HR-9719-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Rudy Yakym (R-IN)
What it does
This bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 930, which generally prohibits firearms in federal facilities, to create an exception for publicly accessible areas managed by specific federal land agencies. Under the bill, a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm and who complies with the law of the state where the federal land is located would be permitted to carry a firearm in those areas. The agencies covered include the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Forest System, NOAA, National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Who benefits
Hunters, hikers, campers, and other recreational visitors to federal lands who wish to carry firearms for self-defense, wildlife protection, or hunting. Residents of rural states where carrying firearms on public land is common practice. Concealed carry permit holders whose state laws already allow carry on public lands. Firearms rights advocacy groups. Visitors to remote federal lands who may encounter dangerous wildlife or have limited access to emergency services.
Who is hurt
Visitors to federal lands who prefer those areas to be firearm-free, including families with children and those who feel less safe around armed individuals. Federal land management employees and rangers who may face increased risk in confrontations. Wildlife conservation groups concerned about increased poaching or disturbance to protected species. State and local governments in states with stricter firearms laws, whose regulations would effectively set the floor for federal land carry rules within their borders. Neighboring landowners near federal land boundaries.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that law-abiding citizens should not lose their Second Amendment rights simply by stepping onto federally managed public land, particularly in remote areas where law enforcement response times can be measured in hours. They contend that the bill already defers to state law — meaning no one gains carry rights they don't already have under their state's rules — and that it simply removes a redundant federal prohibition on top of existing state frameworks. They further argue that visitors to wilderness areas face real threats from dangerous wildlife and that the current prohibition leaves them defenseless.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that federal lands encompass uniquely sensitive environments — including crowded national park visitor centers, wildlife refuges, and dam facilities — where the federal government has a compelling interest in restricting firearms beyond what state law requires. They contend that tying carry rights to state law creates a patchwork of rules that is difficult for visitors and rangers to enforce consistently across multi-state federal land units. They further argue that the bill's broad agency coverage, including NOAA facilities and TVA infrastructure, extends well beyond traditional recreational land and into sensitive federal installations.
Constitutional context
The Second Amendment's application to federal public lands is relevant here, particularly under the text-history-tradition framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) and refined in United States v. Rahimi (2024). Courts are actively working through whether and how historical traditions of firearms regulation apply to government-managed public spaces, making this an area of unsettled doctrine.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand individual carry rights on federal land; the Executive Branch (through land management agencies) retains authority over facility-specific rules not covered by the bill; courts would review any challenges under the Bruen text-history-tradition framework.
Historical precedent
The 2009 Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act included a rider permitting loaded firearms in national parks, effectively overturning a Reagan-era regulation that had prohibited them — a directly analogous expansion of carry rights on federal recreational land.