision to allow persons with concealed carry permits to exercise this right could be had. Even an off-duty LEO not carrying out his lawful duties, riding on the Trace would be in violation of this provision.

Again, it's apparent is was placed to limit hunting situations, not personal protection. Something should be changed.


Would the policy of a federal agency (NPS) trump the state laws permitting carry in your vehicle? I don't believe the Trace would be considered a traditional federal highway (i.e. Interstate system), but rather a road that goes through a national park.

NoloContendere
03-08-2007, 23:05
Ox,

Yes, the federal law would trump state law in this area. That's why when CA gives away a medical marijuana card, it's still a federal offense and they can prosecute it federally.

I will email Ross and see if he can give us some more advice, and perhaps, we can email Lott and Cochran and maybe get the ball rolling on a change.

PARAGON
03-09-2007, 07:27
Originally posted by OXCOPS
Would the policy of a federal agency (NPS) trump the state laws permitting carry in your vehicle? I don't believe the Trace would be considered a traditional federal highway (i.e. Interstate system), but rather a road that goes through a national park. Yeah, exactly.

That's why one would have to lobby to have changes made to the provisions based upon rights of the state's citizens like I mentioned above.

In the case of the Trace, it's used as a travel route and it's illogical to assume that I would stop at Highway 43, remove my sidearm, unload it and place it in the vehicle in such a way to adhere to the NPS provision that was set out for hunting violators. Then travel a few miles and get back off at Old Canton Rd., stop and load my weapon and holster it once again.

OXCOPS
03-09-2007, 17:20
Well, the ranger I talked with said what most LEOs in this area say. "Out of sight, out of mind. If it's out of sight, I don't mind." Most will not give you any trouble over it, unless there is another reason for them to look closer.

However, that is a courtesy. Just because they chose to let you off the hook on it, doesn't mean the next guy will.

OXCOPS
03-09-2007, 17:21
Oh, and....





"Damn The Man!"


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: