Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Bill that allows for CC of firearms in national parks.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    Look like they have attached a firearms bill as a rider onto the new credit card regulations bill. This will be a good first test to see how strong Obama feels about restricting firearms. I am almost sure he wont veto the bill but it will be interesting what he has to say about it.

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/news...ion=2009051417

  2. #2
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    this still has to go back to house to be debated, finalized and voted on. i, for one, think it will pass. i'm keeping my fingers crossed any way.

    also, it's not just CC like the DOI rule change was. it will allow for open carry and carrying of long arms too as long as it's done within the boundaries of state law that the park is in. it's far and away better than the DOI rule change.

    Bobby

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Izzle wrote:
    This will be a good first test to see how strong Obama feels about restricting firearms. I am almost sure he wont veto the bill but it will be interesting what he has to say about it.
    Obama has come out publicly as a real STRONG supporter of this bill. If it makes it to his desk with the amendment still attached he will no doubt sign it and not make any comments that would give it any attention.

    The amendment still has to make it through the House where it could be stripped. Keep fingers crossed.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10360515






    Nevada's two U.S. senators don't agree on too many things outside of the state. But Democrat Harry Reid and Republican John Ensign both voted Wednesday in favor of an amendment that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

    The amendment sponsored by Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn passed by a vote of 67-29.

    Coburn says it would protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

    The amendment allows firearms in parks and wildlife refuges, as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.

    Groups supporting gun control, park rangers and retirees opposed the amendment, which they said went further than a Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded handguns in national parks and refuges.

    A federal judge blocked the policy in March, two months after it went into effect in the waning days of President George W. Bush's term.

    The Obama administration has said it will not appeal the court ruling.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    The amendment still has to make it through the House where it could be stripped. Keep fingers crossed.
    Don't just keep your fingers crossed. Email your representative. I emailed Norm Dicks, for whatever good that will do, but at least I made my voice heard. I used the suggested letter written by Gun Owners of America, which follows. Do it soon, because the House vote is this week.

    Dear Representative,

    Last week, an amendment to repeal the National Park Service (NPS) gun
    ban passed overwhelmingly in the Senate by a vote of 67-29 as part of
    the credit card reform bill.

    NPS land is subject to a blanket gun ban. Although a Bush
    administration regulation partially reversed the ban, that reversal was
    singlehandedly negated by an activist judge in Washington, D.C.

    The pro-gun amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn, prevents unelected
    bureaucrats and activist judges from stripping me of my Second Amendment
    rights on NPS land.

    It appears that the leadership plans to bring the underlying bill to the
    floor in two pieces for two separate votes -- one on the main bill and
    one on the Coburn amendment.

    I urge you to stand up for my Second Amendment rights and to support the
    effort to keep the Coburn amendment attached to the underlying bill,
    H.R. 627.

    Gun Owners of America will score this vote in its congressional rating,
    and will inform me of how you vote.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner talks about guns in parks, on campuses and the hoplophobia factor.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d20-Guns-in-parks-back-on-front-burner-and-antis-are-furious



    If that doesn't work, try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/qvd5qj

  7. #7
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    not bad, Dave. I do have a bone to pick with you though. here:

    1) “Allowing guns in parks will make park visitors less safe.” Hogwash. Visitors won’t even know if someone is packing a concealed handgun, unless that individual is the kind of bonehead who has to run around telling everyone he’s armed.
    this bill isn't just about concealed carry. it says you can carry a gun in accordance with state laws. in WA, and most other states, that means you can carry openly as well. lest you forget, this IS an open carry board. if we choose to open carry in the parks, i take issue with that automatically making us "boneheads". there are certain areas where i'd carry a slung Marlin 1895 in .45-70 because that would offer protection against the widest range of critters. i'd be carrying my normal carry pistol on the outside of the waist belt of my backpacking pack because it would be mighty uncomfortable to try to wear it underneath 50 lbs of stuff resting on my hip bones. neither scenario makes me a bonehead. the tree huggers will just have to learn to adapt to those who enjoy exercising their Constituional rights. we've catered to them long enough.

    Bobby

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

    It's on Obama's desk right now complete with the gun amendment.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

    It's on Obama's desk right now complete with the gun amendment.
    Passed by a wide majority too. 279 - 147.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Yup. Mebbe Americans buying tens of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammo in 6 months is sending a message to congress.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Looks like it won't take effect for 9 months - end of February.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    Here is how the Washington Delegation voted on the National Park Amendment:

    YEA: Hastings, Smith, McMorris, Reichert

    NO: Larson, Baird, Inslee, McDermott, Dicks

    Be sure to let them know how you feel about their vote.

    I should add that both of our so called Senators voted NO

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    This is funny in a way. The antis make a lot of noise and get a federal activist judge to legislate from the bench and block the prior rule and now the actual legislators pass a law with rescinding even more of the NP infringements.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    Here is how the Washington Delegation voted on the National Park Amendment:

    YEA: Hastings, Smith, McMorris, Reichert

    NO: Larson, Baird, Inslee, McDermott, Dicks

    Be sure to let them know how you feel about their vote.

    I should add that both of our so called Senators voted NO
    I believe I will send a thank you to the ones who supported it, and a note of discontent to the ones who did not.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    since Dave apparently couldn't find my response to his article here, i'll help him out and let you all see his reply to my bone to pick with him above. read his article in the link above and my response. here's his:

    Well, I could not find your post over on OCDO, but here's my explanation and you probably won't like it.

    Anybody who parades around with a gun on their hip to merely draw attention, anybody who makes a point of showing off his defensive firearm for whatever reason (and that includes making a "political statement") is a bonehead.

    As responsible gun owners, we're going to need to give people, and park rangers, an opportunity to gradually adjust to this new scenario. I've already read some posts that suggest a few people are chomping at the bit to head to their favorite national park and flash hardware.

    That's just the kind of empty-headed bravado we do not need as firearms owners. It is EXACTLY the kind of behavior the anti-gunners want us to display, so they can call this legislation a disaster.

    We just got a huge gun rights victory. Let's not allow a relative handful of gun activists to squander it on an a personal ego-stroke.


    BTW: the law takes effect in nine months. So don't make a dash to your local national park this weekend and make a fool of yourself.
    so, it' looks like we're all boneheads. good thing someone is here to let us know! i would have never known.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    since Dave apparently couldn't find my response to his article here, i'll help him out and let you all see his reply to my bone to pick with him above. read his article in the link above and my response. here's his:

    Well, I could not find your post over on OCDO, but here's my explanation and you probably won't like it.

    Anybody who parades around with a gun on their hip to merely draw attention, anybody who makes a point of showing off his defensive firearm for whatever reason (and that includes making a "political statement") is a bonehead.

    As responsible gun owners, we're going to need to give people, and park rangers, an opportunity to gradually adjust to this new scenario. I've already read some posts that suggest a few people are chomping at the bit to head to their favorite national park and flash hardware.

    That's just the kind of empty-headed bravado we do not need as firearms owners. It is EXACTLY the kind of behavior the anti-gunners want us to display, so they can call this legislation a disaster.

    We just got a huge gun rights victory. Let's not allow a relative handful of gun activists to squander it on an a personal ego-stroke.


    BTW: the law takes effect in nine months. So don't make a dash to your local national park this weekend and make a fool of yourself.
    so, it' looks like we're all boneheads. good thing someone is here to let us know! i would have never known.

    Well, YOU may be a bonehead by my definition, if you want to accept the nomination,but I suspect the overwhelming majority of people on this forum are rational responsible adults who haven't the slightest inclination toward the kind of behavior I described. They've certainly behaved that way while exchanging thoughts and ideas on this forum.

    Are you saying here publicly that you parade around with a gun on your hip to attract attention?

    I think it would be fair for you to alert the other members if this is the case, so that they can learn from your future misadventures.

    In the meantime, read this:

    The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner looks at D.C. voter "disenfranchisement" and how that stacks up against armed citizen disenfranchisement in national parks.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d21-Voting-rights-v-gun-rights-Washington-Post-shows-blind-bigotry-on-guns

    If that doesn't work use this:

    http://tinyurl.com/r7rrhf

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    Here is how the Washington Delegation voted on the National Park Amendment:

    YEA: Hastings, Smith, McMorris, Reichert

    NO: Larson, Baird, Inslee, McDermott, Dicks

    Be sure to let them know how you feel about their vote.

    I should add that both of our so called Senators voted NO
    Nicely done. Gives everyone an idea about who to thank, and who to criticize.

    If you live in the district represented byone of the nay-sayers, next time tey visit the district for a public meeting, you might show up and ask why they voted against your rights.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Dave,

    i responded on THR. here's a copy and paste for you:

    Dave,

    i'm not sure where in my response you got the idea that i'm an "in your face activist". i'm not. i'm on the OCDO board but have only OC'd once at a gathering. i CC all the time though. however, if i'm in the woods and backpacking, i will OC simply because it's way more comfortable. i'm not out to convince people that OC is great and dandy. i just want to be protected, be comfortable in doing so and frankly, if someone gets their panties in a bunch, i just don't care. i'm not a threatening individual if looks or demeanor at all and i'm not ashamed about exercising my Constitutional rights.

    i like your articles and appreciate your work, but why the vitriol against fellow gun owners and activists simply because they choose a method of carry that you dislike? and since you feel that way, why are you even a member of OCDO? why bother posting to all those "in your face activists" and "boneheads"? as if you're in any position to pass judgment on them or me.

    there's lots of talk about "Fudds" here and you're getting mighty close to that definition. "sure, carry a gun! as long as you do it MY way. anyone else is a "bonehead".

    pretty counterproductive to the grand scheme of gaining back and maintaining our 2nd Amendment rights. embrace it fully or get out of the game, Zumbo.

    and thanks for assuming i'm an idiot and am going to run out this weekend and carry in a Nat'l Park. i can read. i know when the law takes effect thank you very much.

    Bobby
    you sure are getting a big, judgmental, head lately.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    Dave,

    i responded on THR. here's a copy and paste for you:

    Dave,

    i'm not sure where in my response you got the idea that i'm an "in your face activist". i'm not. i'm on the OCDO board but have only OC'd once at a gathering. i CC all the time though. however, if i'm in the woods and backpacking, i will OC simply because it's way more comfortable. i'm not out to convince people that OC is great and dandy. i just want to be protected, be comfortable in doing so and frankly, if someone gets their panties in a bunch, i just don't care. i'm not a threatening individual if looks or demeanor at all and i'm not ashamed about exercising my Constitutional rights.

    i like your articles and appreciate your work, but why the vitriol against fellow gun owners and activists simply because they choose a method of carry that you dislike? and since you feel that way, why are you even a member of OCDO? why bother posting to all those "in your face activists" and "boneheads"? as if you're in any position to pass judgment on them or me.

    there's lots of talk about "Fudds" here and you're getting mighty close to that definition. "sure, carry a gun! as long as you do it MY way. anyone else is a "bonehead".

    pretty counterproductive to the grand scheme of gaining back and maintaining our 2nd Amendment rights. embrace it fully or get out of the game, Zumbo.

    and thanks for assuming i'm an idiot and am going to run out this weekend and carry in a Nat'l Park. i can read. i know when the law takes effect thank you very much.

    Bobby
    you sure are getting a big, judgmental, head lately.


    Bobby:

    You can carry a gun responsibly any damn way you choose. Where have I said otherwise?

    What I HAVEcontended, here and elsewhere,and it is from many years ofexperience, is that people who go out of their way to draw attention to the fact that they are armed are doing far more harm to their civil rights, and mine, than they will ever do any good.

    Why the hostility? You got a gun with neon grip panels or something?

    You're confusing my criticism of irresponsible carry (and conduct)with some supposed criticism of open carry.

    Furthermore, you seem to be having something of a tantrum here because I don't look at the world through your eyes.

    That's probably good for both of us. You just haven't figured that out yet.



  20. #20
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    sorry Dave, now you're just adding stuff to CYA. in your original article you specified concealed and anyone who "who has to run around telling everyone he’s armed." is a bone head. well, by open carrying, we are all "running around telling everyone [we're] armed." that's the whole point of this board and this movement of OC.

    do remember, that all you're posting here and all your articles are, are your opinion. it ain't gospel and you aren't always right. just as i'm not either. that said, lemme give you my opinion on it;

    i think your approach is fine and the next nine months can indeed be spent educating and acclimating people to OC in the Parks. however, when we are allowed to carry in the Parks, i think we should, and we should do so openly. why? because when a fellow hiker passes us by on the trail and we give them a smile and a friendly hello and offer them a powerbar, they will see that hey, gun owners are just outdoor enthusiasts too. that guy wasn't crazy, and wasn't out to pop every squirrel he comes across. i don't think cowtowing to the irrational fears of a few is a good idea, ever. informing them plainly, simply and politely is far more effective than us walking on eggshells about exercising our Constitutionally protected rights. the other side certainly doesn't do us the service with their exercise of their Frist Amendment rights against us now do they?

    and finally, sorry man, but you aren't the one that gets to decide for any one else what "responsible" open carry is vs. "irresponsible" open carry. that's up to the individual to decide. your opinions, however, are always welcome. your "in your face" approach to judging the actions of others and telling them what they need to do is a little Napoleonic in nature though. i see i'm not the only one you rubbed the wrong with your opinions. it's probably more productive to not do that to the people who are o your side. maybe try rubbing the other side the wrong way a little. they've been doing it to us for the last 75 years and make no bones about it. neither should we.

    further, i am not the one pitching a tantrum and calling people "boneheads" and "irresponsible" because they "don't look at the world through [my] eyes." you are the one doing that, my friend.

    nice job on the final parting insult too. you're getting really good at those directed towards your fellow gun owners.

    Bobby



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    sorry Dave, now you're just adding stuff to CYA. in your original article you specified concealed and anyone who "who has to run around telling everyone he’s armed." is a bone head. well, by open carrying, we are all "running around telling everyone [we're] armed." that's the whole point of this board and this movement of OC.

    do remember, that all you're posting here and all your articles are, are your opinion. it ain't gospel and you aren't always right. just as i'm not either. that said, lemme give you my opinion on it;

    i think your approach is fine and the next nine months can indeed be spent educating and acclimating people to OC in the Parks. however, when we are allowed to carry in the Parks, i think we should, and we should do so openly. why? because when a fellow hiker passes us by on the trail and we give them a smile and a friendly hello and offer them a powerbar, they will see that hey, gun owners are just outdoor enthusiasts too. that guy wasn't crazy, and wasn't out to pop every squirrel he comes across. i don't think cowtowing to the irrational fears of a few is a good idea, ever. informing them plainly, simply and politely is far more effective than us walking on eggshells about exercising our Constitutionally protected rights. the other side certainly doesn't do us the service with their exercise of their Frist Amendment rights against us now do they?

    and finally, sorry man, but you aren't the one that gets to decide for any one else what "responsible" open carry is vs. "irresponsible" open carry. that's up to the individual to decide. your opinions, however, are always welcome. your "in your face" approach to judging the actions of others and telling them what they need to do is a little Napoleonic in nature though. i see i'm not the only one you rubbed the wrong with your opinions. it's probably more productive to not do that to the people who are o your side. maybe try rubbing the other side the wrong way a little. they've been doing it to us for the last 75 years and make no bones about it. neither should we.

    further, i am not the one pitching a tantrum and calling people "boneheads" and "irresponsible" because they "don't look at the world through [my] eyes." you are the one doing that, my friend.

    nice job on the final parting insult too. you're getting really good at those directed towards your fellow gun owners.

    Bobby

    Oh for pity sakes.

    The mere act of wearing a firearm in public is far, far, far from getting in anyone's face about it.

    If you cannot understand the difference between showing off and minding your own business - and criticizing one while upholding and supporting the other - you are already in trouble.

    You discuss being on the trail and interacting with fellow hikers. I hike all the time with a gun on my belt. I don't try to draw attention to it, it's just there. Been doing that for years. So what?

    Perhaps the best part about this exchange is that it has caused you to think about some things.

    You do whatever you think best.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    ... anybody who makes a point of showing off his defensive firearm for whatever reason ... is a bonehead.
    That pretty much sounds like everyone on this board. Sounds to me like you've just called us all "boneheads."

  23. #23
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    that's the point i was trying to make. Dave doesn't seem to realize that. insulting your base audience isn't the best way to get a message across.

    Bobby

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    that's the point i was trying to make. Dave doesn't seem to realize that. insulting your base audience isn't the best way to get a message across.

    Bobby
    You gwo guys have chosen to take my remarks as a personal insult. If you wish to think of yourselves as boneheads, that's up to you. Your indignation has been duly noted, and noticed.

    On this forum, you are in the company of a lot of people who are not boneheads, but who have demonstrated time and again thatthey can tell the difference.

    Here, consider this as kind of an object lesson:

    I was down in Phoenix over the weekend at the NRA. Ran into Chris Knox, son of the late Neal Knox. Chris was chatting with a couple of people and on his hip he had a cocked and locked M1911 in stainless.

    He must have been passed by 200-300 people who were oblivious to the fact that he was packing a shiny stainless steel cocked and locked full-size Government Model .45, and the reason for that was because he was being casual, going about his business, not making a spectacle of himself and certainly not misbehaving. Chris is one of the most publicly laid back people I ever met. Very low key and a genuinely nice guy. Now, had he been naked and wearing that gun, he probably would have drawn some attention, but maybe not to his sidearm.

    Earlier, I was present at a rather oddball conversation between a visitingNRA member and a guy at one of the booths. The member was kind of alarmed because he had just seen some guy packing a hogleg and he was wondering if that was allowed in the exhibit hall. He was gently assured that it was definitely allowed.

    The difference in these two scenarios: Knox was not trying to get noticed by anybody. He was having a good time, or at least seemed to be, and he was doing nothing, zip, zero to call attention to himself.

    The other guy, however, seems to have selected the biggest, most garish and noticeable handgun he could find in the gun shop to wear down to Phoenix. He might as well have been wearing a portable neon sign that said "Hey EVERYBODY, look at ME!!! I'm packing a great big pistol! See?"

    That is the difference, and the fact that it got an NRA member's eyebrows raised in a convention hall full of guns and visibly armed people underscores what I've been trying to tell you.



  25. #25
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Your indignation has been duly noted, and noticed. (emphasis yours)
    Explain please.

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
  •