His proposal, introduced Thursday as the Federal Lands Lawful Carry Act (H.R. 9719), would eliminate restrictions that prohibit lawful firearm owners from carrying inside many federal facilities located within national parks and other federal recreation areas. Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX) joined the legislation as the lead co-sponsor.
The Yellowstone bison attack made national headlines after the animal reportedly launched a 65-year-old visitor roughly eight feet into the air, serving as another reminder that America’s national parks are home to unpredictable and potentially dangerous wildlife.
For Yakym, however, the incident also highlighted what he believes is an inconsistency in federal policy.
Current law generally allows visitors to carry firearms in national parks if they comply with the firearm laws of the state where the park is located. But once those same visitors enter certain federal buildings—such as visitor centers, ranger stations, administrative offices, or gift shops—they can unknowingly violate federal law simply by walking through the door while legally carrying a firearm.
Yakym argues that this confusing system transforms ordinary Americans into criminals without any malicious intent.
“This legislation closes a loophole that turns responsible gun owners into accidental criminals,” Yakym said.
According to supporters of the legislation, the restriction stems from the federal Undetectable Firearms Act, originally enacted in 1988 to prevent plastic firearms from bypassing airport security screening.
Yakym and other Second Amendment advocates argue that the law has gradually been interpreted far beyond its original purpose, creating firearm restrictions in locations that have little connection to the legislation’s initial intent.
The Indiana congressman says the problem extends well beyond Yellowstone.
He pointed to Whitewater Memorial State Park in Indiana, which borders Brookville Lake. While Indiana law allows licensed firearm owners to carry inside the state park, visitors can suddenly find themselves violating federal law simply by crossing onto adjacent property managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The firearm never changes.
The individual never changes.
Only the government agency overseeing the land changes.
Yakym believes that kind of legal maze serves no public safety purpose.
“You should not have to check your Second Amendment right at the front door,” Yakym told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Yakym’s legislation arrives while a separate legal challenge is already making its way through the federal court system.
The Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed suit earlier this year challenging the restrictions. The organizations later expanded their lawsuit, arguing that the indoor firearm ban cannot survive the constitutional standard established by the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision governing so-called “sensitive places.”
Rather than waiting years for litigation to reach a final conclusion, Yakym says Congress should act now and remove the restrictions through legislation.
His proposal has already attracted backing from several of the nation’s largest gun-rights organizations, including Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Congress previously addressed part of the issue in 2010, when lawmakers approved an amendment allowing lawful firearm carry in national parks consistent with state law.
That reform, however, largely applied to outdoor areas.
The prohibition on carrying inside many federally operated buildings remained in place, leaving visitors subject to a complicated collection of overlapping federal rules.
Supporters of H.R. 9719 argue that the latest legislation would simply complete the work Congress began more than a decade ago by extending lawful carry rights to those indoor federal facilities.
Backers of the legislation argue that the existing framework places ordinary Americans in an impossible position.
A camper, hunter, angler, or family on vacation may be fully compliant with the law while hiking a trail or walking through a campground, yet unknowingly commit a federal offense moments later by entering a visitor center without first securing a legally carried firearm elsewhere.
Critics of the current policy contend that such distinctions are based more on bureaucracy than practical public safety considerations.
They argue that whether land is managed by the National Park Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, or another federal agency should not determine whether a law-abiding citizen suddenly faces criminal liability.
Gun-rights organizations have rallied behind Yakym’s legislation, while opponents are expected to argue that expanding lawful carry inside federal facilities raises security concerns.
The measure now sets up another major debate on Capitol Hill over the balance between Second Amendment protections and federal firearm restrictions.
With more than 300 million Americans and tourists visiting national parks each year, supporters say the issue affects far more than a handful of firearm owners.
As legal challenges continue in federal court and Congress weighs Yakym’s proposal, the conversation surrounding firearm rights on federal lands appears far from settled.
For advocates of H.R. 9719, the goal is straightforward: eliminate confusing regulations that they believe punish law-abiding citizens while creating little meaningful improvement in public safety.
