The Brady Bunch's call for help against the National Park carry provision!

XD40coyote · May 22, 2009

imported post

Better the Brady Bunchers not go into the parks anyway. Sheep tend to stray off the trails and the like and end up grazing next to wolves and bears. It is for their own safety to avoid parks or anywhere else wild lest wild beasties eat them. They can just stay in their cities with the other wildlife they like so much by disarming everyone else so the urban predators can do whatever they want. "Better to be mugged, beaten, and shot by gangbangers in DC, than have somesemiautomatic weapon welding freak shoot the bear about to eat us since the park rangers are 10 miles away and need a helicoptor to get to us!"- new Brady motto.

On the other hand I can see a bear, wolf, or cougar biting into a Bradybuncher, then going PTUH PTUH PTUH! Not much eats skunks.

FMCDH · May 22, 2009

imported post

JoeSparky wrote:

Just one question... well maybe 3 ----

I know the Credit card stuff goes into effect in February 2010 but the amendment that WE are so happy about does not have an "effective" date. Did the Brady Bunch slip one by us by passing legislation that NEVER TAKES EFFECT? Or does it take effect NOW since it has been signed into law? or does it have the same effective date as the rest of the credit card stuff?

JoeSparky

If I understand the process correctly, the amendment will go into effect at the same time as the primary bill unless the amendment is changed to say otherwise. In this case, it was not given its own date, so the default would be the same date as the main bill.

TFred · May 22, 2009

imported post

The bill said specifically nine months after enactment, unless otherwise indicated. The amendment did not otherwise indicate, so barring further action (unlikely, IMHO) it will go into effect nine months from today (assuming that signing is the same as enactment).

The next question is "when is nine months from today?" Do they count calendar months, some number of days given the average length of a month, some hybrid, arbitrary number that nobody yet knows about?

TFred

Task Force 16 · May 22, 2009

imported post

TFred wrote:

The bill said specifically nine months after enactment, unless otherwise indicated. The amendment did not otherwise indicate, so barring further action (unlikely, IMHO) it will go into effect nine months from today (assuming that signing is the same as enactment).

The next question is "when is nine months from today?" Do they count calendar months, some number of days given the average length of a month, some hybrid, arbitrary number that nobody yet knows about?

TFred

I just looked over the Credit card Act and it said it went into effect 6 months from signing. Did I miss something?

TFred · May 22, 2009

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

TFred wrote:

The bill said specifically nine months after enactment, unless otherwise indicated. The amendment did not otherwise indicate, so barring further action (unlikely, IMHO) it will go into effect nine months from today (assuming that signing is the same as enactment).

The next question is "when is nine months from today?" Do they count calendar months, some number of days given the average length of a month, some hybrid, arbitrary number that nobody yet knows about?

TFred

Click to expand...

I just looked over the Credit card Act and it said it went into effect 6 months from signing. Did I miss something?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-627

Section 3 right above Title I, Effective date, says:

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become effective 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act.

This is the House version, I didn't check the Senate version (is there a Senate version?). I guess there could be a discrepancy, but I thought they were identical, due to the speed that the President wanted to get it through.

TFred

Huck · May 22, 2009

imported post

T Dubya wrote:

The irony ladies and gentlemen. Obama may be the best President for the second amendement since the founding fathers.

Just because the Obamiation signed one pro-second-ammendment bill dos'nt mean he's changed his colors! Keep in mind that for years he was rabidly anti-second ammendment. One pro-rights action does not undo all the others he's done or attempted to do. I think he's just throwing a bone to us to keep us happy until after the mid-term elections.

I dont care if he signs into law every and any pro-second-ammendment bill that lands on his desk. IMHO,he's still, and always will be, someone who's not to be trusted.

Dispatcher · May 22, 2009

imported post

All provisions of this bill take effect 9 months from the day of signing.

On February 22 2010, allthe provisions of this law take effect.

Task Force 16 · May 23, 2009

imported post

Huck wrote:

T Dubya wrote:

The irony ladies and gentlemen. Obama may be the best President for the second amendement since the founding fathers.

Click to expand...

Just because the Obamiation signed one pro-second-ammendment bill dos'nt mean he's changed his colors! Keep in mind that for years he was rabidly anti-second ammendment. One pro-rights action does not undo all the others he's done or attempted to do. I think he's just throwing a bone to us to keep us happy until after the mid-term elections.

I dont care if he signs into law every and any pro-second-ammendment bill that lands on his desk. IMHO,he's still, and always will be, someone who's not to be trusted.

You're right Huck.

This bill only prevents the NP/NWR administration from infringing 2A, it's doesn't prevent the DHS or AG from trampling all over it.

We can't let our guard down.

PT111 · May 23, 2009

imported post

(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.

The actual wording of the relavent section of the bill in case you have not seen it. As for effective date is appears that 9 months is the time.

thorvaldr · May 23, 2009

imported post

Yes, agree. The Brady bunch should avoid going to national parks. They should also avoid any where else that allows people to carry guns for their own protection, such as Colorado.

But seriously. If we judge only by what was actually signed into law, not intentions or things he's trying to do, is Obama the best 2A president in American history? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any time a president has ever actually signed something that gave me MORE gun rights. Can you?

Huck · May 23, 2009

imported post

thorvaldr wrote:

Yes, agree. The Brady bunch should avoid going to national parks. They should also avoid any where else that allows people to carry guns for their own protection, such as Colorado.

But seriously. If we judge only by what was actually signed into law, not intentions or things he's trying to do, is Obama the best 2A president in American history? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any time a president has ever actually signed something that gave me MORE gun rights. Can you?

That cull didnt giveus anything! All he did was remove a restriction on a right that GOD gave us.

I have no doubt that had that bill stood alone instead as a rider, he would've vetoed it.

thorvaldr · May 23, 2009

imported post

Huck wrote:

thorvaldr wrote:
That cull didnt giveus anything! All he did was remove a restriction on a right that GOD gave us.

I have no doubt that had that bill stood alone instead as a rider, he would've vetoed it.

I'm kind of sick of hearing that semantic argument eveytime we talk about getting our rights back. Getting something is ALWAYS a good thing even if we are getting back something that was taken from us unconstitutionally. And no, obviously there is no way he would have signed it stand alone.

Remember how the NRA (and I) gnashed our teeth so much during the election and everyone (including me) went out and stocked up on guns and ammo before "the big Obama ban". Wouldn't it be funny if a reluctantly pro gun Senate forced him into "giving" us our rights back? Still, no one has come up with any time before that an American president has ever signed anything to give us more gun rights.

Prophet · May 23, 2009

imported post

thorvaldr wrote:

Huck wrote:

thorvaldr wrote:
That cull didnt give us anything! All he did was remove a restriction on a right that GOD gave us.

I have no doubt that had that bill stood alone instead as a rider, he would've vetoed it.

Click to expand...

I'm kind of sick of hearing that semantic argument eveytime we talk about getting our rights back. Getting something is ALWAYS a good thing even if we are getting back something that was taken from us unconstitutionally. And no, obviously there is no way he would have signed it stand alone.

Remember how the NRA (and I) gnashed our teeth so much during the election and everyone (including me) went out and stocked up on guns and ammo before "the big Obama ban". Wouldn't it be funny if a reluctantly pro gun Senate forced him into "giving" us our rights back? Still, no one has come up with any time before that an American president has ever signed anything to give us more gun rights.

You miss the point Thor. What if it was all that gun and ammo buying that has STOPPED Obama from taking more rights. Basically, we voted with our dollars and told the government, 2 branches at least, how strongly we feel about gun rights and what we are willing to do if they think about taking them away. Without the big gun and ammo buying I don't think that this amendment gets through and I think the idea of a AWB would've picked up more steam.

deepdiver · May 23, 2009

imported post

Prophet wrote:

thorvaldr wrote:

Huck wrote: And no, obviously there is no way he would have signed it stand alone.

Click to expand...

What if it was all that gun and ammo buying that has STOPPED Obama from taking more rights. Basically, we voted with our dollars and told the government, 2 branches at least, how strongly we feel about gun rights and what we are willing to do if they think about taking them away. Without the big gun and ammo buying I don't think that this amendment gets through and I think the idea of a AWB would've picked up more steam.

I'd have to kinda agree with that. Often behavior speaks louder than words.

I agree with the part of thor's quote I left there as well. This is one of the few times the republicans have been smart in the last few years. He wouldn't have signed this stand alone nor do I believe the congress would have passed it as such despite the high yea vote. It was attached in such as way that it forced several in congress and Obama who are typically anti to either pass it or make firearms an issue. The dems are staying as far away from firearms as possible in obvious memory of 1994 and not about to vote against something as obviously popular as carry in NP especially after a liberal, activist judge overturned the previously popular rule. Based on behavior and polling numbers I think our success may continue albeit at a slower pace than many of us would like. Remember though, these rights were infringed over a 60 year period and we aren't going to get them back quickly.

Gray Peterson · May 23, 2009

imported post

thorvaldr wrote:

Huck wrote:

thorvaldr wrote:
That cull didnt giveus anything! All he did was remove a restriction on a right that GOD gave us.

I have no doubt that had that bill stood alone instead as a rider, he would've vetoed it.

Click to expand...

I'm kind of sick of hearing that semantic argument eveytime we talk about getting our rights back. Getting something is ALWAYS a good thing even if we are getting back something that was taken from us unconstitutionally. And no, obviously there is no way he would have signed it stand alone.

Remember how the NRA (and I) gnashed our teeth so much during the election and everyone (including me) went out and stocked up on guns and ammo before "the big Obama ban". Wouldn't it be funny if a reluctantly pro gun Senate forced him into "giving" us our rights back? Still, no one has come up with any time before that an American president has ever signed anything to give us more gun rights.

President Reagan signed FOPA 86, which was a great bill with the exception of the Hughes Amendment (machinegun ban)

wayneco · May 23, 2009

imported post

Well, it sounds about time to knock down the Hughes Amendment next!

Dahwg · May 23, 2009

imported post

What Obama is doing is not unexpected. He's a disciple of Saul Alinsky the Author of Rules for Radicals. Basically the idea is to do nothing that costs him power. If he were to pursue any type of assault on the 2A, he would certainly lose political capital- a big no no to an Alinskyite.

In other words, whereas most people see waffling as a bad thing, Obama has to waffle in order to keep his power. It's pretty scary really, if he decides it's in his political interest to smash the 2A, then watch out. We're not out of the woods yet.

nonameisgood · May 23, 2009

imported post

While campaigning, the President did say "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."

But keep in mind that IF a national gun ban of any sort were to happen, those weapons would be prohibited in National Parks. So they could have "given us" one thing in order to gain political capital to take from us even more.

PatMcCotter · May 23, 2009

imported post

What does this do for the court mandated environmental impact study? I would think the issue is now moot, the Interior Department should shelve the study and the rule be placed back in effect.

PT111 · May 24, 2009

imported post

Dahwg wrote:

What Obama is doing is not unexpected. He's a disciple of Saul Alinsky the Author of Rules for Radicals. Basically the idea is to do nothing that costs him power. If he were to pursue any type of assault on the 2A, he would certainly lose political capital- a big no no to an Alinskyite.

In other words, whereas most people see waffling as a bad thing, Obama has to waffle in order to keep his power. It's pretty scary really, if he decides it's in his political interest to smash the 2A, then watch out. We're not out of the woods yet.

Doing whatever to retain power. Exactly! This has nothing to do with his beliefs or agenda other than to play the power card.

The Brady Bunch's call for help against the National Park carry provision!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member