Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Congress joins states in making parks safe for gun carry

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gu...-for-gun-carry

    SNIP

    examiner.com — Eventually gun rights advocates expected the federal Congress would step in and repeal the odd man out gun ban in National Parks. And so Congress did this week, finally aligning national parks and wildlife refuges with regulations governing the national forests and property controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Boone, NC, ,
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    As an avid hiker, I must say I am very excited, and its kind of funny how things work out. If that activist judge would not have made the injuction, then we'd have a more watered down version of carry in the park.

    +1 for America!!!

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia, , USA
    Posts
    311

    Post imported post

    Swampbeast wrote:
    As an avid hiker, I must say I am very excited, and its kind of funny how things work out. If that activist judge would not have made the injuction, then we'd have a more watered down version of carry in the park.

    +1 for America!!!
    Indeed. That bleeding heart Judge can rule what she wants.

    The vote is done and the President has said that he will indeed sign the bill.

    The will of the people shall not be undone.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Didn't the judge rule on this one that an "environmental impact" study needed to be done on gun carry, before it was considered? What kind of insanity is this?

    It's nice to know that liberal Democrats were forced to vote for this bill, in order to get their credit card legislation passed, even if they don't care if park visitors become bear food, and die an excruciating death from being eaten alive.

    Now, the next logical question in this sequence of rants: If attacked by a bear, will a series of .45 rounds stop a grizzly bear? I'm assuming they will bounce off their thick skulls, and one should fire at their throat our abdomen (heart).

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    doesn't this bill only allow concealed carry?
    The rule change that got axed by the activist judge said concealed. The way I read this law it says the park service can't make any rules restricting firearm possession at all.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...rQP3gU:e48673:

    (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.


  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia, , USA
    Posts
    311

    Post imported post

    thorvaldr wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    doesn't this bill only allow concealed carry?
    The rule change that got axed by the activist judge said concealed. The way I read this law it says the park service can't make any rules restricting firearm possession at all.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111rQP3gU:e48673:

    (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.
    Look at it this way:

    If the anti's had not overturned the Bush decision that allowed conceal carry, then many people would have peacefully carried their firearms out of plain view and none of this would have happened.

    But they couldn't leave it well enough alone and now there will be unrestricted carry in whatever form (open or concealed) the firearm owner wishes. (At least by Federal standards. The States now regulate the firearms laws individually for each park within their borders. Some have little or no restrictions on carry.) This isn't just a rule change that can be flip flopped in a court. It's a Congressional bill passed through both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Not so easy to overturn.

    The anti's dug themselves in deeper while trying to get out of the hole they were in.

    Isn't life grand?

    :celebrate

  7. #7
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    doesn't this bill only allow concealed carry?
    You guys are getting your time-line mixed up.

    The "administrative rule" that Bushcreated was a unilateraldecision that indeed only focused on the conceal carry of loadedhandguns by those who were otherwise already allowed by state law to carry in state parks. Because it was not a "law" it was subject to certain restrictions, of whichhe ignored the environmental impact requirement of an "administrative rule".

    This amendment to the credit card bill we are talking about now will become a law, voted and agreedon by the Senate to allow it to BE an amendment in the first place, and then again by the House, even on its own merits! This amendment has no language as to concealed or open carry of firearms, and does not single out pistols. It is all sweeping, simply stating that if the gun is legal in the state, and the individual carrying the gun is not otherwise prohibited from being in possession of the firearm within the states parks, it can be carried in a loaded or unloaded manner.

    Read the amendment...Its very simple and straight forward.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    doesn't this bill only allow concealed carry?
    I am not a lawyer. The following is my layman's understanding of the plain language of the bill:

    It allows in the park unit whatever is allowed in the state in which the park unit is located.For example, if your state does not generally prohibit open carry but there are some specified "no firearms" zonesspecified in state law, then in the park unityou may open carry (in accordance with the state's law) but not carry in the state's specified "no firearms" zones which may exist in the park unit (again, per the state's law).

    Essentially, with regard to firearms possession and carry, park unit areas are treated as any other area of the state.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    I read some discussion another board where it was thought that this new law also overides the "Federal Building" rule, allowing one to carry inside Visitor Centers and Park Offices.

    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
    Hmm... it does say "ANY regulation"!

    I'm not sure I totally agree but it should would be nice. There is a separate statute in place for “federal facilities”. It is not clear to me how this new law will affect the existing statute.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Be advised that , as far as I can tell, the carrying of firearms in federal BUILDINGS is still verboten.

    Places such as the structures inside Fort Vancouver, and lodges at Yellowstone would still be off limits. Campground outhouses would be off limits too.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    184

    Post imported post

    wasn't this posted on this site already, why three or four threads for the same subject???????????? they covered the subject



    sprat



  12. #12
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    sprat wrote:
    wasn't this posted on this site already, why three or four threads for the same subject???????????? they covered the subject
    He started it!! MIKE

    Ask him...lol :P

  13. #13
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    You guys are getting your time-line mixed up.

    The "administrative rule" that Bushcreated was a unilateraldecision that indeed only focused on the conceal carry of loadedhandguns by those who were otherwise already allowed by state law to carry in state parks. Because it was not a "law" it was subject to certain restrictions, of whichhe ignored the environmental impact requirement of an "administrative rule".
    If I remember correctly, the environmental impact aspect of the rule change was not ignored, but in fact, obviously and correctly evaluated and determined to not apply to the proposed new rule.

    The activist judge "disagreed", as it was the only loophole she had available to overturn the otherwise properly enacted rule.

    TFred


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    And it's not just park-type parks where this applies, but also major thoroughfares that people regularly commute on (Northern Virginia). Right now, how many license holders in the Old Dominion are breaking the law without even knowing it?

  15. #15
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Statkowski wrote:
    And it's not just park-type parks where this applies, but also major thoroughfares that people regularly commute on (Northern Virginia). Right now, how many license holders in the Old Dominion are breaking the law without even knowing it?
    Tons I am sure, I know I have quite a few times looking back. Its almost impossible to know.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    So open carry at Grand Cannyons?

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    When does the new law take effect?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    I read some discussion another board where it was thought that this new law also overides the "Federal Building" rule, allowing one to carry inside Visitor Centers and Park Offices.

    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
    Hmm... it does say "ANY regulation"!

    I'm not sure I totally agree but it should would be nice. There is a separate statute in place for “federal facilities”. It is not clear to me how this new law will affect the existing statute.
    It won't affect the existing statute (18 USC 930) at all. "Regulations" are not laws; it's only regulations (aka "rules") that are involved here. The park service can't promulgate laws, which can only be passed by Congress.

    The existing law prohibiting firearms in "federal facilities" will continue to be in effect. Until someone gets a favorable ruling that 18 USC 930(d) ("other lawful purposes") applies to self defense, the safe choice is to assume buildings are off limits.


  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    "Regulations" are not laws; it's only regulations (aka "rules") that are involved here. The park service can't promulgate laws, which can only be passed by Congress.
    No, regulations are indeed laws, promulgated by regulatory agencies pursuant to statutory power to do so. Congress passes statutes, which are also laws, as are the Constitution, treaties, and common law. All "laws."

  20. #20
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    "Other lawful purpose" now has a much clearer standing. If the state allows carry for self defense and now federal law recognizes state law in this regard, it would be for a lawful purpose. Right?

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    lockman wrote:
    "Other lawful purpose" now has a much clearer standing. If the state allows carry for self defense and now federal law recognizes state law in this regard, it would be for a lawful purpose. Right?
    You are mixing apples and oranges - stop, do not pass go.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    "Regulations" are not laws; it's only regulations (aka "rules") that are involved here. The park service can't promulgate laws, which can only be passed by Congress.
    No, regulations are indeed laws, promulgated by regulatory agencies pursuant to statutory power to do so. Congress passes statutes, which are also laws, as are the Constitution, treaties, and common law. All "laws."
    Exactly.... in spite of the fact that most statutes and regulations are unconstitutional... we still must abide by them until we can defeat them constitutionally. As many very intelligent people are now making clear to the American people... Congress and the Federal Government have used the Commerce Clause as an excuse to control every aspect of life in America... a most definite bastardization of the Constitution and completely ignoring the original definition of what regulate meant...

    So while we struggle under the weight of an illegitimate government, we must wrench control back as best we can in a Constitutional manner. More and more State legislators are taking a stand on Constitutional grounds and fighting the Fed... if enough States stand up like Montana, Utah and Oklahoma are doing... we may see a very profound change back to a more Constitutional government in our lifetimes.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    "Regulations" are not laws; it's only regulations (aka "rules") that are involved here. The park service can't promulgate laws, which can only be passed by Congress.
    No, regulations are indeed laws, promulgated by regulatory agencies pursuant to statutory power to do so. Congress passes statutes, which are also laws, as are the Constitution, treaties, and common law. All "laws."
    Not to get into too much legal nitpickery, I believe it's more accurate to say that regulations have the force of law, but because they are not passed through the legislative process, and can be changed at the whim of the agency, they are not laws.

    The consequences for violation might be the same, though.



  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Not to get into too much legal nitpickery, I believe it's more accurate to say that regulations have the force of law, but because they are not passed through the legislative process, and can be changed at the whim of the agency, they are not laws.
    Um, no, really, regulations our the law of the land and often have criminal implications- to say otherwise is displaying a lack of undestanding of the legal framework of the United States.

    Federal regulations cannot be changed at a whim - under the Administrative Procedures Act, regulations can only be enacted and changed by an agency pursuant to quasi-legislative or quasi judicial procedures, subject to Article III judicial review; changing and even just repealing a regulation can be tricky and overturned by a judge. See, e.g., The Airbags Case and the recent legal troubles of the Bush II era National Park gun ban repeal effort.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Would it be accurate to say that law creates a mandate for individual agencys to create regulations? Such as the Department of Natural Resources hunting regulations.

    Would it be accurate to say that regulations are laws that are written out in different language? Language more easily understood by the "common citizen".

    Are there anyregulations that exist that are not backed by actual law in a satutory sense?


    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

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
  •