• 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

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
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?
 

Mike

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

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
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.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Or, we can do as Jefferson and others described.
Once government is no longer the servant of the people but a terrible master, it's our DUTY to "throw off" such government.
Hmmmmmmmm, wonder what they meant by that statement?
 

KBCraig

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

Mike

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

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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?
 

Mike

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

Brass Magnet wrote:
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?
Regulations are laws.
 

dlofton

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
66
Location
Schertz, Texas, USA
imported post

Regulations in federal government do indeed have the power and enforceability of laws. Take the UCMJ for example: Under Article 92 Failure to Obey a Lawful Order or Regulation: the punish can be as severe as incarceration for 5 years.

David
 

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
imported post

Statesman wrote:
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).
Unfortunately, a .45 is a grossely inadequate caliber for stopping a grizzly.

This fact is welldocumented in the books "Alaska Bear Tales" and "More Alaska Bear Tales"by Larry Kaniut, whichdocument an eye-opening anthologyof hundreds of real-life accounts of bear attacks in Alaska.

Many of these big bruins sustained multiple hits from large caliber rifles before finally succumbing to their wounds, but not before shredding the shooter to bits first.

Forget a body shot with any pistol caliber! Your chances of hitting the heart are slim and even if you did pierce the heart it will take a while for the bear to die from pericardial tamponade or shock.

Ditto with a throat shot.Because ahumanneck has much vulnerable anatomy, a GSWis likely fatal.However, it is doubtful that a pistol shot to the neck of a bear will paralyze the animal or cause it to exsanguinate from a carotid arteryhit.

Your only hope is a well placed face shot; too high and the bullet will ricochet off the forhead, and too low will break the jaw really pissin' off the bear.

Bear spray (if used properly) is actually far more effective than any pistol. My advice is that if you don't carry at least a .223 caliber weapon in Griz country, have bear spray in addition to the pea-shooter pistol.
 

bld0121

New member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

As for bear "stopping power", anyone know how 00-buck from a 12 guage works? How about slugs?
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
Brass Magnet wrote:
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?
Regulations are laws.
Unfortunately, Congress sometimes has been know to take the "easy" way on certain legislation and "authorize an agency to promulgate ANY regulations it needs to achieve the goal Congress has authorized or as the agency understands/interprets the authorizing law!

This results in Bureaucrats make regulations that have the effect of law....

One frustration I have is a Bureaucracy determining that Self Defense is NOT A LAWFUL PURPOSE and thereby prohibiting the carrying of firearms within ALL FEDERAL BUILDINGS.

And while I am on my soapbox..... lets get rid of the US POSTAL SERVICE restrictions as well!

Edited several times for double words, spelling, grammar, and readability issues. I think I am done editing now. I should really use the preview option more than once!
 

KBCraig

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

Mike wrote:
Regulations are laws.

Not to keep beating this dead horse, but here's an important distinction: judges have authority over regulations that they don't have over laws.

A judge can reject a law based solely on its Constitutionality. They can't overturn it simply because procedures weren't followed in its passage, or because they find it has an unintended adverse effect, or because it conflicts with some other legislation.

They can overturn regulations for all those reasons, plus just about any other reason they care to name.
 

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
imported post

bld0121 wrote:
As for bear "stopping power", anyone know how 00-buck from a 12 guage works? How about slugs?
Aslug will provide more range and far greater killing power than a load of buckshot.

Compared to practically any big game rifle bullet, slugs are not very accurate. They are a short range (100 yard or less) proposition at best.The ballistic coefficient of slugs is pitiful. Recoil of a 3" sluggeris considerable. If possible, use a rifle cartridgein preference to a slug for any kind of big game hunting.

Most of the major shotshell manufacturersmake sabot slug loads for 12 and 20 gauge shotguns. These are for use ONLY in fully rifled barrels. If you will be packing a shotgun in bear country loaded with slugs, a saboted slug would be best.

Remington offers 12 gauge Premier sabot loads with both JHP bonded lead core bullets and solid copper hollow point bullets. The former are called "Premier Core-Lokt Ultra," and latter are "Premier Copper Solid."

One advantage 00 buckshot has over slugsis that somebear attacks happen while the victim is inside a tent;it isvery hard to shoot back while a bear is dragging your tent off with you in it.

So load with buckshot at night andsaboted slugs in the day.
 

bld0121

New member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

Thanks! That's what I was thinking. I am California and will be camping/hiking in the El Dorado National Forest (still rattlesnake territory). I think I'll have #7 shot for the snakes, followed by slugs for the bears, then switch to 00 buck for the "bed time" bears. Of course, my XD-40 will be on my hip per chance we come across the 2-legged attackers on the trail.
 

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
imported post

bld0121 wrote:
Of course, my XD-40 will be on my hip per chance we come across the 2-legged attackers on the trail.
Yup. Its dem two legged varmits ya gotta watch out for.
 

bld0121

New member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

And to think my wife calls me paranoid (with a roll of her eyes). No matter how much I 'd like to say "I told you so", I truely hope I never get the chance!
 
Top