Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Proposed Rule for National Park Gun Carry Plays Cruel Hoax on Americans Expecting to Carry Handguns

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...0000648064bab5:

    SUBJECT: Proposed rule repealing DOI gun ban should be changed to follow proven model of 36CFR261.8 which simply assimilates state gun laws onto federal
    land

    Executive Summary:

    OpenCarry.org requests that the proposed rule governing gun carry in National
    Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and certain other public lands be replaced by
    incorporation of the proven rule on other federal public lands at 36CFR261.8 to
    simply assimilate state gun laws. The grounds for this recommendation is our
    strenuous objections to the proposed rule’s (1) unconstitutional ban on the open
    carry of handguns, (2) unconstitutional and unworkable vagueness of the proposed
    rule and its associated criminal sanctions, (3) failure of the proposed rule to
    achieve the purported policy objective of obtaining uniformity in gun carry rules
    across federal lands generally, and (4) trap it sets for otherwise law abiding gun
    owners. In essence, the proposed rule plays a cruel hoax on Americans
    expecting to carry handguns as they visit DOI lands around the United States.

    Please see our attached comments in full.

    Mike Stollenwerk
    co-founder, OpenCarry.org


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Ok, what am I missing? What is the "cruel hoax"?
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Ok, what am I missing? What is the "cruel hoax"?
    Did you read the comment?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    DOH! Yes I had read it, but I was thinking about the thread title and the comments differently. I get it now .... :?
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    So they sabotaged the rule itself? I don't get it. I thought that the suggestion made was exactly what they were supposed to be doing. What happened?!?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Your comments support my contention that in carrying to avoid becoming a vic one incurs the risk of becoming a perp.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    I wonder when we are going to see some more press on this issue?Seems like After Heller repealing gun carry bans on federal lands ought to be pretty straightforward idea.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    I think that slowly we Americans are waking up and realizing that we don't have to accept the status quo anymore. I am 67 and now more active in the pro-gun-owner arena than ever before in my lifetime. I think that this in large part due to the feeling that we can make a difference. Organizations like OCDO contribute greatly to this feeling.

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    I wonder when we are going to see some more press on this issue?Seems like After Heller repealing gun carry bans on federal lands ought to be pretty straightforward idea.

    My issue is the fact that the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has DIFFERENT standards for different pockets....

    National Forest -- goes by STATE requirements that the National Forest is in.

    National Park Service--- there OWN set of rules

    National Parks within the confines of a National Forrest is a MAJOR gottcha... for the poor hiker minding his own business hiking in the woods with his legally own, possesseed, and carried firearm now becomes a criminal because he crosses an invisible border in the forest that he CAN'T see or know where it is.....


    They are both parts of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    I wonder when we are going to see some more press on this issue?Seems like After Heller repealing gun carry bans on federal lands ought to be pretty straightforward idea.

    My issue is the fact that the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has DIFFERENT standards for different pockets....

    National Forest -- goes by STATE requirements that the National Forest is in.

    National Park Service--- there OWN set of rules

    National Parks within the confines of a National Forrest is a MAJOR gottcha... for the poor hiker minding his own business hiking in the woods with his legally own, possesseed, and carried firearm now becomes a criminal because he crosses an invisible border in the forest that he CAN'T see or know where it is.....


    They are both parts of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
    I don't think that carrying a handgun (OC or CC) for self defense should be one of the activities restricted in National Parks, but I don't think your specific argument holds water. National Parks are managed for different purposes than National Forests and have lots of more restrictive rules. In many parks you can't hunt, use a wheeled vehicle off road, camp other than in designated spots, have open fires, lots of stuff. You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.

    Self defense should be allowed anywhere period, I don't care if its a School Zone, Forest, City, Federal, State properties, Six Flagsamusementpark or Disney property.. did I mention loaded cocked and locked....

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    I agree. It is a badly written law. But what do you expect from the Feds? The N.R.A. was way to timid reference this issue. I expect gutsy lobbying for the Constitution, instead of creating confusing laws that will intimidate most from exercising their rights. Obama sure thinks the old ban of having it loaded and in working condition in National Parks completely upholds people's right to bear arms..... Keep up the good fight Mike!!!

  13. #13
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Texas, , USA
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    It is ridiculous that a federal law does not apply to federally owned land. The 2nd Amendment is a part of the United States Constitution.

    Article VI says that "This Constitution... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

    That means that there cannot be laws made on any level of government within these united states that contradict the US Constitution. So, one might ask, "how have we strayed so far?" Corrupt, agenda-driven politicians have led us to our current place. And we are to blame for putting up with it.

    Article VI also says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." If they supported the Constitution, they would restore our gun rights completely. It's too bad so many of our senators and other reps obviously did not take this oath very seriously. Thank God for the ones that did.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    You are making too much sense....NOT QUALIFIED FOR OFFICE! When public schools make a mockery of education this is the result: NOBODY WITH A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA KNOWS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!Pink Floyd's"we don't need no education...." should be our theme song!

  15. #15
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I have to transit thru or along the border of the (name withheld)National Park to go 'anywhere'. I OC... 'n have a CCW. The roads are maintained by the County... but are under the jurisdiction of the Park. Everybody carries here... or has somethin' in the vehicle. This 'disassembly' of firearms is a crock. Nobody does that... 'n 'far as I know has never been enforced. This is Arizona!!!! The goofy part is... one side of the road maybe in the Park... 'n the opposite side is not. The Park Rangers are biologists with guns... They're decent enuff people... but their bosses are in la-la land. The one who runs this operation is based in Oklahoma... so she don't even come here much. When she did... at the community meeting (this is an unincorporated area) she evaded the question... just mumbled that it wasn't 'legal'... put on her little Smokey bear hat 'n left (quickly).

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    LostCoast wrote:
    You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.

    Self defense should be allowed anywhere period, I don't care if its a School Zone, Forest, City, Federal, State properties, Six Flagsamusementpark or Disney property.. did I mention loaded cocked and locked....
    I agree with you, in a 90% kind-of-way.

    No government agency should be able to regulate the possession of firearms, in regard to location of possession.

    A private company and/or landowner (Six Flags, Disney being the listed in the examples) should be able to do so. I don't think that they should, but they do have a right to control what happens on their land. Private land is private land, and the government should keep their paws off.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    LostCoast wrote:
    You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.

    Self defense should be allowed anywhere period, I don't care if its a School Zone, Forest, City, Federal, State properties, Six Flagsamusementpark or Disney property.. did I mention loaded cocked and locked....
    I agree with you, in a 90% kind-of-way.

    No government agency should be able to regulate the possession of firearms, in regard to location of possession.

    A private company and/or landowner (Six Flags, Disney being the listed in the examples) should be able to do so. I don't think that they should, but they do have a right to control what happens on their land. Private land is private land, and the government should keep their paws off.
    .................................................. .................................................. .........................


    I enjoy rights on private land that we don't have on public land, like conceal carry without a permit and I agree private land owners should be able to say guns or not. I just hate to be defenseless out in public places crowded with people. Figure if a private land is mainly used as a business to serve the public it is somewhat actually public domain.

    In case law my front yard is a public place if it is accessible by the public. If I stand in my front yard with an open container of beer I can be arrested or sited for drinking in public.

    Could I be arrested for concealing a loaded weapon without a permit then? We for sure have to many laws and its confusing as hell.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Middle, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    LostCoast wrote:
    You always need to know where you are and what's allowed there.

    Self defense should be allowed anywhere period, I don't care if its a School Zone, Forest, City, Federal, State properties, Six Flagsamusementpark or Disney property.. did I mention loaded cocked and locked....
    +1

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    LOST COAST: We for sure have to many laws and its confusing as hell.


    Amen.

    It is amazing how deviating from the Constitution has created so many problems.

    The untold number of criminal laws is one of these results.



    The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



    There is a reason for the requirement of a jury trail. They are expensive, annoying, and generally a pain in the ass, creating a great burden on the government.

    This is a GOOD thing. It is designed as a check against the Congress going willy-nilly, and passing laws that criminalize any and every thing.

    The only thing that should be criminal is an action so serious that the people are willing to finance and partake in the effort necessary to give that person a fair trial. Things such as murder, rape, theft, fraud.

    Instead, the courts have decided to say that "In all criminal prosecutions" doesn't REALLY mean ALL, but just the ones that may require 6 months in jail.

    And now, we have laws like this:

    The Lacey Act

    (a) Offenses other than marking offenses [/b] It is unlawful for any person— 7 of title 18)— (A) to possess any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law or Indian tribal law, or (B) to possess any plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State; or (4) to attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) through (3).


    Basically, this makes it illegal to possess, transport, or aquire any fish, plant or wildlife, that is prohibited by Federal Law, ANY State Law, ANY other Country's law, any Tribal Law, or any treaty.

    So, if the Navajo Band in New Mexico has a tribal ordinance prohibiting the possession of a tabacco plant, and you buy a cigarette in New York, you have violated federal law.



    Vote Libertarian, and let's get back to the Constitution.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    HI All,

    It is Impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid.

    Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, 1803.

    And: Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

    And: Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442.

    And: 16 AM Jur 2d,sec 177 late 2d Sec 256.

    Robin47

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Robin47 wrote:
    HI All,

    It is Impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid.

    Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, 1803.

    And: Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

    And: Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442.

    And: 16 AM Jur 2d,sec 177 late 2d Sec 256.

    Robin47
    Well, that is fine.

    Most all of us here agree with you.

    The problem is that the courts often hold that what the Constitution states, isn't what it really says.

    I personally subscribed to that belief myself. Then I actually started reading some of the history of where the Constitution came from. It was a plain wording text, written to be understood by common people. That was it's very purpose, to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL common man. Government doesn't need protection from itself. Why would there need to be a Constitution, with rights and limits prescribed?

    What has happened is that legal scholars and such have been allowed to pervert the original intent. They have over-analyzed, scrutinized, and, in doing so, "watered-down" the purpose. Instead of a clear, easy to read document, that requires little or no interpretation, those who profit from being Constitutional experts have convinced society that we need Constitutional experts to understand the "intent" of the language.

    So, now, instead of: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    We are left with: "A free State, using a Federally provided National Guard, shall be hopefully preserved by the State, and the people shall keep and bear a limited number of arms, to be determined randomly at the whim of the State, and may be infringed if there is some "common sense" legislation available.

    Do you really think that those who just fought a revolution against a standing army, to overcome tyranny, wanted us to only have M1 Garands and 1911s with 10 round mags, to stand against a fully modernized army?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Yeah your right Phoenixphire.

    Seems as time goes on Common sence is out.

    But thats why we OC, to keep our freedoms.

    Keep OC-ing buddy ! Robin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    I absoultly agree with you .

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Anybody heard if the Bush Administration is going to announce a final rule??

    I predict they may be too afraid to be pro-gun on the theory that it might hurt McCain-Palen ticket.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    The Constitution refers to the People... not some unidentifiable sub-set. 2A predates the National Guard by over 130 years.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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