Can WDFW really click their boot heels and take away my gun rights?

[MADMAX]

 

Put it on (CC lisence ) and don’t make a big deal out of it
90% + chance nobody will ever say a word

[bornhunter]

 

No need to be confused.  Here is how i determine if i can carry a gun somewhere.  Its a simple proccess really.

Are there armed guards manning a metal detector at the entrance?  If no, im carrying.

[j_h_nimrod]

Similar but different... National Parks used to have a no gun policy and stated it on their signs.  This changed back in 2010, I believe due to a lawsuit in Alaska and now guns are allowed to be carried though a lot of their signage still says no firearms allowed. State is different, but I think there would be a hard row to hoe for the state if it were made an issue of constitutional (and legal pursuant to state laws governing concealed or open carry) carry in an area without a distinct “need” to be gun free (schools, airports, etc.).  I’d personally carry as normal, not a bird gun or hunting rifle as I don’t carry those unless hunting or shooting as a general rule.

[bigtex]

Similar but different... National Parks used to have a no gun policy and stated it on their signs.  This changed back in 2010, I believe due to a lawsuit in Alaska and now guns are allowed to be carried though a lot of their signage still says no firearms allowed. State is different, but I think there would be a hard row to hoe for the state if it were made an issue of constitutional (and legal pursuant to state laws governing concealed or open carry) carry in an area without a distinct “need” to be gun free (schools, airports, etc.).  I’d personally carry as normal, not a bird gun or hunting rifle as I don’t carry those unless hunting or shooting as a general rule.

It wasn't a lawsuit but actually a piece of legislation tacked on to a credit card bill in Congress. Prior to that time guns could not be carried on National Park Service or US Fish and Wildlife Service (refuges) lands except for hunting. This ban however is still in place for US Army Corps of Engineers lands where you can only possess firearms for hunting, at shooting ranges, or with permission of the local District Commander.

[trophyhunt]

If they were to say no shooting, i would understand.  But no guns?  B.S.  its not a federal building, its not a school, its not a private business.  Its public land.  Id carry there, and do so openly.  Screw them.

  OUR land!

[pianoman9701]

Hmm, 3 pages with lots of assumptions and bunched panties. Has the OP called the WDFW for clarification on this "infringement"? I suppose that if you found that you could indeed carry a firearm for protection that you could petition the WDFW to change the signs...with money taken out of an already stretched budget. Make the call. Get back to us. Then you can worry about something more troubling, like what our legislature is doing to our gun rights. Pick your battles. Have a nice day.

[Platensek-po]

 

Hmm, 3 pages with lots of assumptions and bunched panties. Has the OP called the WDFW for clarification on this "infringement"? I suppose that if you found that you could indeed carry a firearm for protection that you could petition the WDFW to change the signs...with money taken out of an already stretched budget. Make the call. Get back to us. Then you can worry about something more troubling, like what our legislature is doing to our gun rights. Pick your battles. Have a nice day.

[Ghost Hunter]

Hmm, 3 pages with lots of assumptions and bunched panties. Has the OP called the WDFW for clarification on this "infringement"? I suppose that if you found that you could indeed carry a firearm for protection that you could petition the WDFW to change the signs...with money taken out of an already stretched budget. Make the call. Get back to us. Then you can worry about something more troubling, like what our legislature is doing to our gun rights. Pick your battles. Have a nice day.

There ya go with logic again.   

[Calvin Rayborn]

Hmm, 3 pages with lots of assumptions and bunched panties. Has the OP called the WDFW for clarification on this "infringement"? I suppose that if you found that you could indeed carry a firearm for protection that you could petition the WDFW to change the signs...with money taken out of an already stretched budget. Make the call. Get back to us. Then you can worry about something more troubling, like what our legislature is doing to our gun rights. Pick your battles. Have a nice day.

Hey, all it takes is one bad apple...or sign in this case apparently. If Fish and Wildlife screwed up they should fix it period. If they were intentionally pulling a “mall cop” on us and making up their own restrictions while infringing on our rights, then they should be ashamed of themselves!

[Fidelk]

National Parks used to have a no gun policy and stated it on their signs.  This changed back in 2010, I believe due to a lawsuit in Alaska and now guns are allowed to be carried though a lot of their signage still says no firearms allowed.

It wasn't a lawsuit but actually a piece of legislation tacked on to a credit card bill in Congress. Prior to that time guns could not be carried on National Park Service or US Fish and Wildlife Service (refuges) lands except for hunting. I'm not sure what the lack of bullet holes in the red triangular sign means.

I believe the no gun policy in National Parks was signed by Reagan and unsigned by Obama. Originally, I believe it allowed you to carry concealed in NP and USFW lands if you possessed a CCW and you could carry on those lands in your own and other states that honored your state's CCW (with the WA license, I am legal to carry in MT Parks but not so in CA Parks). No idea is this would also apply to "open carry" or to a rifle/shotgun. Even with this policy in place, I recently saw a "No Firearms" sign in Olympic NP...….but the sign was old and wooden and it was ignored. This particular sign was on a heavily used trail, so they probably leave them up (even in contradiction to current policy) to deter as many guns being carried as possible.

[Calvin Rayborn]

PS-I made mention earlier that I will contact the local WDFW office in Ephrata shortly and get back to you guys. If they don’t have the answer I’ll give Olympia a jingle

[pianoman9701]

PS-I made mention earlier that I will contact the local WDFW office in Ephrata shortly and get back to you guys. If they don’t have the answer I’ll give Olympia a jingle

 

[Calvin Rayborn]

Just talked with customer service representative “Wendy“ at the Ephrata office. Asked her about the sign and she basically said well of course there’s no guns because it’s a game reserve! She went on to explain that those laws have been on the books in the WAC for years. I questioned her further and stated that I understood that there are plenty of laws that authorize fish and wildlife to regulate hunting and fishing, but no law that I could find that specifically authorizes them to restrict my gun rights. I explained a scenario to her; someone just passing through or hiking with a firearm for personal protection or to get to another lawful hunting area etc. She then backpedaled somewhat and stated that carrying a firearm in that case would be okay, “AS LONG AS IT WAS UNLOADED...” I decided not to argue the loaded  versus unloaded point further and focused on the sign. Told her my opinion that the sign should come down then if it simply says “no guns.” She referred me to Chad Eidson with the Columbia Basin Division, Who is apparently involved in policymaking for the area. More phone calls to be continued!

[Bango skank]

As long as its unloaded... get real.  Heres what happens when you call fish and wildlife with a question.  If the person on the phone doesnt know the answer, which they generally dont,  they just start making up crap off the top of their heads

[bearpaw]

Just talked with customer service representative “Wendy“ at the Ephrata office. Asked her about the sign and she basically said well of course there’s no guns because it’s a game reserve! She went on to explain that those laws have been on the books in the WAC for years. I questioned her further and stated that I understood that there are plenty of laws that authorize fish and wildlife to regulate hunting and fishing, but no law that I could find that specifically authorizes them to restrict my gun rights. I explained a scenario to her; someone just passing through or hiking with a firearm for personal protection or to get to another lawful hunting area etc. She then backpedaled somewhat and stated that carrying a firearm in that case would be okay, “AS LONG AS IT WAS UNLOADED...” I decided not to argue the loaded  versus unloaded point further and focused on the sign. Told her my opinion that the sign should come down then if it simply says “no guns.” She referred me to Chad Edson with the Columbia Basin Division, Who is apparently involved in policymaking for the area. More phone calls to be continued!

She just answers the phone and helps how she can. That was a smart move she made transferring you, I doubt she was correct in telling you that you can't have a self defense weapon loaded. I'm interested to hear what the WDFW policy is regarding packing a self defense weapon?