Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 88

Thread: Senate passes bill to allow for National Park carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Just saw this in the crawl on Fox.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Weird, cool and unexpected. Opencongress reports the vote, and links to your news article but I can't find the text of Coburn's amendment.

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h627/show

    In other news, BOTH my senators voted (against party) for this. I'm so proud. Now how do we keep them from stripping the amendment off? I really want for Obama to have to decide between a having a credit card reform bill and screwing us out of carry in parks.

    EDIT> Govtrack and Thomas don't seem to have amendment 1067 listed yet, either

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    So it went through the senate and now must go through the house correct? So I should be contacting my congressman? Man I feel retarded asking those questions:?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Oh, the Brady Bunch is an unhappy Bunch (music). HehHeh:celebrate

  6. #6
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    So it went through the senate and now must go through the house correct? So I should be contacting my congressman? Man I feel retarded asking those questions:?
    By the tracking link it has already passed the House. This shows it has now passed the Senate. I believe that the next step is the President for signing it into law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    I'm sure Obama will sign it then.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    Obviously I would support this, but is it just me or is it absolutely ridiculous the amendments that have nothing to do with the origonal bill that get tacked onto everything. Call me an infidel or a terrorist, but this is a crap way to govern. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Vote for the bill for what it is, and go make your own bill damnit.

    Government day to day business seems to be amending perfectly fine bills that are the right thing to do with completely seperate issues, it really annoys the hell outta me.

    K, done ranting, but I won't be happy until all career politicians are voted out or in jail.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    northofnowhere wrote:
    Obviously I would support this, but is it just me or is it absolutely ridiculous the amendments that have nothing to do with the origonal bill that get tacked onto everything.* Call me an infidel or a terrorist, but this is a crap way to govern.* Right is right, wrong is wrong.* Vote for the bill for what it is, and go make your own bill damnit.

    Government day to day business seems to be amending perfectly fine bills that are the right thing to do with completely seperate issues, it really annoys the hell outta me.*

    K, done ranting, but I won't be happy until all career politicians are voted out or in jail.
    Clearly, a major overhaul is necessary. But that's how things are done right now. It's quite a separate (and larger) issue than carry in national parks.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Louisiana
    Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) Yes.

    Of course I knew what Vitter would vote.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote: I just watched the Senators comments and wow, it is a really strange to watch a politician stand up for 10 minutes and have everything he says make sense.

    I know, I know. It's totally sleazy to put a 2A amendment on a credit card bill but that is the way politics work here and now. It's fine to say he should make his own bill addressing this but both 2A in national parks bills (S816 and H.R.1684) are sitting in committee and honestly not that likely to get to the floor. Even if one of them managed to get voted through, there is about a 0% chance of them eventually being signed by Obama. Now we've got our right to carry in national parks tied onto something that Obama would actually sign. No, not the way government should work, but I'm glad he did it.

    All of you with Dem Senators that voted for this amendment need to send them a thank you note today. They chose you over their party and they need to know you care. Here is the roll call:

    http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/5546


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    It's about time we started to tack crap onto other bills... we should even start to poison pill stuff. Next we need an anti-Hughes amendment. Say, on the next bailout bill?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kennewick, WA, ,
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Both our Senators voted nay. Not really surprising.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    NV scored a bi-partisan "yea."

    Reid - D

    Ensign - R
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Both Senators voted Aye - both Dems...





    Sen. Mark Warner [D, VA]
    Aye

    Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
    Aye

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    sccrref wrote:
    Pagan wrote:
    So it went through the senate and now must go through the house correct? So I should be contacting my congressman? Man I feel retarded asking those questions:?
    By the tracking link it has already passed the House. This shows it has now passed the Senate. I believe that the next step is the President for signing it into law.
    NO, I believe that since the House bill did not have the Senate language in it, it must go to a conference committee - and we have to hope that it remains in the final bill.

    Contact your Representative and let him/her know you want the language to remain.

    Check thesaf.org or vcdl.org for a link to communicate with your rep.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    The Brady bunch have become the laughingstock of DC. Even Obama won't give them the time of day, and my guess is he'll sign this bill without much fuss.

    They might as well throw in the towel. It's getting quite pathetic, and it's only going to make life harder for anti-gunners.

    The war might go on for some time to come, but they've already had their Stalingrad.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    You're right. Their Stalingrad must have been the Clinton "Assault Weapons" Ban, you see where that got their former sponsor party, the Democrats, more than a decade out in the cold.

    I hope that California is paying attention, they're next.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    Here's the text of the amendment from http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:3:./temp/~r111hSYHJT:e25739:
    SA 1067. Mr. COBURN proposed an amendment to amendment SA 1058 proposed by Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mr. Shelby) to the bill H.R. 627, to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes; as follows:

    At the appropriate place, insert the following:

    SEC. __. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

    (a) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds the following:

    (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 entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

    (6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009--

    (A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and

    (B) the new regulations--

    (i) are under review by the administration; and

    (ii) may be altered.

    (7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

    (8) 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 including an assembled or functional 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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    Double dinner for the democrat senators of Pennsylvania. I'm not surprised with Casey voted for but its always nice to see the former RINO Specter voting for.

    Oh yeah...and that political hack from New York Gillibrand can take her nay vote and choke on it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Here's hoping it gets signed!

    UOC & LOC in Natl. Parks for CA!
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    If the measure becomes law "it would not only put park visitors and wildlife at risk, it would change the character and thepeaceful and safeatmosphere in our parks," Faehner said.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0808/p03s01-ussc.html

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...4/162412.shtml

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022800363.html

    "Peaceful and safe" eh?
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    Sebastion on Snowflakes in Hell pointed out the following language:

    (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 including an assembled or functional 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.
    This is SO MUCH BETTER than the regulation initially passed by the Bush administration.

    It would also protect lawful open carrying of firearms in states which allow it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    thorvaldr wrote:
    wrightme wrote: I just watched the Senators comments and wow, it is a really strange to watch a politician stand up for 10 minutes and have everything he says make sense.

    I know, I know. It's totally sleazy to put a 2A amendment on a credit card bill but that is the way politics work here and now. It's fine to say he should make his own bill addressing this but both 2A in national parks bills (S816 and H.R.1684) are sitting in committee and honestly not that likely to get to the floor. Even if one of them managed to get voted through, there is about a 0% chance of them eventually being signed by Obama. Now we've got our right to carry in national parks tied onto something that Obama would actually sign. No, not the way government should work, but I'm glad he did it.

    All of you with Dem Senators that voted for this amendment need to send them a thank you note today. They chose you over their party and they need to know you care. Here is the roll call:

    http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/5546
    No more sleazy than a judge trying to over-ride the natural rights of 80 million Americans to keep and bear arms. "Environmental impact", my ass. That was a clear-cut case of legislating from the bench, a clear violation of the constitution.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •