Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: LadySmith on May 13, 2009, 12:13:35 AM
-
Yay! The amendment to allow guns in national parks and wildlife refuges was approved.
Now maybe I'll visit a national park.
Anybody up for a road trip this fall or winter? =D
I don't feel the need to visit a wildlife refuge since I practically live in one. :laugh:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_go_co/us_roll_vote_guns_national_parks_1
I just hope they don't include a bunch of silly rules that would discourage going armed to those places. =|
-
I heard a little on the radio about it this afternoon, cnn talkinghead was might upset =D :laugh:
Doesn't Barry have to sign it before it becomes law?
-
Finally a sign of life in the republican corpse.
-
What was the amendment added to?
-
What was the amendment added to?
Added to the credit card reform.
Being as it is one piece of legislation that most voters want (puts some few limits on card companies, like extending the notice & time needed before implementing rate hikes) this has put Congress on the horns of a dilemma - pass the bill with the amendment or be seen as anti-consumer/pro-evil credit card company.
Do write your congresscritters to urge support and to thank your Senators for passing it. Sort of offering some sugar to go with all that tea they have received recently. =D
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Don't get too excited just yet. The amendment still has to survive a House/Senate conference committee, chaired by Dems. They could strip the amendment under the guise of: "Boo Hoo--we want to restore the sanctity of the legislative process and keep this just about credit cards" or some other rubbish.
TC
-
Added to the credit card reform.
Being as it is one piece of legislation that most voters want (puts some few limits on card companies, like extending the notice & time needed before implementing rate hikes) this has put Congress on the horns of a dilemma - pass the bill with the amendment or be seen as anti-consumer/pro-evil credit card company.
Do write your congresscritters to urge support and to thank your Senators for passing it. Sort of offering some sugar to go with all that tea they have received recently. =D
stay safe.
skidmark
Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden both voted for it! Yay Oregon!
Holy crap!
I am going to call them both and thank them.
Gillibrand however, voted no. :mad:
-
If it survives committee I think the Pres. will sign if it doesn't get stripped.
It passed the Senate with more than 60 votes and an even split among the Dems and Independents, I can't imagine it wouldn't be a majority win in the House as well. Line item vetoing something approved by the DOI through the proper process AND supported by a majority of both houses (filibuster-proof int eh Senate) is not a smart tactical move.
Pres. Obama is not a fool when it comes to such calls.
Similarly, I don't think the Dem leadership will want to force an issue with their party members over what is, in the end, a fairly small issue and one that simply parallels state laws.
Most of the Congress represents "shall-issue" (or at least "may-issue") states, and "may-issue" is looking to go down in Cali.
Why give pro-gunners a hook for 2 years from now when the momentum on carry (and gun rights in general) is clearly going "pro-gun"?
-
If it survives committee I think the Pres. will sign if it doesn't get stripped.
It passed the Senate with more than 60 votes and an even split among the Dems and Independents, I can't imagine it wouldn't be a majority win in the House as well. Line item vetoing something approved by the DOI through the proper process AND supported by a majority of both houses (filibuster-proof int eh Senate) is not a smart tactical move.
Pres. Obama is not a fool when it comes to such calls.
Similarly, I don't think the Dem leadership will want to force an issue with their party members over what is, in the end, a fairly small issue and one that simply parallels state laws.
Most of the Congress represents "shall-issue" (or at least "may-issue") states, and "may-issue" is looking to go down in Cali.
Why give pro-gunners a hook for 2 years from now when the momentum on carry (and gun rights in general) is clearly going "pro-gun"?
God, I hope your right, however afaik we can still resurrect NP carry when the "environmental impact" is proven to be negligible.
-
Note this law is BETTER than the previous DOI rule change.
It simply says "per the laws of the state" not "concealed per the laws of the state". Also, no mention of "licensing" simply "as deemed lawful".
Open and concealed carry, permitted or not, would be legal per the state's laws.
Every Federal gun law on carry should be so good.
-
OMG! OMG!
Open carry in Yosemite, CA!?
Once, when I was a young and naive 40 something, I called Yosemite and inquired the LE
there about how to carry a gun in the back country areas of the park, their sputtering annoyance
at me, a mere peasant, daring to even dream of freedom, was an eye opener.
-
Big picture thought.
To start, I disagree with the idea that open carry always turns the undecided against carry.
If folks from "no open carry states" visit the Glaciers and Yosimites and Yellowstones and such and see people like themselves peaceably carrying, within a generally "happy" experience of vacation, they will be given a view of a world denied them by their own states and circumstances.
Sure, some will flat freak out, but in my opinion those folks aren't "undecided" they are actively anti to begin with.
Most undecideds may find it odd, but some, a vital few, will start to think about it and use it as a point of reference when other carry issues arise in their own communities.
Net gain in positivity simply due to casual exposure.
-
Until we win the current round of post Nordyke cases, if you're in CA wilderness areas pretty much open carry is your only option. (unless you have the rare for suburbanite ccw) So if your're in Yosemite, most would have to open carry.
I love it!
-
My CA Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, both voted no.
I am shocked...truly shocked. :rolleyes:
Sawdust
-
The fastest way for me to get to church goes through Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge, so I am happy to see this.
-
Collins and Snowe both voted yes for Maine. That's good. I wonder if they're worried about the celebrities/environmental extremists still trying to turn most of the state into a national park.
-
Every Federal gun law should be so good.
Fixed.
-
Until we win the current round of post Nordyke cases, if you're in CA wilderness areas pretty much open carry is your only option. (unless you have the rare for suburbanite ccw) So if your're in Yosemite, most would have to open carry.
I love it!
Open carry in Yosemite? Hm, I think my Monster would like to go for an outing... =)
If folks there think my S&W 500 is a bit much, I can always remind them of Cary Stayner.
-
As far as I know, it is a done deal. It does not go through any more committees or reviews. It goes to the Big O's desk and he is supposed to sign the bill on Friday.
-
Does this bill have the same stipulations as the previous one? (CCW in parks in states that allow CCW in the state parks)
What about carry in the facilities (visitor centers, museums, etc).
I'm an employee of the NPS, and would like to carry at work, but won't if the bill has the same stipulatons as the past. My state doesn't have carry in state parks. 2nd one would also affect me if you can't carry into the facilities themselves..
-
Although this amendment was added by Republicans, I think it will hurt Republican candidates in the next election.
The reason is that Democrats will get credit for it. One of the very few things the Republican Party has been clinging to is the fact that they were more pro-gun than Democrats, and that voters were afraid Democrats would ban guns. Now we have the Democrats passing the only new piece of federal legislation since 1986 that is pro-2A. The Republicans have handed another victory to their enemies. When Obama signs this, he will become the most pro-gun president since Reagan, and one of the few presidents to have ever improved gun laws in the US. When he runs for re-election in 2012, he will be able to point to this to assuage voters afraid of his position the second amendment.
The Republicans are so stupid for doing this now. They should have tacked this amendment onto the Patriot Act, or Campaign Finance Reform, or some of the other crap they passed when they were in control.
-
I didn't see that they changed Coburn's language so it should allow carry "per the law of teh state".
If the buildings are open to the public I don't think there's an exception for restriction their either.
That might take an adverse regulation by DOI and a lawsuit to settle.
GPO's pdf
SA 1068. Mr. COBURN proposed an amendment 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 in the bill, 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 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.
-
Although this amendment was added by Republicans, I think it will hurt Republican candidates in the next election.
The reason is that Democrats will get credit for it. One of the very few things the Republican Party has been clinging to is the fact that they were more pro-gun than Democrats, and that voters were afraid Democrats would ban guns. Now we have the Democrats passing the only new piece of federal legislation since 1986 that is pro-2A. The Republicans have handed another victory to their enemies. When Obama signs this, he will become the most pro-gun president since Reagan, and one of the few presidents to have ever improved gun laws in the US. When he runs for re-election in 2012, he will be able to point to this to assuage voters afraid of his position the second amendment.
The Republicans are so stupid for doing this now. They should have tacked this amendment onto the Patriot Act, or Campaign Finance Reform, or some of the other crap they passed when they were in control.
I think you're wrong. On two counts.
First:
The majority of Republicans voted for it in both Houses, it wouldn't have passed if they didn't. It was Sen Coburn's (R) Amendment in the first place. The Repubs will get the credit, especially given how the anti-gun Dem party leadership were so publically negative about it.
That Repub majority was joined by half of the Senate Dems on the first vote. In the House, the pro-gun Dems were outnumbered by their anti-brethren on their firstvote. That's the one that matters for chest beating as opposed to hanger-on-ing. And those pro-gun Dems do deserve credit for voting their principles, maybe it will inspire more Dems on our side of the issue to run and get elected.
Second:
I don't give a rat's patootie what happens to the Republicans in general next election. If they want to abandon their principles to the point a pro-gun Dem can replace them (which is what we saw more than once last election) then good riddence.
Republican /= pro-gun!
Democrat /= anti-gun!
As this vote shows, it's about the individual and how they vote on the issues you care about, not some fixation on the letter after their name. Those 27 votes in the Senate on this amendment is further evidence any new AWB is dead on arrival.
We need to get more sophisticated on the gun rights issue and get beyond mere party politics.
-
I don't give a rat's patootie what happens to the Republicans in general next election. If they want to abandon their principles to the point a pro-gun Dem can replace them (which is what we saw more than once last election) then good riddence.
I am disgusted as anyone by the current state of the Republican Party, but I am not so naive as to believe it would be "good riddence" if they incur additional losses in the next election. Having at least two viable parties is very important, even if there are more similarities than differences. The only thing that saves us from a truly oppressive federal government is the gridlock provided when two parties clash for power.
-
Interesting. This could possibly mean I can carry at work. Discreetly, of course. Something small and slim in an ankle holster under my pants leg.
Until, of course, the upper echelons of NPS hand down the edict that employees shall not carry.
-
Interesting. This could possibly mean I can carry at work. Discreetly, of course. Something small and slim in an ankle holster under my pants leg.
Until, of course, the upper echelons of NPS hand down the edict that employees shall not carry.
Check your employee manual to see if it is already against policy. If not, carry and keep quiet about it. =)
-
I am disgusted as anyone by the current state of the Republican Party, but I am not so naive as to believe it would be "good riddence" if they incur additional losses in the next election. Having at least two viable parties is very important, even if there are more similarities than differences. The only thing that saves us from a truly oppressive federal government is the gridlock provided when two parties clash for power.
Again, I'm talking about individuals, not parties.
Individual Dems can better match a persons overall beliefs than Repubs in some cases. The balance of power should be between ideas, not party affiliation.
That's why you look at their whole record, not just the letter after their name.
-
The carrying of firearms in National Parks HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED as of this writing.
Simply put, the President has not yet signed the legislation. As such, firearms are still not allowed.
Note well.
This bill will allow the carrying of concealed firearms pursuant to local statute. IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR OPEN CARRY.
Firearms will not be allowed in "Federal Facilities" which is generally defined as a building where federal employees routinely work. This could get interesting as it could easily include such things as Ranger Stations, but does it include rest rooms, or how about concessionaire run lodging facilities in National Parks?
Regarding NPS employees carrying firearms concealed pursuant to the local statutes, likely this would be precluded, as the NPS employee would likely enter a "Federal Facility" in the course of his or her duties.
-
The carrying of firearms in National Parks HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED as of this writing.
Simply put, the President has not yet signed the legislation. As such, firearms are still not allowed.
Note well.
This bill will allow the carrying of concealed firearms pursuant to local statute. IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR OPEN CARRY.
Firearms will not be allowed in "Federal Facilities" which is generally defined as a building where federal employees routinely work. This could get interesting as it could easily include such things as Ranger Stations, but does it include rest rooms, or how about concessionaire run lodging facilities in National Parks?
Regarding NPS employees carrying firearms concealed pursuant to the local statutes, likely this would be precluded, as the NPS employee would likely enter a "Federal Facility" in the course of his or her duties.
It also doesn't take effect for nine months even after the president signs it.
-
It also doesn't take effect for nine months even after the president signs it.
So much for carrying at Glacier this summer. I wanted to carry in Yellowstone but currently Wyoming doesn't recognize an Iowa CCW.
-
This bill will allow the carrying of concealed firearms pursuant to local statute. IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR OPEN CARRY.
Castle Key -
Where did you get that info. My reading of the bill's amendment is that it allows carry pas per the state law where the NPS/NWR is located; if state law allows OC then OC in NPS/NWR is OK. How do you see it as different?
stay safe.
skidmark
-
This open carry part is confusing. Is it open carry for the state, or open carry in wilderness areas? Here in CA we can open carry in most all National Forests, but I don't think any State Parks allow it. And I think this is where Gunsmith is coming from talking about carrying in Yosemite. If we can open carry in a National Forest here, can we now open carry in a National Park?
-
Castle Key -
Where did you get that info. My reading of the bill's amendment is that it allows carry pas per the state law where the NPS/NWR is located; if state law allows OC then OC in NPS/NWR is OK. How do you see it as different?
stay safe.
skidmark
This information is from a Park Service memorandum disseminated to regional directors and superintendants.
-
This information is from a Park Service memorandum disseminated to regional directors and superintendants.
Hmmm... that might lead to interesting lawsuits given how the bill is written.
-
Ah, well, no carry for me then.
I'll try and snag a copy of that memo if I can. It'll probably be passed around sooner or later at work and directed to be posted on the bulletin boards.
-
This information is from a Park Service memorandum disseminated to regional directors and superintendants.
Just because some Elmer Fudd at NPS HQ says that, doesn't mean its a legally binding rule.
Also the memorandum, was it written for the new law or the old one signed by Bush 43?
The Bush admin law is written differently then the new one, you wouldn't happen to have a link to this memo, would you?
-
Just because some Elmer Fudd at NPS HQ says that, doesn't mean its a legally binding rule.
Also the memorandum, was it written for the new law or the old one signed by Bush 43?
The Bush admin law is written differently then the new one, you wouldn't happen to have a link to this memo, would you?
Mr. Coburn and his allies in both parties say the provision is less about guns than it is states’ rights. Under the proposal, people who are otherwise authorized under state law to have firearms would be entitled to have them in national parks and wildlife refuges unless a state law prohibited it. Currently, firearms must be unloaded and secured on those national lands, creating what backers of the bill say is a situation where someone passing through a park with a firearm can be charged with a violation.
Under the proposal, people who are otherwise authorized under state law to have firearms would be entitled to have them in national parks and wildlife refuges unless a state law prohibited it
CA law allows open loaded carry in NF/BLM wilderness area's hence, Yosemite would have to as well.
-
Yeah, I would think it depends on local state law. If open carry is legal in the state, then open carry is legal in parks in the state.
-
The balance of power should be between ideas, not party affiliation.
While I agree with that in theory, it does not do much good in practice. Party affiliation is very important. The majority party controls committee chairmanships, and therefore controls what agend will be brought forward.
The worst situation we have for freedom is when one party (Rep or Dem) control all facets of government.
-
While I agree with that in theory, it does not do much good in practice. Party affiliation is very important. The majority party controls committee chairmanships, and therefore controls what agend will be brought forward.
Hrm, somewhat true. But, notice the current prevailing attitude amongst the fed Dems towards the 2A? They may not love the 2A, but they're not poking at it. The Dems were the first ones the meaningfully respond to the AG's AWB idea, pretty universally rejecting it. Dems passed this measure. It's not perfect, but so far, we've done ok
We have the stick part down pretty decent. 2A groups are pretty organized and 2A individuals don't have a problem swarming whoever threatens us. The amazing thing about Zumbo was how first the entire thing went down. Fear is good. Very good. But you have to offer a carrot occasionally if you are thinking long term. That means tossing a couple of bucks or votes to pro 2A dems.
If you remain solely loyal to Repubs, they will (as they have) give you the HK treatment. If you want to be effective and you want politicians to stay bought, you want bribe the politcians based on actual results.
The worst situation we have for freedom is when one party (Rep or Dem) control all facets of government.
Absolutely!
-
No, the worst situation is when one type of people control both parties, and the electorate is too concerned with identifying with one party or the other to bother actually caring about what is going on.
-
Good news ( I hope ) Calguns.net folks are pretty sure open loaded carry in states like California, due to State law.
I can't wait, I've never been to yosemite and have always wanted to go, not being able to carry has made me put it off.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186272&page=8
-
So is everyone happy that we never gavet the President the power of the line item veto?
The Republicans were big fans of the line item veto when Reagan was in office and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.
-
So is everyone happy that we never gavet the President the power of the line item veto?
The Republicans were big fans of the line item veto when Reagan was in office and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.
I'm still a fan. An item in a bill should be able to stand on its own. Amendments and riders should be outlawed. Anything to put a brakes on the runaway pork, usually added into bills as line items.
-
Amendments and riders should be outlawed.
Amendments are often part of compromises so that a bill can be passed. If you outlaw amendments, you weaken the minority party.
-
Good news ( I hope ) Calguns.net folks are pretty sure open loaded carry in states like California, due to State law.
Not to turn this into a Calif carry thread (though I think the questions can apply to other states with crappy, ambiguous laws), but Gunsmith, I followed your link and got confused. The Calguns thread had a link to: http://californiaopencarry.org/faq.html
That site states that LOADED open carry is legal in National Forests, and UNLOADED open carry is NOT allowed in State Parks. I've never gotten more than a "hey how's it going" wave from uniformed employees when I've open carried loaded in National Forests here.
EDIT: Oops, read it wrong, unloaded carry is NOT allowed in State Parks. Modified my post.
So will the National Parks follow the State Park or National Forest guidelines? It sounds like they could follow either one. And when I read this from Parks Association Spokesmouth Bryan Faehner, I get the impression the Parks here will attempt to follow the most restrictive interpretation. There's some National Parks here, like Death Valley, where I'd be much less worried about carrying. I can see Yosemite rangers spending a lot of time stopping and questioning anyone who carries, and doing stuff like running firearm serial numbers just to hassle anyone with a firearm.
Spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the Interior Department will follow Congress' directive and put the new firearms law into effect in late February 2010.
Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, praised the Interior Department's decision.
"We are pleased, because that provides more time that our parks will remain safe and free from shotguns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons," Faehner said.
"We hope that the American public and members of Congress will have more time to understand the far-reaching repercussions of this outrageous and disturbing law that has nothing to do with credit cards and will only put park visitors at risk," Faehner said.
Until February, rules adopted during the administration of President Ronald Reagan will remain in place. They severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring that they be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.
"As Interior prepares to implement the new law, the department will work to understand and interpret its implications for our national parks and wildlife refuges, with public safety and the safety of our employees as our foremost consideration," Barkoff said. "For the time being, the current Reagan administration regulations governing possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges remain in place."
-
Amendments are often part of compromises so that a bill can be passed. If you outlaw amendments, you weaken the minority party.
If the bill sucks that badly that the only way to get it to pass is to attach pork....trash it, rewrite it, try again. That, too, is part of compromise.
Your thinking is sound in theory, but in practice its just a cash-pig for the idiots inside the beltway.
-
Ben,
Here's my opinion based on watching multiple seasons of Boston Legal. =D
Looking at the California statute, it appears the only reason carry in National Parks is banned is due to Federal restrictions, the state references the CFR, not any state code I can find.
Since the Fed. codes are gone (yes, yes, picky people... in 9 months) there doesn't seem to be anything remaining in the law that applies.
After all, it explicitly says National Parks and BLM lands are okay and they are also Federal land. "State park" rules aren't applicable.
-
From The Firearms Coalition: …Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is pledging to attach his National Park gun ban repeal amendment to every bill that comes through the Senate until the repeal is enacted. This after President Obama and the Interior Department declared that the repeal passed and signed into law this week will not go into effect for another 9 months. The delay is based on the fact that the underlying bill, a credit card reform measure, has a delay built into it to allow credit card companies to adapt to the new rules. The National Park Service need no such adjustment period, particularly since a similar regulation was adopted last year and then set aside by a federal judge. It is clear that the Obama administration is forcing the delay out of spite toward gunowners and the "gun lobby." The Coburn amendment is actually a substantial improvement over the regulatory reform adopted by the Bush administration late last year. Under the Bush administration regulations only licensed concealed weapons were permitted in the parks, but under the Coburn amendment National Parks and Wildlife Refuges fall under the laws of the states in which they are located just as Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands have done for decades…
If at first you can't get it right, try, try again. A "new" amendment will probably also have to nullify the one currently pending the implementation delay, or clarify that the amendment is to go into effect immediately. In either case, you end up with legislation scattered across the USC. (I know that's nothing new - I'm just upset that it happens.)
stay safe.
skidmark
-
20/20 hindsight. They should have written in an "effective by" date of July 4th to go with the "Freedom" theme.
Give Interior a sop of a month and a half to get used to it.
But February does let it drop off the radar and sneak in during a lull in vacations and such. By the time the next Spring/Summer camping season started it will have been in place for a while without fanfare.
-
Thanks Carebear -- I sure hope that's the way it goes. Though I'll still be wary for a while in "urbanized" parks like Yosemite regarding LEO and management personnel and what their "interpretation" of the law is. I really am expecting there will be some harassment of those who open carry, and I'd hate to be one of the test cases and/or have my firearm illegally confiscated. =(
-
Thanks Carebear -- I sure hope that's the way it goes. Though I'll still be wary for a while in "urbanized" parks like Yosemite regarding LEO and management personnel and what their "interpretation" of the law is. I really am expecting there will be some harassment of those who open carry, and I'd hate to be one of the test cases and/or have my firearm illegally confiscated. =(
My plan is to only open carry at my campsite and only camp in the back country areas.
If the good folks at calguns plan a open carry event there I'll participate though., I agree, I'm not going to be the test case.
If I can I'll chip in for his or her defense.