• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Senate passes bill to allow for National Park carry

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
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
 

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
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:?
 

sccrref

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
741
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
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.
 

northofnowhere

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
232
Location
RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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. ;)
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
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
 

kurtmax_0

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
794
Location
Auburn, Alabama, USA
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?
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

wayneco

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Washoe County, Nevada, USA
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.
 

centsi

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
392
Location
Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
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.
 
Top