Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: VA-ALERT: National Parks Victory - the details!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Kevin108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    VCDL - pat yourselves on the back for a job exceptionally well done! The two Petitions for Rule Making that VCDL submitted to the Department of the Interior helped push this issue forward!

    This is a STRONG win for gun owners with concealed handgun permits or for those gun owners in states that don't need permits to carry concealed!!!

    Basically, if a state allows a person to carry a concealed, loaded, operable handgun, then that person can carry a concealed, loaded, operable handgun in a National Park.

    We were concerned that the proposed regulation had an "analogous lands" provision, but it is gone!

    Here is a link to the press release:

    http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

    Here is a link to the final rule:

    http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf

    Here is the new regulation:

    --

    Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property

    Chapter 1 - National Park Service, DOI

    Part 2 - Resource Protection, Public Use, and Recreation

    2.4 Weapons traps and nets. (new paragraph (h))

    (h) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable federal law."

    --

    DO **NOT** CARRY IN NATIONAL PARKS OR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES YET!

    The new ruling will take effect 30 days AFTER it appears in the Federal Register next week. So, I would say it will be effective no later than January 12th!


    Here is a story from the AP:

    http://tinyurl.com/68kdgo

    Dec 5, 2:54 PM EST

    New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks

    By MATTHEW DALY
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- People will now be able to carry concealed firearms in some national parks and wildlife refuges.

    An Interior Department rule issued Friday allows an individual to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge - but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon, and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows loaded firearms in parks.

    The rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

    Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.

    The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.

    The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

    "We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

    The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called inconsistent and unclear.

    A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

    "Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

    "This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.

    The park rule will be published in the Federal Register next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.


    -------------------------------------------
    ************************************************** *************************
    VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
    dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
    Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

    VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org
    ************************************************** *************************

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    This is awesome news, I was having some doubts about this one - I know, shame on me - but it's good to see that there's still reason in this world.

    I do a lot of work in national forests and parks so I'll definitely benefit from this :celebrate

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    As far as I know, National Forests already had a similar policy to this in place. But it sure is good to have National Parks consistent with everything else now! :celebrate

  4. #4
    Regular Member CRF250rider1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Herndon, VA & Martinsville, VA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    IT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE OF YAHOO!!!!
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20...national_parks

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    YAHOO!!!! :celebrate:celebrate





    (this thread needed more banana)

  6. #6
    Regular Member fairfax1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    246

    Post imported post

    A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
    Why? This isn't rocket science to figure this out.



    The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.
    Hopefully, Obama won't try and sign some kind of executive order undoing this.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    410

    Post imported post

    Great news. So... what about open carry ?

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    mpg9999 wrote:
    Great news. So... what about open carry ?
    Your right!
    Great ******* news!

  9. #9
    Regular Member apollosmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North of the York River, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    Recommend all visit www.doi.gov and review the .pdf letters from the 47+4 senators that supported us....and write them and thank them for their support....note once again, that not all pubbies are our friends, and not all D's are our enemies...this was bi-partisan. We need to ensure all of our elected officials here from us, when they do good, as well as when they stray! But the lions' share of this victory once again goes to the VCDL! Join us!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    mpg9999 wrote:
    Great news. So... what about open carry ?
    No open carry so it's half a victory. VCDL pushed for both but as usual the NRA traded a right to get a privilege. Don't know where GOA stood on this.

    This ain't a popular view but it is mine!
    http://news.oldva.org/?p=186
    I'm a member of both the VDL and the NRA.

    Point me to where there's details on exactly who consciously made this compromise and, as a member, I shall voice my displeasure.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    mpg9999 wrote:
    Great news. So... what about open carry ?
    No open carry so it's half a victory. VCDL pushed for both but as usual the NRA traded a right to get a privilege. Don't know where GOA stood on this.

    This ain't a popular view but it is mine!
    http://news.oldva.org/?p=186
    I'm a member of both the VDL and the NRA.

    Point me to where there's details on exactly who consciously made this compromise and, as a member, I shall voice my displeasure.
    Same here. I am very critical of the NRA, but I didn't read anywhere that the NRA negotiated away open carry. Sounds like something NRA would do, maybe, but no cite means it didn't happen.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Glock27Bill wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    mpg9999 wrote:
    Great news. So... what about open carry ?
    Great news!


  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    hlh wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    I'm too tired to play the cite game today.

    Point to me where the NRA pressed for carry in compliance with established legal carry in the state and I'll make a public apology to the NRA.

    VCDL pushed for both.
    The NRA always takes the easy route!


    no cite means it didn't happen.


    Parts of this bulletin board may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. OK Hawk...didn't happen! Like I said in the story, there IS a division among gun owners!
    This beat up on the NRA crap is getting old. We could have got nothing. And yes, in politics you often have to compromise. Welcome to an imperfect democracy. To show your sincerity, since you didn't get everything you want, you should not exercise this privilege.
    Great News!

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Glock27Bill wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    mpg9999 wrote:
    Great news. So... what about open carry ?
    No open carry so it's half a victory. VCDL pushed for both but as usual the NRA traded a right to get a privilege. Don't know where GOA stood on this.

    This ain't a popular view but it is mine!
    http://news.oldva.org/?p=186
    I'm a member of both the VDL and the NRA.

    Point me to where there's details on exactly who consciously made this compromise and, as a member, I shall voice my displeasure.
    Same here. I am very critical of the NRA, but I didn't read anywhere that the NRA negotiated away open carry. Sounds like something NRA would do, maybe, but no cite means it didn't happen.
    I'm too tired to play the cite game today.

    Point to me where the NRA pressed for carry in compliance with established legal carry in the state and I'll make a public apology to the NRA.

    VCDL pushed for both.
    The NRA always takes the easy route!


    no cite means it didn't happen.


    OK Hawk...didn't happen! Like I said in the story, there IS a division among gun owners!
    Humm. This is a new approach.

    In a forum where the standard is that people must post citations for any claims they make if challenged for same, a person is challenged for proof of a claim. In response the person says they do not want to bother getting the actual facts and citing them, and instead demands proof that what he is claming is NOT true. I presume that since there is no way to find a cite that states that NRA did not give up open carry that the lack of a citation to that effect is suposed to be a difinative statement of some kind.

    Well we could wait for Citizen to come along and cry fowl, but I think I will just do it myself. Tomahawk is correct-

    No Cite, then it did not happen. Lazyness is no excuse.

    Show me where NRA did what you claim and I too will take them to task for it.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Glock27Bill wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    mpg9999 wrote:
    Great news. So... what about open carry ?
    No open carry so it's half a victory. VCDL pushed for both but as usual the NRA traded a right to get a privilege. Don't know where GOA stood on this.

    This ain't a popular view but it is mine!
    http://news.oldva.org/?p=186
    I'm a member of both the VDL and the NRA.

    Point me to where there's details on exactly who consciously made this compromise and, as a member, I shall voice my displeasure.
    Same here. I am very critical of the NRA, but I didn't read anywhere that the NRA negotiated away open carry. Sounds like something NRA would do, maybe, but no cite means it didn't happen.
    I'm too tired to play the cite game today.

    Point to me where the NRA pressed for carry in compliance with established legal carry in the state and I'll make a public apology to the NRA.

    VCDL pushed for both.
    The NRA always takes the easy route!


    no cite means it didn't happen.


    OK Hawk...didn't happen! Like I said in the story, there IS a division among gun owners!
    Humm. This is a new approach.

    In a forum where the standard is that people must post citations for any claims they make if challenged for same, a person is challenged for proof of a claim. In response the person says they do not want to bother getting the actual facts and citing them, and instead demands proof that what he is claming is NOT true. I presume that since there is no way to find a cite that states that NRA did not give up open carry that the lack of a citation to that effect is suposed to be a difinative statement of some kind.

    Well we could wait for Citizen to come along and cry fowl, but I think I will just do it myself. Tomahawk is correct-

    No Cite, then it did not happen. Lazyness is no excuse.

    Show me where NRA did what you claim and I too will take them to task for it.

    Regards
    Obama hasn't even benn inaugurated, and we've already adopted the French Court system.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Hey, at least we got a foot in the door - a half victory is better than no victory. Progress is gradual, it doesn't happen overnight. That might sound counter intuitive seeing as how our RKBA should be as free as speech, but that's just the world we live in unfortunately.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Glock27Bill wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    mpg9999 wrote:
    EDITED

    Your right....Didn't happen!

    NRA is great, Damn big step forward!

    John Kerry really is a Duck hunter!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Glock27Bill wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    mpg9999 wrote:
    EDITED

    Your right....Didn't happen!

    NRA is great, Damn big step forward!

    John Kerry really is a Duck hunter!
    Dude, you're using the same logic as the anit-gunners.

    I believe because I want to believe, so it's the truth because I believe it, and you're a bad person for disagreeing with me.

    I don't blindly follow the NRA, but I also don't see something that's just not there.

    You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is...an opinion, not a fact.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Glock27Bill wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    mpg9999 wrote:
    EDITED

    Your right....Didn't happen!

    NRA is great, Damn big step forward!

    John Kerry really is a Duck hunter!
    Dude, you're using the same logic as the anit-gunners.

    I believe because I want to believe, so it's the truth because I believe it, and you're a bad person for disagreeing with me.

    I don't blindly follow the NRA, but I also don't see something that's just not there.

    You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is...an opinion, not a fact.
    Give it a rest Bill! The argument is over.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    hlh wrote:
    The internet is full of opinions that are not facts. Opinions become hearsay and then hearsay is quoted as fact. This forum wants to deal with facts.
    edited again

    The argument is OVER!


  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    hlh wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    hlh wrote:
    The internet is full of opinions that are not facts. Opinions become hearsay and then hearsay is quoted as fact. This forum wants to deal with facts.
    edited again

    The argument is OVER!

    Why? Because you say so?





    As you wish. I removed my stuff from the thread.
    Argue all you want.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    hlh wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    hlh wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    hlh wrote:
    The internet is full of opinions that are not facts. Opinions become hearsay and then hearsay is quoted as fact. This forum wants to deal with facts.
    edited again

    The argument is OVER!

    Why? Because you say so?





    As you wish. I removed my stuff from the thread.
    Argue all you want.
    This is weird Peter. I'll listen to your opinions and we can discuss and argue over them as opinions, and I'll share mine. But if opinions are to be elevated to the level of fact then there needs to be some documentation and evidence and you've not been able to produce this. This forum prides itself on evidence and facst, not hearsay. You brought this on yourself, and all you needed to dowas admit that you were discussing your opinions. No big deal and no problem, no fowl. And now your erasing your failed aguments? I want our future discussions to be better than this.
    It is a little wierd and concerning to me. I've been involved in Pro Gun activities for longer than many of the members here have been alive. I SEE IT AS FACT....OK I admit my insight to it is opinion or educated opinion on what the NRA didn't do. Can't cite that.

    The issue is as serious to me as any that have come along in a long while..Granted, I'm not in the best mood this week and have been a little short with EVERYONE..(I had to get rid of a dog problem this week and would have prefered to get rid of the hunters instead)
    BUT
    That doesn't change the issue of what you are calling a victory. It is NOT in my way of thinking and quite honestly, 8 out of 10 people I've discussed this with feel the same way.

    I have said for years that despite our differences in day to day activities, gun owners need to stick together.

    I have been working on bringing new people to lobby day from Southern Virginia and some of the extreme Southwest and this has been bandied about even though it is NOT a state issue.

    At this point, I'm not sure I can fully support the direction we are taking and if you read my reasoning in the article, throw my OPINION of the NRA, but the direction the legislature is going with permit holders vs non permit holders, my reasons are perfectly clear.

    This needs a lot of thought and that's why the argument from my side is over!
    It's not going to get settled here and in fact, since it's not an OPEN CARRY issue, shouldn't be discussed here.

    I shouldn't have expressed my feelings about it here because it needs to be worked out with other Pro Gun People that have the same misgivings.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    hlh wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    I have said for years that despite our differences in day to day activities, gun owners need to stick together.
    I totally agree, and this is why I get tired of "hearsay" attacks against the NRA, andI'll be standing side by side with youon lobby day in Richmond next month.Despite our differences you and I want the same thing; our rights uninfringed. I'd also love for you to attend our Richmond OC dinner next Tuesday that will be attended by many others that will standing with you on 2nd Amendment issues now, and in the future.
    Thanks for the invitation, but I'll pass.

    We all do want the same thing, but it has become increasingly clear that the privileges for CHP's may become a dividing wall for Pro 2end people.

    I have supported VCDL from the beginning and their work on CHP's as well as everything else.
    Most of you don't know what a nightmare CWP's were back when I first got mine. They were almost impossible to get, they asked for information about your guns and anything else they wanted.

    They were only good for a year and could be restricted if the judge liked.

    You could not renew them, you had to reapply every year.

    VCDL changed all that and did a super job. Unfortunately, either by accident or just very clever legislation, the General Assembly is making it so easy and appealing to obtain a CHP, people have flocked to get them.

    IF they continue to grant PRIVILAGES to permit holders that are not available to non permit holders, it is easy enough to make Virginia a Permit state. My son, who I insisted get a permit when he started carrying a handgun, recently allowed his to expire for the same reason .

    The basic plan of OCDO is good and reenforces the right to open carry here. Unfortunatly, way too many are straddling the fence with open carry and encouraging concealed privlages at the same time.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    As I see it, the only clear villan here is the Dept of Interior.

    Heck, I open carry WAY more than I conceal carry, and I would have preferred the reg to have allowed open carry.

    The only way I technically conceal carry is in the winter, where my coat covers my OWB rig. My main benefit to having my chp is in allowing me to buy more than one handgun a month.

    According to Phillip's emails, he was as surprised/disappointed as the rest of us that the DOI promised to follow state law and the specifically cited CC in their ruling. I'd like to know if there was any collaboration between the DOI and other groups, or if they just took our comments and formulated the legislation behind closed doors.

    Keep in mind that this may not have been done in the open as it might have been if done on the floor of Congress.

    I think that the questions here are:

    1-Did the DOI do this out of ignorance, not realizing that many states allowed OC? If so, there's hope to get this fixed.

    2-Did the DOI do this intentionally as a way to appease those who wet their pants when they see an armed citizen? If so, getting this fixed may be more difficult.

    3-What is our next step to get this fixed? I'm seeing what Phillip has to say regarding our next course of collective action.

    I agree, this is only a partial victory, and is a first step in the ultimate goal of respecting the rights of all of us.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote:
    Keep in mind that this may not have been done in the open as it might have been if done on the floor of Congress.
    That's the problem with unelected bureaucrats. They don't feel like they need to care what you think nor do they worry about elections.



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
  •