On October 2, 2026, the Department of Justice requested that a federal court dismiss the Second Amendment lawsuit concerning guns in national park buildings. The reason given was not that the ban is constitutional; rather, it was because, in the view of the DOJ, the ban doesn’t cover the kind of conduct the plaintiffs wish to carry out and that the government would prosecute.
This represents a real change in the government’s interpretation of the statute, but it’s not a court order, and the National Park Service has not yet caught up.
The case is Zimmerman v. Blanche, and it’s being heard in the Northern District of Texas, in the Fort Worth Division. Gary Zimmerman, Lisa Ventura, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation sued Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. They’re seeking a ruling that 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), when it is applied to buildings of the NPS, and the firearms closures prescribed under 36 C.F.R. § 1.5, contravene the Second Amendment.
The case was filed on March 27, 2026, and was amended in June. The filing made in October is a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of standing. If that motion is successful, then the court will not go on to consider the merits of the case.
It hasn’t been the case since 2010 that the outdoor aspect of this involves a fight. Following the change to the Credit CARD Act, it’s permitted to carry in a national park as long as you are in the state whose laws apply. The trails, campgrounds and the other parts of the park remain the same. The issue lies with the buildings.
Section 930(a) makes it a federal misdemeanor, subject to a fine and a maximum penalty of one year, to knowingly possess a firearm in a “federal facility.” Such a facility is one that’s owned or leased by the federal government, and which is used regularly by federal employees for official business.
This includes visitor centers, ranger stations, fee booths, and park offices. There is, however, an exception: Section 930(d)(3) permits “the lawful carrying of firearms … incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” For many years the government interpreted this exception in a narrow way, as though the reason for carrying the firearm had to be connected with the building.
The Legal Stretch
On August 12, 2026, the Office of Legal Counsel published its interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) in relation to post offices. It held that carrying a firearm which is protected by the Constitution for the purpose of self-defense into a building that is open to the public constitutes a typical lawful purpose and that it’s not necessary for there to be a special connection with the post office.
If a person is otherwise lawfully able to possess and carry such a firearm, the exemption applies and the Executive Branch can’t prosecute under § 930(a). The Office of Legal Counsel had noted constitutional issues with a blanket ban, but chose not to decide the Second Amendment issue.
In the national park case, the Department of Justice states that reading the relevant rules isn’t confined to post offices. The opinion “binds the Executive Branch” and “obviously” includes the situation of a licensed carrier entering a visitor center or shop with a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. On that basis, Zimmerman is not exposed to any realistic possibility of being prosecuted and therefore has no standing.
The DOJ also claims that Ventura has no definite intention of visiting a park and that neither the FPC nor the SAF has named any of their members who would have standing. Furthermore, the DOJ has examined the superintendents’ compendia relating to the fifteen parks that Zimmerman mentioned and has found that there is no firearms closure under Section 1.5.
The Grey Area
Within the executive branch, an OLC opinion counts as binding advice, but it’s not a ruling. A subsequent Attorney General has the possibility of withdrawing it, although a court order remains valid.
The OLC dealt with post offices and didn’t produce a separate opinion regarding other federal facilities. The DOJ is now broadening that opinion, by means of a motion to dismiss, to include public park buildings.
The websites haven’t kept up with the current situation. The public guidance from NPS still states that a ban on firearms is in place in visitor centers, ranger stations, fee buildings, and offices unless specific authorization is obtained. The DOJ is telling the court that the action in question is legal. but the sign on the door still says that firearms aren’t allowed.
This leaves many folks asking, is this a trap? Because while gun owners have obtained the statutory interpretation they wanted, we haven’t received an injunction. An injunction limited to members had already been obtained in the postal service case, and the DOJ later gave up its appeal. In this instance, the DOJ is providing a memo rather than a ruling.
Conclusion
As long as the NPS page doesn’t match the DOJ brief or a judge hasn’t ordered them to be matched, the memo is just a promise made by the prosecutor. With that said this is a positive development that we will continue to monitor.
Become an Armed Attorney Member
Armed Attorneys gives members direct access to experienced self-defense attorneys before, during, and after a self-defense incident. Exclusively for Texans, our goal is simple: help gun owners understand the law, make informed decisions, and avoid facing the legal system alone. Learn more about Armed Attorneys and choose the membership level that fits how you live, carry, and travel. Save $20 at sign-up with promo code: SNW.
The information on this site is presented for general informational and educational purposes only and is not legal advice and does not form a lawyer-client relationship. You should not rely on this information or its applicability to any specific circumstances without speaking with an attorney. Armed Attorneys, LLC is not a law firm and does not directly provide legal representation. Legal services are provided solely by licensed attorneys approved or contracted by Armed Attorneys, LLC.