• 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

Prophet

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
544
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
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.
 

spy1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
242
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
imported post

This Amendment (S.AMDT.1067)was added to H.R. 627 (Amending the truth in Lending Act):

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.


This is how the Senators voted:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00188

So - why is this important? Because 27 Democrats and an Independent Senators voted for inclusion of this amendment!

They need to be thanked for this for two very specific reasons:

(1) Regardless of the outcome of the Lending Act bill itself when it goes to the House, we need to re-enforce (or "stroke" if you will) these Senators for doing something right.

(2) If you'll notice the wording of the email I sent, it's gets across a very important message to those selfsame Senators - that we're watching and aware of what they do and that we'll remember what they've done.

"Rewarding" them when they do something good is only RIGHT.

This is the email I sent to BOTH of my States' Senators - I firmly suggest that you check that "Roll Call Vote List" and contact yours, too:

================================
THANK YOU!

I see from the "Roll Call" vote on the "Allowing guns in national parks measure/Amendment" that you voted IN FAVOR of it.

Thank you so very much for that! It shows me that you're really thinking of your Second Amendment supporters.

Just wanted you to know that your constituents NOTICE and REMEMBER these kinds of votes. Pete

=================================

Of course, your message may be different if your senator voted against the Amendment - and you should convey your feelings about that to them, too.

Use this link: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm to find your senators' contact info. Pete

http://www.alarmandmuster.com/
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

The anti-gunners continue to live in their little fantasy-land. It must be a nice place, I kind of wish I could live in such a pleasant world of make-believe... See the red text below. Of course the author is only referring to Yellowstone, and to the few areas of the park where there are lots of people around all the time.

It is disturbing that Coburn apparently does not believe that the amendment will survive the conference process. Sometimes I suspect that our legislative process is nothing more than a big show, orchestrated to keep the masses at bay. This could easily explain why it would have been "safe" for many Democrats to cross the line and support the amendment, if they had been privately assured that it had no chance to survive and actually become law. What a fraud that would be.

TFred


http://www.yellowstoneinsider.com/index.php?contentID=924&articleID=273

Senate okays loaded guns, semiautomatic weapons in Yellowstone

The U.S. Senate Tuesday passed an amendment allowing the legal holders of loaded guns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons to carry them into Yellowstone National Park as long as state and local law allowed it. The amendment to a bill restricting the rights of credit-card companies passed by a 67-29 margin, attracting 39 Republican votes, 27 Democratic votes and one independent vote.

"If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm," said sponsor Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) said during debate on the floor on the Senate. He positioned the bill as a way to ensure the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

The move comes less than three months after U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked a move by the Bush Administration to allow loaded handguns in national parks, a rule change enacted during the final days of that administration. However, the Coburn amendment goes far beyond what the Bush administration had proposed and includes rifles and semi-automatic weapons.

Coburn is being a little disingenuous when he argues current law prohibits citizens from carrying arms inside national parks. It does not: it requires the gun owners to unload and store their guns while visiting national parks. That, to many, is not an unreasonable measure.

Indeed, there is no practical use for a loaded semiautomatic weapon in Yellowstone National Park. Absolutely none. There is no reason why a tourist would need a loaded weapon on a nature walk led by a ranger, nor is there a need for a loaded semiautomatic weapon when a visitor is walking toward Morning Glory Pool or Old Faithful Geyser. While we are not gun-control advocates, we are gun-control realists, and on that measure Coburn’s bill fails the smell test.


And we suspect Coburn realizes that as well; he admitted to the Los Angeles Times that he didn’t expect the provision to be in the final version of the credit-card bill once it reaches a House-Senate conference committee. And there are some troubling legalities involved here, as it allows states to set gun policies on national land.
It’s also opposed by a rather large number of groups with a vested interest in Yellowstone National Park, including groups representing park rangers and ranger retirees.

"This amendment is much more radical than the regulation promulgated by the Bush administration," Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group that opposes guns in National Parks, told AP. If the measure becomes law "it would not only put park visitors and wildlife at risk, it would change the character and the peaceful and safe atmosphere in our parks."
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Right Wing Wacko wrote:
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.
Quite right:OC was not allowed under the Bush Admin regulation.A verygood reason why it is SO important to contact Representatives now and ask them to agree to the Senate Amendment.
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

Well, both my AlaskanSenators voted Aye, which is not a surprise...

However, I have lost all respect for Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.. What is that all about? Even Arlen Spectre, Harry Reed, and Robert Byrdvoted Aye for goodness sakes..
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

This is going to be so awesome when it passes. Maybe the politicians have learned their lesson. Or the sale of millions of guns and billions of rounds in the last 6-7 months has put them in their place. I'm pissed that Cantwell and Murray of Washington did not vote for it.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Letter I sent to my local Senators. Please feel free to reuse if you like.

I am very disappointed that you voted against the recent amendment which would allow the lawful possession and carry of firearms in National Parks, pursuant to the laws of the host state.

As you are well aware not only does Washington State have VERY strong protections for the right to keep and bear arms, but SCOTUS, has of course ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states within it's jurisdiction.

Given the clear legal standing of the right to keep and bear arms, as well as the very strong protection that Washington State has for that matter, plus the unprecedented sales of small arms and ammunition within the last 6 months, I am most disappointed that you not only betrayed the basic rights of Washington State, but also the clear and loud will of the courts and the people.

Perhaps it is acceptable for a visitor to a park to run the risk of rape and murder by a criminal madman (as has happened before)? I am unwilling to surrender my right to self defense simply because I step into a National Park.

It is fortunate that many more of your colleagues could recognize the loud demands of the people in this country. I hope that in the future you vote in accordance with liberty. Let the basic fundamental rights written into both the US and Washington State Constitutions be your guide in future votes.

Thank you,
 

marshaul

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

The Donkey wrote:
Right Wing Wacko wrote:
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.
Quite right: OC was not allowed under the Bush Admin regulation. A very good reason why it is SO important to contact Representatives now and ask them to agree to the Senate Amendment.
+100
 

BB62

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

sv_libertarian wrote:
This is going to be so awesome when it passes. Maybe the politicians have learned their lesson...
I wouldn't get too excited yet. It has to get out of the conference committee with the House - and that is not assured.
 
Y

y8urp

Guest
imported post

If we could just get Mississippi Legislature to change the carry law for parks we could take advantage of this if and when it passes. They let a bill to change this die in committee this year.
 

kurtmax_0

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

The Donkey wrote:
Right Wing Wacko wrote:
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.
Quite right: OC was not allowed under the Bush Admin regulation. A very good reason why it is SO important to contact Representatives now and ask them to agree to the Senate Amendment.

Actually, OC was allowed. The wording was confusing, but would make absolutely no sense if it didn't allow OC, because it would disallow other things, like carrying an unloaded firearm.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:
The Donkey wrote:
Right Wing Wacko wrote:
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.
Quite right:OC was not allowed under the Bush Admin regulation.A verygood reason why it is SO important to contact Representatives now and ask them to agree to the Senate Amendment.

Actually, OC was allowed. The wording was confusing, but would make absolutely no sense if it didn't allow OC, because it would disallow other things, like carrying an unloaded firearm.
Huh? The Bush National Park Carry bill specifically allowed CC where legal in the state, following State CC licensing, and did NOT allow Open Carry at all. "Making Sense" is not a normal part of the Law. :?
 

kurtmax_0

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

wrightme wrote:
kurtmax_0 wrote:
The Donkey wrote:
Right Wing Wacko wrote:
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.
Quite right: OC was not allowed under the Bush Admin regulation. A very good reason why it is SO important to contact Representatives now and ask them to agree to the Senate Amendment.

Actually, OC was allowed. The wording was confusing, but would make absolutely no sense if it didn't allow OC, because it would disallow other things, like carrying an unloaded firearm.
Huh?  The Bush National Park Carry bill specifically allowed CC where legal in the state, following State CC licensing, and did NOT allow Open Carry at all.  "Making Sense" is not a normal part of the Law.  :?

You apparently only read the news reports, and not the actual rule change itself. While the intention was to allow carrying of concealed firearms, there was a list of legal things. The wording of which could only be interpreted in two ways:

- You must carry the firearm loaded AND concealed AND operable, etc.

- You must carry the firearm loaded OR concealed OR operable

The second interpretation is the only one that makes sense. In the first, if you carried a concealed AND loaded but NOT operable firearm.. you were violating the law.

It was written poorly by people that didn't know what they were talking about.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

You apparently only read the news reports, and not the actual rule change itself. While the intention was to allow carrying of concealed firearms, there was a list of legal things. The wording of which could only be interpreted in two ways:

- You must carry the firearm loaded AND concealed AND operable, etc.

- You must carry the firearm loaded OR concealed OR operable

The second interpretation is the only one that makes sense. In the first, if you carried a concealed AND loaded but NOT operable firearm.. you were violating the law.

It was written poorly by people that didn't know what they were talking about.
What you say is correct, but I don't think anyone really thinks that poor law writing is going to make it "ok" to carry openly. You may or may not prevail, but the only way to know for sure would be to open carry, get arrested, then spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and in the end, risk being declared a "firearms criminal", thus losing your right to own firearms for all eternity.

Sure, it sounds like a fun game, but I don't think you'll find many willing to play.

TFred
 
Top