Webb on Carrying in National Parks

imported post

Today, I had the opportunity to put the following question to Jim Webb:

Q: “The National Forests allow people to carry firearms under the same terms and conditions that they would in the law in the state where the forests are.

The National Park Service does not allow firearms carry. A proposed rulemaking to change that has been ignored by this administration.

George Allen has refused to take a position.

Do you support allowing people to carry firearms in national parks where allowed under state law?"

Webb responded -- on the record -- as follows:

A: “I support letting people carry firearms where state laws allow.”

The Donkey

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Today, I had the opportunity to put the following question to Jim Webb:

Q: “The National Forests allow people to carry firearms under the same terms and conditions that they would in the law in the state where the forests are.

The National Park Service does not allow firearms carry. A proposed rulemaking to change that has been ignored by this administration.

George Allen has refused to take a position.

Do you support allowing people to carry firearms in national parks where allowed under state law?"

Webb responded -- on the record -- as follows:

A: “I support letting people carry firearms where state laws allow.”

The Donkey

Click to expand...

Actually you are flat wrong, Sen. Allen has taken a position very much in favor of the rule change. From what I can gather he has been the most active Senator on this issue. Webb's position seems very ambiguous to me. It doesn't even address the issue of the federal rule change which trumps state law in this situation. I'll try to refrain from parsing it out any further.

imported post

I agree, Longwatch. I don't see much difference between Webb and Allen on this one. What I would have liked to see Webb (or any other politician)say is this..."I support the 2nd Amendment, a right granted by the Constitution of the United States of America that should not be limited by government on a state by state basis."

I have no problem with Webb's position on firearms, I think he is sincere in that regard. I do not support many of his other positions (which I won't discuss in this forum). I have the same fear as many others...himcaving toparty lines. The Hillary endorsement also scares me...a lot.

imported post

I learn this morning that George Allen did write a letter to DOI asking they allow permit holders carry in Parks, and has thus taken a "position."

However, as to "very much in favor" he has not pushed as hard as we would have liked, notwithstanding requests from this community that he do so. That seems to be why folks in the open carry community requested that I find out about Webb's position on this issue.

Webb IS supporting the rule change: that is what I was expressly asking him about.

You just got a favorable response on yet another issue many people care about in this community from the democratic candidate: this is cause for laurels, not darts: so there is no need to get Snarky.

As to what "novaccw" would have liked Webb to say, I don't think that Webb would have any trouble saying that. On the other hand, neither would alot of gun control advocates: that is because saying that you "support 2A" doesn't mean the same thing to you, Webb and me, as it does to others:

For example, our own United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (considered by some to be the most conservative federal appellate court in the country) has held that the Second Amendment is a collective right of state militias, not an individual right of individual americans. While, in recent years, there have been Courts that have held otherwise -- most notably the 5th Circuit -- the prevailing view of the courts is more in line with the 4th Circuit. And notwithstanding its excellent historical analysis, even the 5th Circuit's decision permits gun control in many circumstances.

Both Webb and Allen see the second amendment as an individual right: that is why when Webb has said he supports the Second Amendment -- unlike our Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), for example -- it is meaningful. Examples of this principal in action include Webb's support for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, and his willingness to get out in front on the fight against the national park ban.

Interestingly, Davis -- who is clearly no friend of our 2A -- appears to have suddenly warmed to the idea of packing in parks: and guess who has his eyes on the Senate for 08?

imported post

The Donkeywrote: Webb responded -- on the record -- as follows:

A: “I support letting people carry firearms where state laws allow.”

Click to expand...

Webb didn't even answer the question. all he did was to say that he would uphold the laws that are already there. He didn't even touch on the question about changing it. he is roping you in without telling you anything. be careful of this man. (I am not bias to either one cause I am from PA :lol

imported post

For the record lets compare what the two have said on the issue.

Webb: "I support letting people carry firearms where state law allows"

Sen. Allen: "I understand these prohibitions are in place for public safety and to prevent wildlife poaching. However, it does infringe on the rights of law abiding concealed weapons permit holders. Since these permit holders are required to meet State criminal background checks, I support an exception to 36 CFR 2.4 and 50 CFR 27.42 to allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry their firearms legally in National Park Service administered sites and in national wildlife refuges.

The revisions to the CFR could adopt the State law concealed weapons statuted where the National Park Service's administrative sites and the national wildlife refuges are located. This would provide a consistent application of State concealed weapons laws across all land ownership boundaries."

Maybe Allen could have done more, but he has done more than most. I'm pretty sure his support has helped make the DOI take the petition seriously. As the DOI has been sitting on the petition for 2 years waiting for something, I'm not certain more effort would have made a difference. I think we will see shortly after the election whether or not Sen. Allen's and others efforts have paid off.

I find Webb's statement pretty non committal, he is certainly not saying what he would do to push the issue. His position could come out of the mouth of Sen. Schumer and they would both be telling the truth.

imported post

Bolt06 wrote:

The Donkeywrote: Webb responded -- on the record -- as follows:

A: “I support letting people carry firearms where state laws allow.”

Click to expand...

Webb didn't even answer the question. all he did was to say that he would uphold the laws that are already there. He didn't even touch on the question about changing it. he is roping you in without telling you anything. be careful of this man. (I am not bias to either one cause I am from PA :lol: )

Click to expand...

You beat me to it. I had noticed the same thing about this statement. State gun laws do not currently apply to National Parks, so his statement has absolutely no relation to his stance on National Park carry. Either he phrased it that way deliberately or he isn't remotely savvy enough to recognize the meaning of what he's saying.

imported post

vtme_grad98 wrote:

Bolt06 wrote:

The Donkeywrote: Webb responded -- on the record -- as follows:

A: “I support letting people carry firearms where state laws allow.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

State gun laws do not currently apply to National Parks, so his statement has absolutely no relation to his stance on National Park carry. Either he phrased it that way deliberately or he isn't remotely savvy enough to recognize the meaning of what he's saying.

Click to expand...

Guys, methinks you doth parce too much:

This guy is not trying to lawyer me: he has made a commitment to me: you are lawyering him and me.

Jim Webb's Netroots coordinator recently gave the follosing as the Number 2 reason to vote for Webb:

"Webb does not believe that the government should be snooping around in our private lives, unless there's some powerful, overriding reason why it simply HAS to do so. Webb is consistent on this philosophy, which is why he can simultaneously be for 2nd Amenmdment gun rights, against the Marshall-Newman "marriage" amendment, and for a woman's right to reproductive choice (Webb believes that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare"). In sum, Webb believes in personal privacy and is against unnecessary government intrusion in our lives."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/21/62854/820

This is a man whose childhood was made up of open spaces, fishing rods and guns. His position on national parks carry is believable because it is consistent with his whole outlook on guns, the outdoors, and policy.

You have a firm committment from Webb: you are playing word games with it because it does not fit your pre-conceptions.

Webb's statement was a personal committment to me on this issue. Take it to the bank. Perhaps you have other reasons to vote for the other guy, but you just got a YES folks: accept it.

Its one of those things: if you look hard enough for a reason not to believe, you almost always will find one.

imported post

As Freud allegedly stated "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", and that may be the case here. But politicians are notorious for "lawyering" their statements. Kerry was fond of saying "I support the Second Amendment", and we know how he stands on guns. Clinton had the nerve to debate the meaning of the word "is" as a form of damage control. So it's not out of line for some of us to at least suspect that is the case with regards to a vague statement like that.

imported post

Republican or Democrat...all politicians make their statements as vague as possible. Why? So when one group calls them on it they can cover their behind. Bush did it with the Assult Weapons Ban...he said he would renew it...but he knew he probably wouldn't have to with a Republican majority in Congress. I am not saying that Webb is anti-gun, but a statement like “I support letting people carry firearms where state laws allow" means nothing as Bolt06, Longwatch, and vtmegrad_98 already pointed out. It means that he supports the law the way it is.

imported post

Now if Webb were to open carry at the gates of a National Park, yelling "DOI, let me defend myself", or "Out of my cold dead hands!", that would change the situation.

imported post

How about this statement by Mr. Webb, that will be officially released by the campaign tomorrow:

“I have possessed a concealed-carry permit for many years, and shoot regularly. I have made no secret during this campaign of the fact that I carry. I support a national concealed carry permit. I also will sponsor a bill in the United States Senate that repeals the National Park Gun Ban that disarms only law-abiding citizens in Interior Department/National Park Service across Virginai. And I intend to get it to the floor for a vote."

Clear enough for you?

The Donkey

imported post

That sounds better.........

imported post

Well now that is something, I wonder what Allen will do to up the ante? He is making a big announcement Saturday down at Green Top with the NRA's Chris Cox. If this becomes a battle to win gun owners it will be sweet. When and where is the announcement going to be? Maybe I'll show up.

imported post

OCDO meet up at Green Top?

imported post

Incidentally, the status of the NPS Self Defense Ban repeal effort :

http://bighammer.net/timeline.html

Updated to include that Candidates Webb and Allen both support S3275 & the Parks Self Defense Ban repeal.

IMO, it's now up to one of the candidates to step up with a pledge to get some federal laws out of our way. Who's it going to be?

BTW, a bill to repeal the parks ban is currently believed to be a moot point by staffers I've been dealing with. You can see there was talk of a bill previously in the timeline, but it was 'vapor-ware' and never materialized. Petition supporters are operating under the good faith pledge of several Congressional offices that they have assurances from DOI that VCDL's petition will be addressed.

imported post

More mud lands on Webb

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaw.htm

Webb exercising his first amedment rights.



In good taste I will not quote any of it here.

imported post

lockman wrote:

More mud lands on Webb

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaw.htm

Webb excersosing his first amedment rights.

In good taste I will not quote any of it here.

Click to expand...

Please, I do not like Webb positions but simply showing a snippit of his book and determining it's qualities a literary work is simply bull crap. If I remember what Longwatch told me, that book (or one of his book) is on Marine Corp reading list. Ever read Unintended Consequences by John Ross? If you haven't, it's an excellent book describing how we ended up with our current situation regarding gun rights. It includes sex and violence and stuff that would get banned from this forum if showed parts of it. It doesn't change that if you haven't read it, your missing out on EXCELLENT work of fiction. If you have read it, then calling out Webb book is simply hypocracy. I haven't read Lost Soldiers but now in an effort to figure out some of this claims, I now want to.

Donkey, know where I can pick up a copy of this book (I'll pick up off yall directly if that easist method)?

It's crap like this that wants me to vote for neither of them. I can't support Allen track record nor this and I disagree with Webb positions. At least Webb was willing to send out one of guys to enter extremely hostile environment (VCDL meeting).

imported post

rabbit994 wrote:

Ever read Unintended Consequences by John Ross?

Click to expand...

Great book! read it. Gave copies away as gifts that year. A must read for politicos.

imported post

lockman wrote:

rabbit994 wrote:

Ever read Unintended Consequences by John Ross?

Click to expand...

Great book! read it. Gave copies away as gifts that year. A must read for politicos.

 

Click to expand...

That it is, but remember the part where Cindy kills the guy with the hair accessory, or she goes shooting with Henry at bowling pin match and all the fun they have there or How they get rid of useless people..I mean Congress critters? If you just showed those parts of the book, you would think that it's a smut novel.