Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Bill allows loaded guns in national parks

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    updated 5:23 p.m. CT, Tues., May 19, 2009

    WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Congress is moving to restore a Bush administration policy that allowed loaded guns in national parks.
    The Senate voted Tuesday to allow guns in national parks and wildlife refuges, and the House could follow suit as soon as Wednesday.
    The measure is included in a popular bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Democratic leaders have said they hope to send a final version to the White House for the president's signature by week's end.
    The Senate vote is a stark reversal from what many gun-control advocates expected when a federal judge blocked the Bush policy in March. The decision reinstated restrictions that had been in place since the Reagan administration. The rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring them to be locked or stored.The Obama administration accepted the March 19 ruling, saying that the Interior Department would review the policy over the next several months.
    That timetable changed quickly last week after Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn inserted an amendment to the credit card bill that would allow concealed, loaded guns in parks and refuges.
    Amendment easily passed
    To the surprise of many, the amendment easily passed, winning support from 67 senators — including 27 Democrats. Among those who voted "yes" was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had blocked Coburn's amendment from coming to the Senate floor for more than a year. Seven other Western Democrats voted with Reid to support the Republican senator's amendment, which allows a range of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.
    Spokesman Jim Manley said Reid is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, adding that the guns in parks issue was a major concern for many Nevadans.
    "The rules that apply to our federal lands are felt acutely in Nevada, where 87 percent of the state's land is managed by federal agencies," Manley said.
    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which sued to block the Bush policy, called the Senate vote reckless. The group called on President Barack Obama to demand that the gun provision be stripped from the credit card bill.
    "Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke. "The president should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns."
    Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., chairman of a national parks subcommittee, said the measure would make parks more dangerous and urged House Democratic leaders to strip the amendment from the final bill.
    Described as 'gotcha amendment'
    Grijalva called the measure a "gotcha amendment" aimed at demonstrating the power of the National Rifle Association. Still, he acknowledged, it is likely to pass, given the pro-gun rights majorities in both the House and Senate.
    "It's uphill. We know that," Grijalva said at a news conference Tuesday.
    Democratic leaders said there was not enough time to send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee — where presumably it could be removed without a vote — and still get it to Obama by Memorial Day as he has requested.
    Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA, called Grijalva's comments offbase.
    "The National Rifle Association doesn't set the legislative calendar, and certainly doesn't determine which amendments are allowed to be offered or not offered in either the House or the Senate," he said.
    Coburn said the gun measure protects every American's Second Amendment rights and also protects the rights of states to pass laws that apply to their entire state, including public lands.

    "Visitors to national parks should have the right to defend themselves in accordance with the laws of their states," Coburn said.
    House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on Tuesday that the House could vote separately on the gun legislation. Doing so would allow each measure to pass, but Democrats who endorse credit card reform could still vote as they wished on the gun measure.
    If the two measures are passed separately as expected, they would be rejoined before being sent to the president as a single bill, Hoyer said.

  2. #2
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    "Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke.
    Ah, the demon Kalashnikov again. Typical hysterical (in every sense of the word) baloney from this bunch of wackos. Have they no shame? (It's a rhetorical question.)

    As we know the proposal was to allow CONCEALED carry in a manner consistent with the concealed carry laws of the state in which the park is located. The last time I checked, the AK-47 was far far down the list of popular concealed carry guns.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  3. #3
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    I heard this law goes farther than what Bush had in place. A few media outlets are stating that this will force NPS/FWS to honor all state firearms laws (regarding carry), so if open carry is legal in the state, it will also be legal in the park.

    I tried looking up the text on the Library of Congress website, but I couldn't find it on there, but then again, I suck at navigating that website.
    Rand Paul 2016

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    Check my post here.

    It has passed (the House adopted the exact language of the Senate version, no conference committee), and Obama's press secretary says that it will be signed (I think Friday the 22nd is the day). It will take effect 9 months from signing, and has several important provisions that the rule change did not:

    It will allow anyone who is not a prohibited person to carry a loaded firearm in accordance with respective State laws in national parks. So, because state law allows us to carry openly, we will be allowed to do so in the four national parks in Wisconsin (it's NOT tied to the State Park carry law like the rule was)! This also means that in other states that allow open carry without a license, we will be able to carry openly without regard to reciprocity laws!

    As much as the credit card nonsense is socialist ********, it's good to see that we still own this debate politically.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    ANybody have any idea of how it would affect Ice Age National Trail, that runs through some state parks? I'll check it out more myself later, but now it's time to go to work!

    Ben



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    "Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke.
    Ah, the demon Kalashnikov again. Typical hysterical (in every sense of the word) baloney from this bunch of wackos. Have they no shame? (It's a rhetorical question.)

    As we know the proposal was to allow CONCEALED carry in a manner consistent with the concealed carry laws of the state in which the park is located. The last time I checked, the AK-47 was far far down the list of popular concealed carry guns.
    As far as I know there is no state that allows an AK or AR as a "concealed carry" weapon.

    So I guess that makes Mr. Helmke look like that much more of an idiot. (As if he needed any more help)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    Here's a link to the Trail page. It's a federal trail, so as long as you don't go within 1000' of a school property, you're good. The trail is federal land even when it goes through State Parks.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    FLR72 wrote:
    Shotgun wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    "Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke.
    Ah, the demon Kalashnikov again. Typical hysterical (in every sense of the word) baloney from this bunch of wackos. Have they no shame? (It's a rhetorical question.)

    As we know the proposal was to allow CONCEALED carry in a manner consistent with the concealed carry laws of the state in which the park is located. The last time I checked, the AK-47 was far far down the list of popular concealed carry guns.
    As far as I know there is no state that allows an AK or AR as a "concealed carry" weapon.

    So I guess that makes Mr. Helmke look like that much more of an idiot. (As if he needed any more help)
    Actually, Michigan's definition of handgun includes rifles with 16" barrels that are less than 30" long (measured with stock folded / collapsed), where federal law says anything with a 16" barrel and a minimum of 26" is a rifle.

    So, many underfolding stock semi-auto AK clones are infact handguns in michigan. Thus they are one of the few rifles that we can legally carry loaded anywhere in our cars provided we have a CPL license.
    Rand Paul 2016

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    Rick Finsta wrote:
    Here's a link to the Trail page. It's a federal trail, so as long as you don't go within 1000' of a school property, you're good. The trail is federal land even when it goes through State Parks.
    They do not even have rules for the entire trail, and it is not all federal land...



    Since the trail crosses lands managed by many different public agencies and private landowners, individual trail segments may have different rules and regulations governingtheir use, and different camping fees and registration policies may apply. It is a good idea toreview the rules of thelocal land managers before you start.

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    If dressed properly you can certainly conceal a Mossberg 590 with a bayonet attached if you wish. Some states' permits are for "pistols" specifically; others, for example the Florida permit says for "concealed weapon or firearm." My whole point was that the Brady idiots are taking an extremely unlikely event-- that someone will carry an AK-47-- and presenting it as if it will be a commonplace occurrence. Not to mention, since the rule requires weapons to be concealed, absolutely NOBODY will "stare down a loaded AK-47" or any other firearm on their nature hikes. The guns will be concealed!

    I can't remember if it was on OpenCarry.org, or some other forum, but one person wrote about how they became a "fan" of the Brady Campaign on Facebook and then began leaving comments on Brady's Facebook page. I did that and left the same comment that I wrote in my earlier post. The next day it appeared that the Brady Campaign had removed me as a fan.

    I wish I could find that original poster's submission because he said the same thing happened to him, but he was still able to make posts on the BC's Facebook page. I want to be able to do that, but I'm not sure how. Can anyone help me out? Anyone remember reading about that somewhere?
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  11. #11
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    If dressed properly you can certainly conceal a Mossberg 590 with a bayonet attached if you wish. Some states' permits are for "pistols" specifically; others, for example the Florida permit says for "concealed weapon or firearm." My whole point was that the Brady idiots are taking an extremely unlikely event-- that someone will carry an AK-47-- and presenting it as if it will be a commonplace occurrence. Not to mention, since the rule requires weapons to be concealed, absolutely NOBODY will "stare down a loaded AK-47" or any other firearm on their nature hikes. The guns will be concealed!

    I can't remember if it was on OpenCarry.org, or some other forum, but one person wrote about how they became a "fan" of the Brady Campaign on Facebook and then began leaving comments on Brady's Facebook page. I did that and left the same comment that I wrote in my earlier post. The next day it appeared that the Brady Campaign had removed me as a fan.

    I wish I could find that original poster's submission because he said the same thing happened to him, but he was still able to make posts on the BC's Facebook page. I want to be able to do that, but I'm not sure how. Can anyone help me out? Anyone remember reading about that somewhere?
    Here's the amendment as passed by both houses (I believe this is the right one). It doesn't say anything about weapons being concealed, only that they NPS and FWS follow state laws.

    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
    Code:
    [Page: S5384]  GPO's PDF
    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.

    Rand Paul 2016

  12. #12
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Yooper wrote:
    It doesn't say anything about weapons being concealed, only that they NPS and FWS follow state laws.
    If that's the case, then they went beyond the original rule change that was blocked by the federal judge. :P Fantastic, an even bigger kick in the teeth of the freedom haters!
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  13. #13
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Yooper wrote:
    It doesn't say anything about weapons being concealed, only that they NPS and FWS follow state laws.
    If that's the case, then they went beyond the original rule change that was blocked by the federal judge. :P Fantastic, an even bigger kick in the teeth of the freedom haters!
    I wonder if the Brady Campaign is kicking themselves now for suing over the Bush rule that only pertained to Concealed Carry.....
    Rand Paul 2016

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    :celebrate

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    MJ, it looks like you are right. The federal page has no information on the actual trail itself being anything but federal land, however, the State DNR page says "The Ice Age Trail travels through 30 counties on state, federal, county and private lands." I think the wording on the federal page that it "passes through" these entities is misleading. Thanks for the pointer.

    What gets me here is the supremecy clause question: since this is also a State trail, would the federallaw overrule the State regulation? I'm guessing the federal law is going to be somehow inapplicable for the Ice Age Trail, as this looks like a convoluted federal/state/private venture, and not a true "national park."

    Pity.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Guess not, that kind of sucks. So we only basically have the Apostle Islands as a national park. I'll have to look into the trails some more.


    Check this out,from the national Parksservice website, http://www.nps.gov/iatr/planyourvisit/hours.htm


    ^ from the site
    There is no hunting allowed at theCross Plains Interpretive Site for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. The use or possession of firearms on the property is also prohibited.

    ^ now does that change once the bill is enacted in i think 9 months?

    Also this from the main page at the NPS Ice Age Trail site

    There are hundreds of trailheads and access points located along the 1,200 mile route of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. Some of these are located near established communities, state and local parks with facilities

    BUT......

    From http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/LAND/...c/iceagetrail/

    The Ice Age Trail is a National Scenic Trail entirely within Wisconsin. The Ice Age Trail is also the only state trail specifically designated as a "State Scenic Trail".

    This may take a while to decypher like everything else in Wisconsin LMAO

    Ben


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    Cross Plains was purchased by the feds, so that should be covered by this...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    Rick Finsta wrote:
    MJ, it looks like you are right. The federal page has no information on the actual trail itself being anything but federal land, however, the State DNR page says "The Ice Age Trail travels through 30 counties on state, federal, county and private lands." I think the wording on the federal page that it "passes through" these entities is misleading. Thanks for the pointer.

    What gets me here is the supremecy clause question: since this is also a State trail, would the federallaw overrule the State regulation? I'm guessing the federal law is going to be somehow inapplicable for the Ice Age Trail, as this looks like a convoluted federal/state/private venture, and not a true "national park."

    Pity.
    It sure is a pity, and it can be very misleading. They say it is a national/federal trail but it is mostly managed and falls under local regulations. I know a couple wardens and I live near the trail so I have inquired about it. Maybe this will change once the trail is fully completed, they keep adding to it and some used to even be on private or leased land.

    I believe the law that was put in before was not just for CCW, I believe it stated that the national parks would be consistent with the carry laws of the state they were in. Most allow hunting so open carry is legal if you buy a small game license for sure, but that is a whole different topic. I actually think open carry is allowed in the national parks, I have done it plenty and never had a ranger say it was illegal. Most often they ask if I have a gun and usually suggest it is a good idea if there are bears and what not.

    There is the National Forest which is huge and they for sure allow open carry. They even gave us advice on good places to do some shooting if we wanted to. I do not think the law will allow CCW at parks in Wisconsin, I dont think it will change a single thing. That is unless there are federal parks here where open and carry is not allowed. There are national wildlife refuges also but they have different rules of their own.

    This makes the brady wackos argument even more insane, as it is now in many parks you can legally carry an AK around. I think their argument is that since CCW is not allowed in the parks, and open carry is not allowed in every state, the states without open carry are probably prohibited from carrying there at all.

  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Post imported post

    The wild rivers land aroung the St. Croix and the Namekagon in northern Wisconsin would also be covered by this law. Too bad it doesn't go into effect for 9 months.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Ok Yooper,

    I do seem to remember some thing like that in Nevada. But the gun had to "operable" or meant to be "operated" with one hand.

    Anyway it would be a cold day in hell when I would lug a AK or AR on mynext camping trip into the BWCA or Porkeys.

    Anyway what is a CPL License?

  21. #21
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Post imported post

    A CPL license is a Concealed Pistol License. A more common term is CCW Conceale Carry Weapon (permit). Another I have seen is CHL Concealed Handgun License or CHP Concealed Handgun Permit, or PTC, Permit To Carry. The most common of these acronyms seems to be CCW, which is the most general.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I think some might be confusing national forest with national parks.

    National forests such as the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest are open to hunting. Link here >>> http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/cnnf/

    State forests and state owned land are also open to hunting in many cases, but be careful becuase state parks and campgrounds are totally off-limits. Sometimes the boundaries can be tough to determine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •