Amendment Approved Allowing Guns in Nat'l Parks

[LadySmith]

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? 
I don't feel the need to visit a wildlife refuge since I practically live in one.

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. 

[gunsmith]

I heard a little on the radio about it this afternoon, cnn talkinghead was might upset

Doesn't Barry have to sign it before it becomes law?

[Waitone]

Finally a sign of life in the republican corpse.

[MechAg94]

What was the amendment added to? 

[vaskidmark]

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.

stay safe.

skidmark

[Leatherneck]

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

[Physics]

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.

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.   

[Matthew Carberry]

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"?

[gunsmith]

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. 

[Matthew Carberry]

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.

[gunsmith]

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

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.

[gunsmith]

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!

[Sawdust]

My CA Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, both voted no.

I am shocked...truly shocked.  :rolleyes:

Sawdust

[CNYCacher]

The fastest way for me to get to church goes through Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge, so I am happy to see this.

[Ryan in Maine]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

Every Federal gun law  should be so good.

Fixed.

[LadySmith]

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.

[slingshot]

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.

[Boomhauer]

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..

[lone_gunman]

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

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.

[lone_gunman]

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.

[Boomhauer]

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.