Can you lawfully carry a firearm in National Park Service buildings that are open to the public, like visitor centers? At the moment, it depends on who you ask.
The Department of Justice says it has "recently made clear its view that § 930(a) permits the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense in federal facilities generally open to the public." The National Park Service website, though, states that "[u]nless expressly authorized, Federal law prohibits the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon in NPS facilities. These buildings include, but are not limited to, government offices, visitor centers, ranger stations, fee collection buildings, and maintenance facilities."
That's quite the conundrum, at least for those of us who want to stay on the right side of the law. And presumably, this problem could be easily fixed with an update to the NPS website, which begs the question: why hasn't that happened yet?
The DOJ's declaration that Section 930(a) allows for lawful carry inside of NPS buildings open to the public came in its memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit known as Zimmerman v. Blanche. Gary Zimmerman and his co-plaintiffs want to be able to carry in NPS facilities that are open to the public, and the DOJ is arguing that their lawsuit is unnecessary because they can already do so.
This case involves a Second Amendment challenge to a federal statute and regulation to the extent they restrict the carrying of firearms in national parks. The statute is 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), which generally prohibits possessing a firearm in a federal facility, subject to certain statutory exceptions. And the regulation is 36 C.F.R. § 1.5, which authorizes a national park’s superintendent to close off areas of a park to certain activities. In raising this challenge, however, the plaintiffs—Gary Zimmerman, Lisa Ventura, and two firearms advocacy organizations—run into a familiar obstacle: Article III standing.To try to show standing, Zimmerman and Ventura allege that they wish to carry their handguns for self-defense in public federal facilities when visiting national parks but avoid doing so because they fear being prosecuted for violating § 930(a). But to have standing in this pre-enforcement posture, the threat of prosecution must be credible, and here, it isn’t. In an opinion that binds the Executive Branch, the Department of Justice has recently made clear its view that § 930(a) permits the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense in federal facilities generally open to the public—the exact conduct in which Zimmerman and Ventura wish to engage. Moreover,Zimmerman and Ventura don’t identify a single restriction imposed under 36 C.F.R. § 1.5 that would prohibit them from carrying a handgun in any national park that they intend to visit. So without any serious threat of prosecution on the horizon, Zimmerman and Ventura lack standing. And the firearms advocacy organizations do too. While both seek to litigate on behalf of their members, neither group has identified a member that would have standing to challenge § 930(a) or a restriction under 36 C.F.R.§ 1.5—a prerequisite for an organization to have standing to sue as its members’ representative.
It's "self-evident" that the Office of Legal Counsel opinion applies to Zimmerman and his fellow plaintiffs, according to DOJ. They want to “carry a handgun for self-defense in run-of-the-mill park facilities that are widely held open to the public, like visitor centers or shops,” and the OLC opinion "makes plain that the Department of Justice understands § 930(a) to permit Zimmerman’s desired conduct."
If the DOJ is explicitly stating that Zimmerman and his cohorts need not fear prosecution for carrying a gun in an NPS visitor center, and DOJ is the only entity that would prosecute a violation of Section 930(a), then I have to agree with the Justice Department that there is no credible threat of prosecution... at least under this administration.
That could easily change in future, though. The DOJ's current position might eliminate a credible threat of prosecution today, but an OLC opinion isn't carved in stone. A future administration could adopt a different interpretation of Section 930 and once again put lawful gun owners at risk of prosecution.
There's also a legitimate question about why the National Park Service hasn't updated its website. The current NPS guidance informs visitors that federal law prohibits firearms in visitor centers and other NPS facilities while the Justice Department is telling a federal judge that federal law permits lawful self-defense carry in those very same facilities.
Most gun owners who want to know if they can carry a concealed firearm when visiting an NPS facility are going to check the NPS website, not the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel's opinions. DOJ says there's no credible threat of prosecution, but I'd argue that the vast majority of folks who want to carry believe otherwise, since the National Park Service is telling them they're prohibited from doing so.
That might not matter to the judge overseeing Zimmerman, but it should absolutely matter to the Trump administration. Someone from DOJ needs to get on the phone with the right person at NPS and tell them to take down that language and replace with something like:
Pursuant to a recent Office of Legal Counsel opinion, Section 930(a) does not prohibit the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense in NPS facilities generally open to the public. Other federal, state, and local firearms restrictions may apply.
The other issue the Zimmerman plaintiffs are litigating is 36 CFR § 1.5, which grants park superintendents broad leeway to "impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity." It also allows superintendents to "[d]esignate areas for a specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity."
That's awfully open-ended, but unless a park superintendent has tried to abuse that authority by imposing a gun ban or imposing conditions on the lawful carrying of firearms, the plaintiffs really might not have standing to sue at this point in time.
The DOJ's position is strong, and I won't be surprised in the slightest if the judge grants the motion to dismiss. If and when that happens, though, I hope that the National Park Service has also made it explicitly clear that those who can legally carry a concealed firearm should have no concerns about doing so the NPS buildings where the public is allowed.
