• 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.

Congress joins states in making parks safe for gun carry

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA

Swampbeast

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
81
Location
Boone, NC, ,
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!!!
 

Dispatcher

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
311
Location
Virginia, , USA
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.
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
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).
 

thorvaldr

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

Dispatcher

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
311
Location
Virginia, , USA
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
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Right Wing Wacko

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

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
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.;)
 

sprat

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
184
Location
, Florida, USA
imported post

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



sprat
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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!! :arrow: MIKE

Ask him...lol :p
 

TFred

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

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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."
 
Top