PDA

View Full Version : Senate backs allowing guns in national parks


tboyer
05-14-2009, 10:24 AM
This appeared in SF gate, you may want to leave a comment.


http://tinyurl.com/oc32zl

Senate backs allowing guns in national parks
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
(05-12) 16:43 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Senate on Tuesday backed an amendment that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which he said would protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The amendment allows firearms in parks and wildlife refuges, as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.
"If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm," Coburn said.
Twenty-seven Democrats joined 39 Republicans and one independent in supporting the amendment, which was attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies. The amendment was approved 67-29.
Groups supporting gun control, park rangers and retirees opposed the amendment, which they said went further than a Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded handguns in national parks and refuges.
A federal judge blocked the policy in March, two months after it went into effect in the waning days of President George W. Bush's term. The Obama administration has said it will not appeal the court ruling.
"This amendment is much more radical than the regulation promulgated by the Bush administration," said Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group that opposes guns in parks.
If the measure becomes law "it would not only put park visitors and wildlife at risk, it would change the character and the peaceful and safe atmosphere in our parks," Faehner said.
Faehner's group sent a letter to senators Tuesday stating that Coburn's amendment would allow individuals to openly carry rifles, shotguns, and semiautomatic weapons in national parks. "As a result, individuals could attend ranger-led hikes and campfire programs with their rifles at Yellowstone National Park and other national park treasures across the country," the letter said.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the Senate vote reckless.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked the Bush rule because she found that the Interior Department had not done the proper analysis, Helmke said, "and now the Senate is basically rushing into this with little or no debate, and no analysis on what impact it will have on the people who use the parks and the wildlife in the parks. I think that's reckless."
Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee, said he hoped the credit card legislation would pass this week. Helmke and Faehner said they would try to get the gun amendment stripped from the bill before final passage.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/12/national/w153933D89.DTL

Vtec44
05-14-2009, 10:34 AM
This is getting insteresting. If I remember it correctly Yosemite specifically do not allow any type of firearms.

pullnshoot25
05-14-2009, 10:39 AM
This is getting insteresting. If I remember it correctly Yosemite specifically do not allow any type of firearms.

Yosemite and Yellowstone= two places I wouldn't feel comfortable without a firearm.

BTF/PTM
05-14-2009, 12:19 PM
Yosemite and Yellowstone= two places I wouldn't feel comfortable without a firearm. You're not comfortable being anywhere without a firearm ;)

So it says the bill allows carrying in a national park IF it's allowed under state law. Doesn't that mean that for Californian's it would still be void?

p.s. - when's the next UOC meet? :thumbsup:

sgtlmj
05-14-2009, 12:31 PM
I lived in Florida for a while, and the Everglades is a Nat'l Park. Basically the entire bottom part of the state is a no-carry area. Imagine that, in a place with critters that will eat you and drug runners that will feed you to said critters.

JDay
05-14-2009, 12:36 PM
Faehner's group sent a letter to senators Tuesday stating that Coburn's amendment would allow individuals to openly carry rifles, shotguns, and semiautomatic weapons in national parks

There they go trying to make semiautomatic into a new evil catch phrase again.

dfletcher
05-14-2009, 2:46 PM
Groups supporting gun control, park rangers and retirees opposed the amendment, which they said went further than a Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded handguns in national parks and refuges.

If the measure becomes law "it would not only put park visitors and wildlife at risk, it would change the character and the peaceful and safe atmosphere in our parks," Faehner said.

Faehner's group sent a letter to senators Tuesday stating that Coburn's amendment would allow individuals to openly carry rifles, shotguns, and semiautomatic weapons in national parks. "As a result, individuals could attend ranger-led hikes and campfire programs with their rifles at Yellowstone National Park and other national park treasures across the country," the letter said.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the Senate vote reckless.


The article is a bit unclear - as in, did a group of old folks come out to oppose the bill or did a an old folks organization such as AARP oppose the bill? I've always heard AARP was antigun, which always struck me as a bit odd

N6ATF
05-14-2009, 3:59 PM
attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies

LOL that's one hell of a rider.

Glock22Fan
05-14-2009, 4:30 PM
See also the article I posted here. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=181655&page=3)

gunsmith
05-14-2009, 5:00 PM
"Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the Senate vote reckless.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked the Bush rule because she found that the Interior Department had not done the proper analysis, Helmke said, "and now the Senate is basically rushing into this with little or no debate, and no analysis on what impact it will have on the people who use the parks and the wildlife in the parks. I think that's reckless."

The analysis was a environmental impact study, that is what Judge Kotelly used to block it, not some vauge "study on what impact on people"

I like this bill better, it means we do not have to have a CCW!

Open carry is legal in CA Nat forest, if this passes it will be legal in Yosemite.

Thank God I do not have to wait years for some sanity!

Timberline
05-14-2009, 6:08 PM
LOL that's one hell of a rider.

Thas how we make laws 'round these parts. What you canna get directly, you get through clever manouvering.

Not that the process yields good law, mind you.

DDT
05-14-2009, 7:19 PM
no analysis on what impact it will have on the people who use the parks

I wish there was some analysis on the impact of his exercising his first amendment rights in so vile a manner. It makes this person want to projectile vomit. Fortunately I'm in a hospital right now so there's a puke basin waiting....

Vtec44
05-14-2009, 7:43 PM
Open carry is legal in CA Nat forest, if this passes it will be legal in Yosemite.


I'd love to see the reaction of those cute German girls to my leg holster. :D

MudCamper
05-14-2009, 8:47 PM
So it says the bill allows carrying in a national park IF it's allowed under state law. Doesn't that mean that for Californian's it would still be void?

No. UOC would be legal, and in many areas LOC would be legal.

DDT
05-14-2009, 8:59 PM
I'd love to see the reaction of those cute German girls to my leg holster. :D

Most people wear their holster on the OUTSIDE of their hips, but feel free to wear it as you see fit.

Vtec44
05-14-2009, 9:15 PM
Most people wear their holster on the OUTSIDE of their hips, but feel free to wear it as you see fit.

I didn't know there's another way to wear a leg holster. :eek:

avdrummerboy
05-14-2009, 9:52 PM
There they go trying to make semiautomatic into a new evil catch phrase again.


What about our homeland defense rifles?

vladbutsky
05-14-2009, 10:05 PM
So what's next? The article didn't give much details on actual bill.
Can I go to the NP with my gun now?

Dark Paladin
05-14-2009, 10:08 PM
Sounds like they only passed the amendment to the bill. Bill's not out of the woods yet.

7222 Hawker
05-15-2009, 7:45 AM
I'd love to see the reaction of those cute German girls to my leg holster. :D

LOL - Thats funny right there!

Kid Stanislaus
05-15-2009, 8:09 AM
This is getting insteresting. If I remember it correctly Yosemite specifically do not allow any type of firearms.

Except by the park rangers. THEY, of course, are the only ones who would ever be victems of criminal attack in a NP, ordinary citizens are give a high level of consideration by the criminals. :rolleyes:

BTF/PTM
05-15-2009, 8:45 AM
No. UOC would be legal, and in many areas LOC would be legal.

Hiking Half Dome carrying the P220 with mags on my other hip...that would be fun :thumbsup:

KWA-S
05-15-2009, 9:11 AM
There they go trying to make semiautomatic into a new evil catch phrase again.

Hey, wait until they get started on sniper type bolt action rifles. They can shoot down planes!

Bad Voodoo
05-15-2009, 9:17 AM
There they go trying to make semiautomatic into a new evil catch phrase again.

Considering legal rifles and shotguns in this state ARE semi-automatic, I agree!

BTF/PTM
05-15-2009, 9:53 AM
Hey, wait until they get started on sniper type bolt action rifles. They can shoot down planes!

Theoretically you could take down a helicopter with a handful of decent-size rocks. Chip the rotors in enough places and they'll fail. Granted the bird would have to be just getting off the ground to be in range and you'd need to learn to bend time like in The Matrix to move fast enough to make it work, but hey, let's limit it just in case. Ban rocks, BAN THEM ALL!!!

rabagley
05-15-2009, 11:49 AM
This appeared in SF gate, you may want to leave a comment.


http://tinyurl.com/oc32zl

Senate backs allowing guns in national parks

...snip...

If the measure becomes law "it would not only put park visitors and wildlife at risk, it would change the character and the peaceful and safe atmosphere in our parks," Faehner said.

...snip...


Has this moron ever been to a national park? In my experience, once you get about 5 miles away from any trailheads and hike for a day or two, there's a 1 in 5 chance you'll come across some irrigation equipment used by marijuana growers. If they're around, they're armed and don't want you there.

"peaceful and safe atmosphere" my a**. How quickly are the cops going to come to your mobile phone call? Oh wait, you're outside the service area. Darn. No call to the cops for you.

jimh
05-15-2009, 1:34 PM
any word when the senate/house are expected to work out the differences and send the bill to the president?

Jeff P
05-15-2009, 2:56 PM
The law change would be interesting. It might work in favor of the public when visiting Sequoia National park with the dope growers. And stop the robberies on the John Muir Trail between Yosemite and Mammoth.

vrand
05-15-2009, 3:23 PM
Has this moron ever been to a national park? In my experience, once you get about 5 miles away from any trailheads and hike for a day or two, there's a 1 in 5 chance you'll come across some irrigation equipment used by marijuana growers. If they're around, they're armed and don't want you there.

"peaceful and safe atmosphere" my a**. How quickly are the cops going to come to your mobile phone call? Oh wait, you're outside the service area. Darn. No call to the cops for you.

yep

Timberline
05-15-2009, 8:27 PM
The law change would be interesting. It might work in favor of the public when visiting Sequoia National park with the dope growers.
Mexican gangs run marijuana farms in the foothills, this has been the case for a fair time. Quite a problem along the Mineral King road, in fact.
And stop the robberies on the John Muir Trail between Yosemite and Mammoth.
Can you back that up with any news reports? First I have heard of it, ever.

JGarrison
05-19-2009, 9:40 AM
So this passed the Senate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_credit_cards;_ylt=Aj3L0y4GVgyY5qk7mvJv O6GyBhIF

Vtec44
05-19-2009, 9:59 AM
I hope they didn't strip the gun amendment prior to passing it. The article didn't mention anything about it though.

tmuller
05-19-2009, 11:30 AM
I hope they didn't strip the gun amendment prior to passing it. The article didn't mention anything about it though.

House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on Tuesday that the House might vote separately on the gun proposal so as not to bog down the credit card overhaul.

:popcorn:

Flogger23m
05-19-2009, 11:31 AM
Here is another article:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20090519/US.Guns.National.Parks/


And a quote from it:

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke. "The president should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns."


Funny how they think being allowed the carry guns in national parks means being held at gun point. :confused:

7x57
05-19-2009, 11:34 AM
Funny how they think being allowed the carry guns in national parks means being held at gun point. :confused:

Of course. Gun owners are evil. Didn't you get the memo? It was on all the news outlets for, oh, the last fifty years.

7x57

Vtec44
05-19-2009, 11:48 AM
:popcorn:

I guess I should have read all the way to the last 2 paragraphs. lol

AaronHorrocks
05-19-2009, 12:03 PM
You can't "allow people to" do something that is a right of thiers already.

In any case, this is great news. I just wish it had passed the first time, then I could have been packing in Moab a few weeks ago!

Dark Paladin
05-19-2009, 2:38 PM
I hope it gets passed and signed into law by end of this week. We're heading to Yosemite this weekend. I would love to be the first at Half Dome with my XD at my side.

leadchucker
05-19-2009, 10:41 PM
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke. "The president should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns."

Are these the most paranoid twits on the planet, or what? And they dare to call us paranoid:rolleyes:

yellowfin
05-19-2009, 11:28 PM
I suppose Helmke doesn't mind families staring down loaded AR 10's or Stoner 63's or AUG's...just so long as it's not an AK, right?

bigcalidave
05-19-2009, 11:33 PM
How many times is this issue going to bounce around in such a short period of time? Usually it takes a while. Now we have a leaving president say it's ok, the new president say it's not, congress saying its ok again, ugh. Just let us CCW in our parks!

scc1909
05-20-2009, 8:03 AM
Anybody hear anything about the vote in the House today? I read in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051903660.html) that Pelosi had managed to force a separate vote on the gun part of the credit card bill, but I haven't been able to find any updates on the vote tallies.

scc1909
05-20-2009, 8:24 AM
I'm watching C-Span and the "Procedural VOte" (I'm not sure what exactly that means...) on HR 456 appears to have passed. Time has run out on the vote, but the numbers continue to come in.

Final vote tally: 247 in favor; 180 against.

Tho again...I am not sure if this included the weapons in Nat'l Parks issue.

EDR
05-20-2009, 8:45 AM
Couple of really stupid questions:
What's UOC stand for?
What's LOC stand for?
Under this legistation do you need any CCW to openly carry a loaded and ready to go handgun in Yosemite (and the like)?
If so, does it need to be openly visible, or can it be concealed?

Thanks.

scc1909
05-20-2009, 8:46 AM
Ok, analyst Vitoria McGrane of "The Politico" is commenting on C-Span that the just-completed votes set the stage for the upcoming one-hour debate on the floor. At the end of that debate, the basic bill, plus all 9 amendments (including the one we are interested in) will be voted on. Ms McGrane predicts that all parts of the vote will easily pass, but that by breaking out the votes, "liberal Democratic Representatives" will be on the record against guns in Nat'l Parks.

Bottom line...within about two hours it should be ready for the President's signature...who has indicated he will sign it as presented.

Dark Paladin
05-20-2009, 8:57 AM
Couple of really stupid questions:
What's UOC stand for?
What's LOC stand for?
Under this legistation do you need any CCW to openly carry a loaded and ready to go handgun in Yosemite (and the like)?
If so, does it need to be openly visible, or can it be concealed?

Thanks.

UOC - Unloaded Open Carry
LOC - Loaded Open Carry

From what I understand, we can LOC in a NP just like we currently can in a NF. Same rules and regulations still apply against doing stupid things when carrying (don't randomly shoot animals, watch where you are shooting, etc). CCW is irrelevant because this is open carry.

scc1909
05-20-2009, 9:12 AM
If UOC/LOC in NPs were already legal, this would not be an issue. Until a few years ago, one could not legally drive down a public highway that passes through a NP with an unloaded firearm in the trunk of your car.

Liberty1
05-20-2009, 9:51 AM
Couple of really stupid questions:
What's UOC stand for?
What's LOC stand for?
Under this legistation do you need any CCW to openly carry a loaded and ready to go handgun in Yosemite (and the like)?
If so, does it need to be openly visible, or can it be concealed?

Thanks.

This bill would allow firearm carry in national parks under the laws of the state in which that NP unit is located.

A county ordinance prohibiting "discharge" in UNincorporated territory triggers the loaded ban per PC 12031 (no ammo in firearm People v Clark). So one would need to understand the county codes to determine if that NP unit is UOC or LOC.

Read californiaopencarry.org (californiaopencarry.org) to understand further how PC 12031 (loaded ban in cities - UOC vs LOC) works under current CA law.

If one has a PC 12050 license to carry (often called CCW) then one may possess a firearm pursuant to that license regardless of a county ordinance against discharge.

Liberty1
05-20-2009, 9:53 AM
UOC - Unloaded Open Carry
LOC - Loaded Open Carry

From what I understand, we can LOC in a NP just like we currently can in a NF.

Only IF this bill passes in it's current form. We cannot LOC in NPs right now (or CCW - even state police officers can't)

scc1909
05-20-2009, 9:58 AM
The 15-minute voting period for the basic bill is about to start. That vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the 'guns in parks' amendment. The analyst is saying again that she expects both votes to pass, because if the gun amendment is defeated, the bill must go to a Senate/House conference, and hence will miss the President's and House's self-imposed deadline of Memorial Day to get it passed.

I will update the results every few minutes:

Basic Bill - The basic bill has passed.
Yea / Nay
367 / 61 (Final Talley)

Gun Amendment - The bill has passed!!!
Yea / Nay / Not voting
279 / 147 / 8 (Final Talley)

Vtec44
05-20-2009, 10:04 AM
updates?

demnogis
05-20-2009, 10:10 AM
Wow... so many not voting. Amazing.

Dark Paladin
05-20-2009, 10:12 AM
Only IF this bill passes in it's current form. We cannot LOC in NPs right now (or CCW - even state police officers can't)

Right. That's what I meant, and should have clarified in my original post.

Okay, now that the bill and amendment has passd (Thanks SCC for the near-real-time udpates!). . . and assuming Obama signs the bill by Friday. . . can I now LOC while hiking to Half Dome?

Liberty1
05-20-2009, 10:22 AM
Right. That's what I meant, and should have clarified in my original post.

Okay, now that the bill and amendment has passd (Thanks SCC for the near-real-time udpates!). . . and assuming Obama signs the bill by Friday. . . can I now LOC while hiking to Half Dome?

consult with your attorney :p

Dark Paladin
05-20-2009, 10:23 AM
consult with your attorney :p

I was told two weeks. Doh! :rolleyes:

sgtlmj
05-20-2009, 10:26 AM
So now that the amendment has passed the P0TUS will sign since he wants the CC bill. There is no line-item veto power, so it's all or nothing?

scc1909
05-20-2009, 10:28 AM
So now that the amendment has passed the P0TUS will sign since he wants the CC bill. There is no line-item veto power, so it's all or nothing?

Yes, there is no line-item provision...it is all or nothing.

demnogis
05-20-2009, 10:28 AM
Basic Bill - The basic bill has passed.
Yea / Nay
367 / 61 (Final Talley)

Gun Amendment - The bill has passed!!!
Yea / Nay / Not voting
279 / 147 / 8 (Final Talley)

WOOHOO!

Once this is signed, we can hopefully UOC/LOC in National Parks in CA!

Liberty1
05-20-2009, 11:34 AM
WOOHOO!

Once this is signed, we can hopefully UOC/LOC in National Parks in CA!

or poor man's ccw if you want

sgtlmj
05-20-2009, 11:37 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5itp2xFPxgQ4TTpiTFLZQrJpRTAXQD98A4R980

House votes to allow guns in national parks
By MATTHEW DALY – 58 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress has voted to allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The House approved the measure, 279-147, on Wednesday, one day after the Senate acted.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which would restore a Bush administration policy allowing loaded guns in national parks. A federal judge blocked the policy in March, and the Obama administration did not file an appeal.

The gun amendment was attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies. The measure now goes to President Barack Obama, who is expected to sign it.

Liberty1
05-20-2009, 12:02 PM
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/05/carry_in_parks.php

Carry in parks amendment passes!
Posted by David Hardy · 20 May 2009 12:50 PM
Roll call here. Passed about half an hour ago, 279-147, with 105 Demo votes.

Hat tip to reader Alice Beard...

update: on a quick read, it appears that the House also voted for the bill as an entirity, and that it voted it out as an approval of the Senate version. So there will be no conference -- it goes right to the president's desk. And he wants the rest of the bill so bad it hurts ....

aermotor
05-20-2009, 12:04 PM
Just heard on NPR that this is going to Obama to be signed into Law.... is that correct?

stag1500
05-20-2009, 12:06 PM
Hopefully by the end of the week.

Liberty1
05-20-2009, 12:06 PM
Just heard on NPR that this is going to Obama to be signed into Law.... is that correct?

If BHO signs it...

Liberty1
05-20-2009, 12:14 PM
Ron Paul voted for the bill so he must like the whole thing and found it constitutional otherwise he would have gone the "Dr No" route; the NP gun amendent notwithstanding. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll277.xml

Hmmm... the speaker of the House doesn't vote? Her name is not found in any Roll

doran4x
05-20-2009, 2:27 PM
Does this mean it will be legal to carry in Golden Gate National Park / Recreation Area?

stag1500
05-20-2009, 2:35 PM
Does this mean it will be legal to carry in Golden Gate National Park / Recreation Area?

Only if you have a CCW that allows you to carry in the state where the park is located.

bigcalidave
05-20-2009, 2:42 PM
WooHOO!!!

Dark Paladin
05-20-2009, 2:53 PM
Only if you have a CCW that allows you to carry in the state where the park is located.

Wait, I thought the point of the amendment was to enable LOC regardless of CCW in NP?

demnogis
05-20-2009, 3:00 PM
This amendment makes National Park firearms laws parallel to state laws where the parks are.

So, concealed carry (loaded or unloaded) will be allowed by your cc permit.

Loaded open carry and unloaded open carry will be allowed in accordance with state law. I made a post back a few pages.

If the National Park is in an unincorporated area, LOC is legal (in accordance with state law).
If the National Park is in an incorporated area, UOC is legal (in accordance with state law).
If the National Park is within or overlaps a State Park, no possession of operable firearms is allowed (in the overlapping area I assume).

IANAL...

Dark Paladin
05-20-2009, 3:02 PM
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification!

gbran
05-20-2009, 3:07 PM
I realize that visitors to CA cannot ccw, but can they OC or LOC in the ntnl parks or other areas approved by CA law if this is signed?

BTW, the prez's press sec Gibbs indicated Obama would likely sign this bill (credit card reform) even with the Coburn gun amendment attached.

pullnshoot25
05-20-2009, 3:54 PM
I think I am about ready to crap myself right about now...

WOO HOO!

If this passes, I just might take a UCSD trip for hiking....

The Wingnut
05-20-2009, 4:18 PM
Holy cow...how 'bout a UOC BBQ at the Presidio? That would REALLY boil some noodles!

Shame I don't have a sidearm...

sgtlmj
05-20-2009, 4:54 PM
Will out of state LEO's will soon be able to carry in Nat'l Parks in CA under LEOSA?

Steyr_223
05-20-2009, 5:03 PM
Come on Barry! Don't let us down! Sign it! It's change we can live with!

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/20/guns-plastic-and-guantanamo-detainees/

Guns, Plastic and Guantanamo Detainees
Posted: 07:10 PM ET

Program Note: Tune in tonight to hear more from Jeffrey Toobin tonight on AC360° at 10 p.m. ET.

Jeffrey Toobin
CNN Senior Legal Analyst

Today the House gave Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) his way when it passed the gun measure he attached to the credit card bill. (The Senate passed it Tuesday.) The provision allows visitors to national parks to carry loaded weapons if the weapons would be legal in the rest of the state. Bottom line: Both plastic-carrying and pistol-packing Americans get new protections under the legislation headed to President Obama’s desk.

In a written statement, Sen. Coburn said he wanted park visitors to be able to defend themselves against crime. We’ll have to take him at his word, but we can’t help noting that National Parks have some of the lowest crime rates in the United States.

Supporters of the gun provision also argued the amendment eliminates confusion about where gun owners can carry their weapons. Here’s what they’re talking about: Starting in the 80s, park visitors were allowed to bring guns inside parks only if they were dismantled or unloaded and stored in a car trunk. That federal rule applied even in states where people could carry a loaded gun in other public places. In January, just before leaving office, President Bush overturned the ban on loaded weapons in national parks. But in March, a district judge struck down his move, pending a required environmental impact study. Today, the tables turned again, producing a high-five moment for President Bush and gun lobbyists.

So does this open the door for the gun lobby to push for even greater gains? Will hospitals and schools remain off-limits to loaded guns? It’s an open question. In a well-known case from 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal law barring guns within a certain distance of schools. The conservative majority said these kinds of laws were a state issue, not a federal issue.

Complicating matters further, there is last year’s landmark gun control decision. Just shy of a year ago, the Supreme Court justices, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a sweeping ban on handguns in Washington D.C. violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms. With that decision, the justices raised the question of whether any kind of gun control is constitutional under the court’s new reading of the Second Amendment.

The House passed the gun provision with the support of 174 Republicans and 105 Democrats. They’ve given us a lot to talk about tonight on 360.

So have their colleagues in the other chamber.

In an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 90-6, the Senate passed a measure to prevent Guantanamo detainees from coming to the U.S. (A similar amendment has already passed in the House.) It’s a blow to President Obama, who said he would close the Guantanamo Bay facility by Jan. 22, 2010. The Senate wants Mister Obama to spell out exactly what he will do with the detainees once the facility closes. At the same time, many are making it clear that they don’t want the detainees anywhere near their communities, ever. Period. Why not? According to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the country isn’t set up to handle terrorist detainees. “We don’t have the facilities for it,” he said. “Nowhere does.”

Reality check: Convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid, blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and Oklahoma City bombing mastermind Timothy McVeigh were all housed in U.S. prisons. What’s more, no one has even tried to escape from a super-maximum security U.S. prison. The math doesn’t add up either. Guantanamo Bay is the most expensive prison in the world, considering it’s in Cuba and we have to import every single quart of milk that goes there.

There are other reasons at play in this debate. Some believe that U.S. criminal courts aren’t adequate for trying suspected terrorists because of concerns about intelligence breaches. There are also concerns that once the detainees are here, they could sue the U.S government more easily. And many are worried about housing them with other prisoners, who might make willing terrorist recruits.

We’ll be talking about all of this tonight. See you then.

coyotek
05-20-2009, 5:22 PM
If I read this bill right, once signed, national parks would have the same rules as national forests? LC would be legal for the masses? Definitely for ccw'rs like myself. :thumbsup:

Timberline
05-20-2009, 6:05 PM
If BHO signs it...

...someone, somewhere, will will still claim he's anti-gun. :D

Librarian
05-20-2009, 6:23 PM
If I read this bill right, once signed, national parks would have the same rules as national forests? LC would be legal for the masses? Definitely for ccw'rs like myself. :thumbsup:

Amendment reads that whatever is legal in the state already should become legal in National Parks located in that state.

So, since LOC is not legal in CA, not in CA-located national parks, either.

But CCW, yes.

Cobrafreak
05-20-2009, 6:28 PM
Hiking Half Dome carrying the P220 with mags on my other hip...that would be fun :thumbsup:
Hell, I want to hike up Half Dome with my AR on my back :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Vtec44
05-20-2009, 6:35 PM
Hell, I want to hike up Half Dome with my AR on my back :thumbsup::thumbsup:

That's going to be a distraction while you're climbing the rope. :eek:

Liberty1
05-20-2009, 7:46 PM
So, since LOC is not legal in CA, not in CA-located national parks, either.

But CCW, yes.

Why do you say LOC is not legal in CA? It certainly is in some parts of UNincorporated county territory where there is no County Ord. against discharge (most of Kern Co. for example). If a Dept of the Int. NP or WP (wildlife preserve) unit falls in that county territory LOC would not be prohibited.

There are of course areas where UOC is the only option (unless I'm not seeing that the House's version is different then the Senate's and only allows for concealed licenses).

THE BIG QUESTION!!!
This amendment is an instruction IMO to the Sec of the Int. Dept. to NOT "promulgate or enforce" the "regulation" but this bill doesn't repeal the regulation or change federal code like the Bush regulation did.

Is this "instruction" legally binding on rangers and federal prosecutors or the Sec. of the Int. for that matter??????


AND if one is carrying a longarm don't forget to comply with Fish and Game Code 2006? - no round in chamber if in a vehicle.

Darklyte27
05-20-2009, 8:13 PM
Its ok only if it complies with state laws..

so what does that mean for US in CA?.. what can we do in Yosemite NP?
OPEN Unloaded carry?

308fan
05-20-2009, 8:34 PM
I am glad to see we got it back, again.
308fan

Dark Paladin
05-20-2009, 10:23 PM
Its ok only if it complies with state laws..

so what does that mean for US in CA?.. what can we do in Yosemite NP?
OPEN Unloaded carry?

+1. . . would like to know the answer to this as well. Been googling on this since this afternoon, but my google-fu has been full of fail today. . .

Vtec44
05-20-2009, 10:54 PM
This post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2509095&postcount=70) answers your question.

Darklyte27
05-20-2009, 11:22 PM
bleh... open unloaded woopdie do..we can do that already..

Vtec44
05-20-2009, 11:27 PM
bleh... open unloaded woopdie do..we can do that already..

Currently, you can't do that in the National Park system.

coyotek
05-21-2009, 6:15 AM
This post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2509095&postcount=70) answers your question.

That post is not entirely correct as it is legal to ccw in state parks.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

Liberty1
05-21-2009, 6:22 AM
This amendment makes National Park firearms laws parallel to state laws where the parks are.

So, concealed carry (loaded or unloaded) will be allowed by your cc permit.

Loaded open carry and unloaded open carry will be allowed in accordance with state law. I made a post back a few pages.

If the National Park is in an unincorporated area, LOC is legal (in accordance with state law).

If the National Park is in an incorporated area, UOC is legal (in accordance with state law).

If the National Park is within or overlaps a State Park, no possession of operable firearms is allowed (in the overlapping area I assume).

IANAL...


added for more clarity:
"If the National Park is in an unincorporated area, LOC is legal (in accordance with state law)."
EXCEPT:
where the County has an ordinance against discharge of a firearm which triggers the PC 12031 prohibition on a loaded firearm in that UNincorporated county territory.

and for those who haven't seen it:

californiaopencarry.org

vladbutsky
05-21-2009, 7:16 AM
How one would find out for sure if LOC is legal in certain part of NP or even NF? This mess with unknownly being in "incorporated" area or in "no discharge" area because of some local ordinance is like a mine filed...
Can we create a map of CA with areas marked for LOC, UOC and no OC (school zones)? I would help with technical part of the map but I need help with obtaining reliable data.

Liberty1
05-21-2009, 8:10 AM
This mess with unknownly being in "incorporated" area or in "no discharge" area because of some local ordinance is like a mine filed...


Yes, which is why either one needs to carry under a PC 12050 License to Carry or PC 12031 needs to be struck down (not to mention GFSZs).

demnogis
05-21-2009, 9:10 AM
added for more clarity:
"If the National Park is in an unincorporated area, LOC is legal (in accordance with state law)."
EXCEPT:
where the County has an ordinance against discharge of a firearm which triggers the PC 12031 prohibition on a loaded firearm in that UNincorporated county territory.

and for those who haven't seen it:

californiaopencarry.org

Glad you pulled that quote of 12031 off of opencarry.org.

That's why I said "in accordance with state law" at the end of every sentence. :)

How one would find out for sure if LOC is legal in certain part of NP or even NF? This mess with unknownly being in "incorporated" area or in "no discharge" area because of some local ordinance is like a mine filed...
Can we create a map of CA with areas marked for LOC, UOC and no OC (school zones)? I would help with technical part of the map but I need help with obtaining reliable data. If you search on BLM's website (for national forests) they will tell you where no-discharge zones are. Normally the rules apply to hunting but they do apply when carrying. I believe the only reason (if not hunting) you would need to discharge is to defend yourself from animals - human or otherwise.

They (BLM) support safe carrying and operation of firearms.

flyinverted
05-21-2009, 9:41 AM
From today's OC Register Business Section Page 4, this is reported as being an unrelated provision in the Credit CardHolders Bill of Rights Act

"Includes an unrelated provision that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges"

It is a very common thing to coat-tail things on unrelated measures.

I hope this passes, however I'm a realist and know that these things are often revised many times before passing.

flyinverted
05-21-2009, 9:49 AM
This is in HR -627 Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009
You can view it here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-627

The Great thing I find is that this section is labeled " PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME."

Whoa.. this administration is going to admit that guns prevent crime?? OMG YAHOO!!!


Here's the text if you don't want to navigate there on your own

SEC. 512. 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.