SAF and FPC File Lawsuit to Allow Concealed Carry Inside National Park Visitor Centers and Ranger Stations

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

FORT WORTH, TX – The Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed a federal lawsuit on March 27, 2026, challenging the ban on carrying firearms inside buildings operated by the National Park Service, including visitor centers, ranger stations, and fee collection facilities.

The lawsuit, Zimmerman v. Bondi, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It targets 18 U.S.C. Section 930(a), the federal law that prohibits knowingly possessing a firearm in a federal facility, as applied to buildings within national parks. The suit also challenges a regulation that allows individual park superintendents to impose additional carry restrictions within their parks.

According to the SAF press release, more than 300 million people visited the National Park System last year, and all of them were prohibited from carrying a firearm inside specific park buildings. That includes campers who must disarm before entering a visitor center or ranger station to obtain a camping permit.

Who Is Suing and Why

The lead plaintiff is Gary Zimmerman, a Fort Worth, Texas resident, NRA-certified firearms instructor, and license-to-carry instructor certified in multiple states. He holds an active carry license in ten states and visits national parks frequently with his wife, including nearly annual trips to Big Bend National Park and multiple visits to Arches and Canyonlands.

According to the complaint, Zimmerman is forced to disarm each time he enters a federal facility inside a national park, typically securing his firearm in a safe in his vehicle. He visited Mammoth Cave National Park last August and was required to disarm while entering facilities to obtain permits and during a cave tour. The complaint notes that these facilities do not provide security screening to ensure no one else is carrying a firearm inside.

Zimmerman plans extended national park road trips this year and next, intending to visit parks including Yellowstone, Glacier, Zion, Acadia, and Great Smoky Mountains. He states he would carry at all of these locations if the law permitted him to do so.

More from USA Carry:

The Legal Argument

The lawsuit rests on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that the government must justify firearm restrictions by demonstrating they are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The plaintiffs argue the government cannot meet that burden for national park facilities.

The complaint points out that Bruen specifically warned against expanding the category of sensitive places to cover any location that is crowded or generally protected by law enforcement. The plaintiffs argue that national park visitor centers and ranger stations do not provide the kind of comprehensive government security that historically justified carry restrictions in places like courthouses or legislative assemblies.

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut stated that law-abiding Americans should not be forced to choose between accessing national parks and exercising their constitutional right to carry for self-defense. SAF founder Alan Gottlieb called the restrictions an attempt by ideologues to work around the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. FPC President Brandon Combs said the right to bear arms does not stop at the park entrance gate.

What This Means for Gun Owners

This lawsuit arrives at a significant moment in Second Amendment litigation. Federal courts are actively working through the boundaries of the sensitive places doctrine, and the question of where the government can lawfully ban firearms remains unsettled. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could open national park facilities to lawful carry for millions of visitors each year.

The right to carry for self-defense is a fundamental civil right that the Supreme Court has confirmed extends to public spaces. Forcing a law-abiding citizen to disarm before entering a ranger station to pick up a camping permit, while providing no security in return, is exactly the kind of restriction that Bruen was designed to prevent. This case is worth watching closely.