Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Carry in National Parks etc

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    This just in from the NRA.

    The U.S. Senate is likely to consider S. 2483, the "National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Projects Authorization Act," next week. If that happens, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is expected to offer an amendment to S. 2483 to allow state law to govern the carrying and transportation of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

    Support, support, support.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    The amendment is officially SA 3967 to SB 2483 as near as I can tell. I will have the text of a letter posted soon but if you read the amendment, it seems to include all the talking points we need.


    TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS SEC. 901. USE OF FIREARMS IN UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AND THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM.
    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
    (1) the second amendment to the Constitution provides that ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'';
    (2) section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that ``except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net'';
    (3) section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not ``possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges'' of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
    (4) the regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals while at units of--
    (A) the National Park System; and
    (B) the National Wildlife Refuge System;
    (5) the existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System entraps law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
    (6) the Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.
    (b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
    (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
    (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Spokane, WA, ,
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    good info. thanks for the update

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Maria Cantwell
    511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

    Patty Murray
    173 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington DC 20510

    Here is my letter to Senator Coburn thanking him for the amendment.

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d9hbdsz_27dhx67tgz

    And my letter to Senators Murray and Cantwell asking them to support this amendment.

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d9hbdsz_28dvg5bzf7

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Maria Cantwell
    511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

    Patty Murray
    173 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington DC 20510

    Here is my letter to Senator Coburn thanking him for the amendment.

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d9hbdsz_27dhx67tgz

    And my letter to Senators Murray and Cantwell asking them to support this amendment.

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d9hbdsz_28dvg5bzf7
    Yeah, like either one of those lying morons would vote for it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Yeah, like either one of those lying morons would vote for it.
    I totally agree with you. They won't vote for it and they won't support it. Here is my theory.

    I generate quite a few letters to the two of them. I am used to getting back canned responses which generally explain to me what the bill is about as though I didn't know before I wrote it.

    However, by writing my letters at least they know that there is opposition to their positions in the state. I hope that this forces them to moderate some of their extreme positions, whereas if all their communication was reinforcing their own opinions, they might be tempted to push further to the left than they do.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Yeah, like either one of those lying morons would vote for it.
    I totally agree with you. They won't vote for it and they won't support it. Here is my theory.

    I generate quite a few letters to the two of them. I am used to getting back canned responses which generally explain to me what the bill is about as though I didn't know before I wrote it.

    However, by writing my letters at least they know that there is opposition to their positions in the state. I hope that this forces them to moderate some of their extreme positions, whereas if all their communication was reinforcing their own opinions, they might be tempted to push further to the left than they do.
    As long as they keep being reelected, they will change nothing. They represent themselves and no one else. Can you say Hillary copies.




  8. #8
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    As long as they keep being reelected, they will change nothing. They represent themselves and no one else. Can you say Hillary copies.
    From personal experience with writing to them and with speaking to Patty Murray in person, I can agree whole-heartedly. They both represent the consumate politician that will avoid questions and answer with rhetoric. I know first hand.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    As long as they keep being reelected, they will change nothing. They represent themselves and no one else. Can you say Hillary copies.
    Yup. Didn't say they would change anything. However, I still maintain that they have to be aware of where the line is that would keep them from being reelected. As long as they have an idea where that line is they won't cross it. If they thought they could get reelected while banning guns, they'd try banning guns. Because of us, they know they probably can't. So we keep writing.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Bush Administration to Propose New Rule
    Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks Friday, February 22, 2008 Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.
    "Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction."
    These new regulations, when finalized, will provide uniformity across our nation's federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Park lands did not.
    The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA believes it is time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.
    The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.
    The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most National Park lands and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to render state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands.
    "These changes will respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we look forward to the issuance of a final rule this year," concluded Cox.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •