Hammerhead
Master
I'm going to apologize in advance for the lack of exact quoting in this story.
I went to MO this last weekend with family to attend a graduation. We decided to play tourist and visit a couple of different locations in the area. The first one was close to Joplin, MO at the George Washington Carver National Monument. This is a National Park with a museum and nature trail. It was a rather interesting place and I did enjoy our visit there save for one thing.
A gun buster sign on the doors that does not tell the whole story.
The sign was not your typical "no guns" sign, it actually quoted the U.S.C., or more accurately it provided the numbers to the U.S.C. that they wanted to use to intimidate and spread fear among the sheep, and "stern warnings" based upon the code that the carry of firearms in the building (not on the grounds) was against federal law. Not only that, but it was double plus bad if you carried a firearm in the building with the intent to commit a crime.
The U.S.C. they used was 18 U.S.C 930 (a) and (b). I was mad. I was frustrated. I wanted to complain. I went and disarmed before walking the trail (even though I didn't need to at that point) because we would be going into the building eventually. I walked and mulled over the situation and my approach. I always enjoy walking in the woods (even on a well groomed and maintained path) and that calmed me and gave me an opportunity to formulate my thoughts.
I decided against "filing a complaint" and instead decided to discuss the situation calmly with someone who was just doing their job. I wanted to find out their opinion and if they knew what the law actually was.
I went in and began a discussion with the Park Ranger. A park ranger, who like many park rangers, was unarmed. I began by asking about the signs, if she knew what the code was, and if she knew that they were providing only a portion of the information. She was aware of the code (at least the portion presented on the signs) and when I asked if she knew the rest of the code, she attempted to show me a printout that referenced the code (but didn't actually have the code anywhere in it).
She asked if I knew the code, and I said yes. I had actually gone and looked it up (wanted to make sure it was the same one the USPS uses to deny carry at post offices and it is; for more on that Google 18 U.S.C. 930 and read the article on Ohioans for Concealed Carry). I informed her that yes, sections (a) and (b) were quoted correctly but that the signs convienently left off section (d), or more specifically section (d)(3). This is the section that provides that (a) and (b) don't apply to people "hunting" or for "other lawful purposes." Of course I mentioned that there are a lot of people that believe (and rightfully so) that being legally licensed and carrying legally constitutes a "lawful purpose."
She stated that she thought that the code allowed for each local entity to decide whether or not to allow firearms. I stated again that section (d) did not make that distinction, nor would allow for that distinction as it is written.
She asked me a question about if I believed that private property owners should have the right to refuse the carry if firearms. I did not get a chance to answer that as we were interrupted. She had some duties to perform and I went about the museum to view its contents.
After a period of time, I went back to the desk and said that I wanted to answer her question. "Yes, of course private property owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including the carry of firearms. However, this isn't private property, it's public land paid for by my taxes because it's a national park." I went on to state that I have never been asked to leave anywhere because of my lawful carry.
She stated that she believed that she was safer there than say at the local Wal-Mart. I asked her about her not being armed and if she believed that the sign provided a "magic bubble" that would protect her and the patrons of the museum. She agreed that this would not be the case, and that the signs only affect the law abiding. I also brought up the fact that had I chose to ignore the signs that she would have had no way of knowing (my holster was still on my belt, under my over shirt that I wore to conceal since I was in MO).
I asked her if she carried outside of work and she stated that she didn't. When I asked why, she stated that there were a couple of reasons. One was that she'd never felt the need and two, that she had a friend that shot his brother thinking that he was an intruder in the night. I stated that was a tragic situation, but that she should look into Suzanna Hupp and I provided her with the basic story.
She admitted that she had no problem with licensed firearm carriers. She admitted that she had no problem with firearms or carry in general. She did, however, state that she was glad that "they don't allow firearms in the building." She admitted that she knew the signs weren't going to stop someone intent on doing harm. She even admitted that there were "various people" that "they were aware of their displeasure" towards the monument and that "they are targets." I jokingly stated that I doubted it was a high priority Al Queda target. She laughed and said it was more like "white supremesists."
We ended the conversation on a cordial tone, and I thanked her for her being open minded about the discussion. I also expressed my desire to inform her and not to spook her. She had also stated that she believed that in order to change or remove the signage would probably take a change in the law, litigation, or some change at the DOI. She also saw the absurdity that carry on the grounds was perfectly acceptable, but that for some reason the building was some twisted place that suddenly made legal firearms carriers into gun wielding psychopaths.
I thanked her for the discussion, we finished our visit and I went and promptly re-armed at the car.
We visited the Daniel Boone Home that sits somewhere NW of St. Louis on Monday. That is not a national park and I saw nothing indicating a prohibition of carry. They had one glaring mistake that the tour guide asked if we spotted. They hung the "replica" (not sure if it was functional or not) rifle and powder horn above the fireplace in the kitchen. She stated that of course this could easily warp the gun or blow the powder horn. They don't use the rifle or the powder horn for their intended purposes, but they do use the fireplace from time to time.
I went to MO this last weekend with family to attend a graduation. We decided to play tourist and visit a couple of different locations in the area. The first one was close to Joplin, MO at the George Washington Carver National Monument. This is a National Park with a museum and nature trail. It was a rather interesting place and I did enjoy our visit there save for one thing.
A gun buster sign on the doors that does not tell the whole story.
The sign was not your typical "no guns" sign, it actually quoted the U.S.C., or more accurately it provided the numbers to the U.S.C. that they wanted to use to intimidate and spread fear among the sheep, and "stern warnings" based upon the code that the carry of firearms in the building (not on the grounds) was against federal law. Not only that, but it was double plus bad if you carried a firearm in the building with the intent to commit a crime.
The U.S.C. they used was 18 U.S.C 930 (a) and (b). I was mad. I was frustrated. I wanted to complain. I went and disarmed before walking the trail (even though I didn't need to at that point) because we would be going into the building eventually. I walked and mulled over the situation and my approach. I always enjoy walking in the woods (even on a well groomed and maintained path) and that calmed me and gave me an opportunity to formulate my thoughts.
I decided against "filing a complaint" and instead decided to discuss the situation calmly with someone who was just doing their job. I wanted to find out their opinion and if they knew what the law actually was.
I went in and began a discussion with the Park Ranger. A park ranger, who like many park rangers, was unarmed. I began by asking about the signs, if she knew what the code was, and if she knew that they were providing only a portion of the information. She was aware of the code (at least the portion presented on the signs) and when I asked if she knew the rest of the code, she attempted to show me a printout that referenced the code (but didn't actually have the code anywhere in it).
She asked if I knew the code, and I said yes. I had actually gone and looked it up (wanted to make sure it was the same one the USPS uses to deny carry at post offices and it is; for more on that Google 18 U.S.C. 930 and read the article on Ohioans for Concealed Carry). I informed her that yes, sections (a) and (b) were quoted correctly but that the signs convienently left off section (d), or more specifically section (d)(3). This is the section that provides that (a) and (b) don't apply to people "hunting" or for "other lawful purposes." Of course I mentioned that there are a lot of people that believe (and rightfully so) that being legally licensed and carrying legally constitutes a "lawful purpose."
She stated that she thought that the code allowed for each local entity to decide whether or not to allow firearms. I stated again that section (d) did not make that distinction, nor would allow for that distinction as it is written.
She asked me a question about if I believed that private property owners should have the right to refuse the carry if firearms. I did not get a chance to answer that as we were interrupted. She had some duties to perform and I went about the museum to view its contents.
After a period of time, I went back to the desk and said that I wanted to answer her question. "Yes, of course private property owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including the carry of firearms. However, this isn't private property, it's public land paid for by my taxes because it's a national park." I went on to state that I have never been asked to leave anywhere because of my lawful carry.
She stated that she believed that she was safer there than say at the local Wal-Mart. I asked her about her not being armed and if she believed that the sign provided a "magic bubble" that would protect her and the patrons of the museum. She agreed that this would not be the case, and that the signs only affect the law abiding. I also brought up the fact that had I chose to ignore the signs that she would have had no way of knowing (my holster was still on my belt, under my over shirt that I wore to conceal since I was in MO).
I asked her if she carried outside of work and she stated that she didn't. When I asked why, she stated that there were a couple of reasons. One was that she'd never felt the need and two, that she had a friend that shot his brother thinking that he was an intruder in the night. I stated that was a tragic situation, but that she should look into Suzanna Hupp and I provided her with the basic story.
She admitted that she had no problem with licensed firearm carriers. She admitted that she had no problem with firearms or carry in general. She did, however, state that she was glad that "they don't allow firearms in the building." She admitted that she knew the signs weren't going to stop someone intent on doing harm. She even admitted that there were "various people" that "they were aware of their displeasure" towards the monument and that "they are targets." I jokingly stated that I doubted it was a high priority Al Queda target. She laughed and said it was more like "white supremesists."
We ended the conversation on a cordial tone, and I thanked her for her being open minded about the discussion. I also expressed my desire to inform her and not to spook her. She had also stated that she believed that in order to change or remove the signage would probably take a change in the law, litigation, or some change at the DOI. She also saw the absurdity that carry on the grounds was perfectly acceptable, but that for some reason the building was some twisted place that suddenly made legal firearms carriers into gun wielding psychopaths.
I thanked her for the discussion, we finished our visit and I went and promptly re-armed at the car.
We visited the Daniel Boone Home that sits somewhere NW of St. Louis on Monday. That is not a national park and I saw nothing indicating a prohibition of carry. They had one glaring mistake that the tour guide asked if we spotted. They hung the "replica" (not sure if it was functional or not) rifle and powder horn above the fireplace in the kitchen. She stated that of course this could easily warp the gun or blow the powder horn. They don't use the rifle or the powder horn for their intended purposes, but they do use the fireplace from time to time.
Last edited:
I thought that it was like PA where you could OC but can't CC unless you have the LTC? Or does this only apply to residents?
