PDA

View Full Version : Heading to a national park? Now you can pack heat


Doheny
05-20-2009, 8:42 PM
I know there have been other recent threads on this, but I figured I'd post the story as written:

Heading to a national park? Now you can pack heat

WASHINGTON — Here's a list of stuff the typical American family can legally carry into national parks this summer: sleeping bag, toothbrush, change of underwear . . . loaded guns.

Thanks to a 279-147 vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives , visitors to the nation's parks and wildlife refuges will be able to carry weapons there if they abide by state weapons laws.

The bill is on its way to President Barack Obama , who faces a dilemma: Gun rights advocates attached the provision to a sweeping overhaul of the credit card industry, an initiative Obama strongly supports, so he has little choice but to let the gun section become law.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only that Obama "looks forward" to signing the bill "as quickly as possible," and didn't mention the gun provision.

Gun control advocates howled Wednesday, but to little effect. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy , D- N.Y. , protested "the bill has been hijacked," and Rep. Maxine Waters , D- Calif. , maintained, "American taxpayers ought to be incensed."

Scot McElveen , the president of the Association of National Park Rangers , predicted that the measure would provoke problems at the parks.

"Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."

Nonetheless, the gun measure, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly earlier this month, had strong bipartisan support. In the House, 105 Democrats, most from Southern, Western and rural states, joined 174 Republicans in backing the measure.

Two Republicans, Reps. Michael Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois , and 145 Democrats voted no.

"This is one of those issues that breaks down regionally," explained Rep. Chris Van Hollen , D- Md. , assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D- Calif.

President Ronald Reagan first required guns to be stored or inoperable in national parks 25 years ago, but last December, just before leaving office, the Bush administration overturned that rule.

That began a game of legal Ping-Pong. In March, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the Bush rule, and the Obama administration said it wouldn't appeal.

That action spurred Sen. Tom Coburn , R- Okla. , to include the gun rule in the credit card bill. It wound up winning by an unexpectedly lopsided vote.

Coburn and his backers said that they didn't want, nor did they expect, people to be in danger of random shooters in national parks.
"It's really common sense," he said. "This is not about guns. What I want is gun rights. I want our constitutional rights to be protected."
Rep. Rob Bishop , R- Utah , said the measure was also a matter of self-defense.

"The real issue is that law-abiding Americans will no longer be treated as criminals" when they carry weapons, he said.

National Rifle Association officials argued that weapons are needed for protection in parks that are becoming increasingly dangerous. Asked why police couldn't handle criminal activity, Andrew Arulanandam , the NRA's director of public affairs, said, "At that moment when you're confronted by a criminal, it's between you and the criminal. Law enforcement cannot be there in position at any time."

Gun control groups said a new kind of danger would be lurking once the ban was overturned.

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke , the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He added that Obama "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."

Brady group spokesman David Vice suggested that Democrats were overreacting to gun rights advocates. Democrats still have bitter memories of losing congressional races in more conservative areas in the 1990s after being tagged as soft on guns.

Vice suggested that last year's results, in which Democrats won their biggest congressional majorities since the early 1990s, are evidence that those districts recognize the need for some limits on guns.

"We're trying to change that perception," he said, "but it's been difficult."
( Margaret Talev contributed to this article.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090520/sc_mcclatchy/3237180

ON THE WEB
National Rifle Association politics and legislation (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/mcclatchy/sc_mcclatchy/storytext/3237180/32088113/SIG=10opbvs3l/*http://www.nraila.org/)
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/mcclatchy/sc_mcclatchy/storytext/3237180/32088113/SIG=10vqr6la8/*http://www.bradycampaign.org/)
House roll call vote on gun measure (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/mcclatchy/sc_mcclatchy/storytext/3237180/32088113/SIG=11dqnd9pl/*http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll277.xml)
MORE FROM MCCLATCHY Senate measure would allow loaded guns in national parks (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/mcclatchy/sc_mcclatchy/storytext/3237180/32088113/SIG=11m4ruib7/*http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/68046.html)

7x57
05-20-2009, 10:54 PM
Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."


I've rarely heard a clearer statement by an anti of the underlying assumption of their position--that people are violent animals who will do as much harm as allowed to do.

7x57

MP301
05-20-2009, 11:21 PM
And when the "blood in the streets" BS proves not true again, will the idiots that believed it remember? Ptobably not....and by then, the brady bunch will be spewing some other crap that dipsticks will listen to....

jdberger
05-20-2009, 11:27 PM
I'd wait until the Prez signs the bill. Then it's a couple months after that...

avdrummerboy
05-20-2009, 11:34 PM
"Impulse and opportunistic shooting" !!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL Thats too funny!

Doheny
05-20-2009, 11:35 PM
I've rarely heard a clearer statement by an anti of the underlying assumption of their position--that people are violent animals who will do as much harm as allowed to do.

7x57

I liked this one:


"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke , the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Dark Paladin
05-20-2009, 11:37 PM
"Impulse and opportunistic shooting" !!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL Thats too funny!

You laugh. . .

Was out hiking in the National Forest couple months back with some friends. Had my XD45 with me, and while on the trail we start talking firearm safety. Then the topic focused on whether I liked the XD, and would I pull it out of the holster and shoot at something while we were on the trail.

I politely declined and changed the subject to something else. . . like how not to do stupid things with firearms.

domokun
05-20-2009, 11:47 PM
Why would people pack fully automatic AK-47s into National Parks and Wildlife Refuges? :confused:

Vtec44
05-20-2009, 11:53 PM
Why would people pack fully automatic AK-47s into National Parks and Wildlife Refuges? :confused:

Why do people always assume that AK47 owners are a bunch of criminals? :D

aermotor
05-20-2009, 11:58 PM
This part makes me laugh, are they kidding? This isn't about free range hunting...

"Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."

Honestly I don't need or want to see ARs/AKs in parks, I don't think that's what this is about really.

Macadelic4
05-21-2009, 12:09 AM
"Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."

Got a wicked urge to bag some condors all of a sudden...




BRB, guize.

Darklyte27
05-21-2009, 12:18 AM
lol.. endangered species...

Theres just millions of endangered species hunters out there waiting for some thing to shoot huh...

Liberty1
05-21-2009, 12:20 AM
[I]

Heading to a national park? Now you can pack heat



That headline may be problematic for some...

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

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
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.

So it will be a happy black history month in 2010...

domokun
05-21-2009, 12:23 AM
Why do people always assume that AK47 owners are a bunch of criminals? :D

Maybe because the AK-47 is the weapon of choice of the evil Russian Communitists?!?! :TFH:

Vtec44
05-21-2009, 12:28 AM
Maybe because the AK-47 is the weapon of choice of the evil Russian Communitists?!?! :TFH:

I guess it would be a much better PR move to pack my AR15 instead. :eek: j/k :D

ghettoshecky
05-21-2009, 1:32 AM
"Impulse and opportunistic shooting" !!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL Thats too funny!

I don't maybe that "impulse and opportunistic shooting" might apply to me, because I when I see a Catostomus santaanae (aka the Santa Ana Sucker) I might just have to shoot it with my ultra high power Ruger 10/22 assault weapons grade rifle because the animal is so da*n rare and must take the opportunity.

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E07W

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/fish/Santa_Ana_sucker/images/SantaAnaSucker_byPaulBarrett_USFWS.jpg

spddrcr
05-21-2009, 1:39 AM
just imagine what the outcome could have been when those 4 women were killed in yosemite back in 2000, if one of the three that were killed in the same place had a fighting chance the 4th wouldnt have been beheaded. national parks have become like a lair for criminals who dont follow laws. why worry about robbing, raping or killing someone if you know they wont be armed. angeles national forest is known for the amount of crimes and bodies found there.

it's about time families can go into national parks knowing they can legally protect themselves:thumbsup:

TheBundo
05-21-2009, 1:44 AM
just imagine what the outcome could have been when those 4 women were killed in yosemite back in 2000, if one of the three that were killed in the same place had a fighting chance the 4th wouldnt have been beheaded. national parks have become like a lair for criminals who dont follow laws. why worry about robbing, raping or killing someone if you know they wont be armed. angeles national forest is known for the amount of crimes and bodies found there.

it's about time families can go into national parks knowing they can legally protect themselves:thumbsup:

You could always pack there (angeles national forest), though, right?

GarandFan
05-21-2009, 6:47 AM
I'd wait until the Prez signs the bill. Then it's a couple months after that...


Try nine.

The bill goes into effect NINE months after passage. So by late February of 2010, we will not be prohibited from carrying in national parks and wildlife refuges in a manner consistent with state law.

BroncoBob
05-21-2009, 7:00 AM
Why would people pack fully automatic AK-47s into National Parks and Wildlife Refuges? :confused:

Funny, I had that same thought. Why is it everytime some anti gun person talks the word AK-47s drools out of their mouths? Like all law abiding citizens have one.

rabagley
05-21-2009, 7:50 AM
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke , the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Again, families and individuals currently do have to stare down loaded weapons. The weapons carried by illicit growers of marijuana in the national and state parks. What has changed with the passage of this law is that those same families and individuals have the ability to defend themselves if an encounter with a grower becomes hostile.

When I was in college, I always carried on backpacking trips into parks. Other students in our group always knew I was carrying, and most (especially the young women who were on their first backpacking trip) thought I was being silly and immature. However, it was almost inevitable that at some point during the trip, there would be an animal or human encounter where the group would bunch up behind me and all of a sudden I am "on point". I got kicked out of my tent (with my gun) at least once per trip to "make sure that noise wasn't dangerous and everyone is okay".

By the way, I never discharged that firearm while on any of those trips. Never turned out to be necessary. But, by the end of the trip, the people on those trips had almost unanimously come around on my decision and reasons for carrying.

Scarecrow Repair
05-21-2009, 8:05 AM
Why would people pack fully automatic AK-47s into National Parks and Wildlife Refuges

Funny, I had that same thought. Why is it everytime some anti gun person talks the word AK-47s drools out of their mouths? Like all law abiding citizens have one.

Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes

Funny. My thought was, why do people read things that were not written?

AaronHorrocks
05-21-2009, 8:20 AM
Guys, the obama has to sign this to become law. He's voted for every anti-gun bill he's ever seen, and against every pro-gun bill he's ever seen.

What makes you think he's going to be any different NOW, from his radical anti-American, anti-freedom voting record shows?

Vtec44
05-21-2009, 8:23 AM
Guys, the obama has to sign this to become law. He's voted for every anti-gun bill he's ever seen, and against every pro-gun bill he's ever seen.

What makes you think he's going to be any different NOW, from his radical anti-American, anti-freedom voting record shows?

Because it's attached to a CC reform bill, and they want that bill passed badly.

AaronHorrocks
05-21-2009, 8:27 AM
So you're saying he's not going to keep his word on the issues of earmarks, pork, pet projects, lobbyists, and special interest groups?

You're calling him a ...LIAR?

WokMaster1
05-21-2009, 8:35 AM
Funny, I had that same thought. Why is it everytime some anti gun person talks the word AK-47s drools out of their mouths? Like all law abiding citizens have one.

Because deep down they really want one or two. Besides, everyone should have at least one.;)

Dirtbozz
05-21-2009, 8:45 AM
So you're saying he's not going to keep his word on the issues of earmarks, pork, pet projects, lobbyists, and special interest groups?

You're calling him a ...LIAR?

After watching part of his speech on GITMO today (I could not stomach watching the whole thing), I find it difficult (to put it mildly) to believe a word he says. The only reason I see him signing the bill is the wide bi-partizan support. Too many of his democrat "buddies" voted for the gun related measure. I am enjoying his loss of support. He can only blame himself. Some democrats are getting worried about re-election, I would guess.

Other 2ND Amendment issues will come up. The tide is turning our way. Thank God for common sense. :D

scc1909
05-21-2009, 8:48 AM
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke , the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
What Mr Helmke overlooks, I presume intentionally, is that if a family out on a nature hike finds itself 'starting down a loaded AK-47', that AK-47 is being employed by a criminal who couldn't give a sh*t what the law says about carrying firearms in NPs.

Setting aside the question of why anyone might be carrying a loaded AK-47 on a nature hike, the fact of the matter is that they don't, and Mr Helmke knows it. Ask yourself, how many times have you ever seen someone casually carrying an AK-47 in your life? I'm not talking about at the range or out hunting in the woods, but just out going about your daily lives? Do you have your AK-47 at the ready while pumping gas? How about while you go inside the convenience store to buy a soft drink and a candy bar? Get real!

The real crime here, IMO, is not that someone's snowflakes might actually see a law-abiding citizen carrying a firearm, but that people like Mr. Helmke vilify this Constitutionally-protected right. Why don't persons who so vociferously protect the rights of free speech, freedom of religion, the freedom of "choice", etc., extend that passion for the rights enshrined in the Constitution to the right so explicitly laid out in the 2nd Amendment?

rabagley
05-21-2009, 9:15 AM
After watching part of his speech on GITMO today (I could not stomach watching the whole thing), I find it difficult (to put it mildly) to believe a word he says. The only reason I see him signing the bill is the wide bi-partizan support. Too many of his democrat "buddies" voted for the gun related measure. I am enjoying his loss of support. He can only blame himself. Some democrats are getting worried about re-election, I would guess.

Other 2ND Amendment issues will come up. The tide is turning our way. Thank God for common sense. :D

Those western democrats (the "Blue Dogs") ran for office on their support of gun rights. They have demonstrated multiple times that they are our allies on RKBA issues and they are backing up their campaign speeches with votes like this one.

I'm not sure what issue you had with his Gitmo speech. That place has to close, and the sooner the better IMNSHO. Though I didn't vote for Obama, I do find it refreshing to have a president that I can listen to for more than a few seconds without changing the channel in disgust.

As for why he plans to sign the bill, it's because he's a realist. He's no friend of gun rights, but he's been presented with a bill that fixes some huge problems with credit card companies screwing over you and me, oh, and also happens to defer to state laws on the use of guns in parks. It definitely does not say "anyone can carry".

pullnshoot25
05-21-2009, 9:42 AM
That headline may be problematic for some...

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



So it will be a happy black history month in 2010...

GOSH DAMMIT! I was planning to take one of those UCSD trips to a nat'l park too!

rolo
05-21-2009, 9:43 AM
To the "blood in the streets" comment:

I have had conversations with folks who have never had personal experiences with firearms, or people who were afraid of them ask me how I could resist shooting people who make me angry. Every single time I am asked this, I am surprised by it. It has always been asked sincerely and when I ask them "why would I do that" they always respond with "because I would if I owned a gun".

I think the people who are anti-gun generally have poor impulse control, don't trust themselves and cannot trust anyone else. I have since turned a few of them around and led them into responsible gun ownership, but I have also experienced my own version of Feinstein, ie; I want to be armed, but no one else can be. Anti's with guns, if you will.

Full Clip
05-21-2009, 9:48 AM
"Impulse and opportunistic shooting" !!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL Thats too funny!


No kidding. Because those who are prone to "impulse and opportunistic shooting" would, of course, follow laws prohibiting them from carrying guns in a national park...
Wrong. But Joe Public out on a camping trip with his wife and kids would, and then be easy pickings while off in the middle of nowhere...
It's like the anti believe there's a ranger behind every freaking tree, instead of a single ranger covering hundreds of square miles of parkland.
I think they confuse a "national park" with a "neighborhood park" complete with slides and swings, a water fountain and restrooms.
And, hell, even those can be plenty dangerous.

Vtec44
05-21-2009, 9:57 AM
To the "blood in the streets" comment:

I have had conversations with folks who have never had personal experiences with firearms, or people who were afraid of them ask me how I could resist shooting people who make me angry. Every single time I am asked this, I am surprised by it. It has always been asked sincerely and when I ask them "why would I do that" they always respond with "because I would if I owned a gun".


I've never had anyone asked me that. Although, a few told me I don't need that "assault weapon" for self defense. :o

evan69
05-21-2009, 10:03 AM
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes,"

Translation: Mommy, mommy, that man has a BIG SCARY GUN! I'm scared!

How sensationalist can you get?

signal5delta
05-21-2009, 10:10 AM
I know this is a silly question but since the law was passed to carry loaded firearms in National Parks does that apply to Kalifornia also? Thanks.

Jim

Vtec44
05-21-2009, 10:14 AM
Obama hasn't signed it yet, but when that happens the law will also apply to national parks in CA (with priority to state and local laws I believe).

Dark Paladin
05-21-2009, 10:18 AM
Obama hasn't signed it yet, but when that happens the law will also apply to national parks in CA (with priority to state and local laws I believe).

With a 9 month lead time, as others have pointed out.

Law won't take effect until 9 months after Obama signs it.

pullnshoot25
05-21-2009, 10:19 AM
Translation: Mommy, mommy, that man has a BIG SCARY GUN! I'm scared!

How sensationalist can you get?

Its funny, kids are usually the most open about the whole gun thing.

Casual_Shooter
05-21-2009, 10:24 AM
Does California have any current laws limiting firearms possession in National Parks? Or will they 9 mos from now?

rolo
05-21-2009, 10:34 AM
Does California have any current laws limiting firearms possession in National Parks? Or will they 9 mos from now?

The state had no say prior to this. I'm sure we can count on our legislature to concoct some new rule set that will protect us from ourselves. California lawmakers have never passed up a chance to regulate something the fed have handed over to them.

zinfull
05-21-2009, 10:36 AM
They could restrict the carry by passing a law but for now it will be fine. I thought it was for CCW persons only when this started. But now looking at the bill you can carry if the state the park is in allows you to normal carry. So every camping trip will be a fishing trip.

Jerry

AaronHorrocks
05-21-2009, 10:38 AM
Its funny, kids are usually the most open about the whole gun thing.

A 9 year old kid once told me how to solve the problem of gun control:
"Everybody that has a gun, goes out and shoots one person that thinks having guns is bad."

scc1909
05-21-2009, 11:18 AM
With a 9 month lead time, as others have pointed out.

Law won't take effect until 9 months after Obama signs it.

I did read that the credit card provisions take effect 9 months after signature, but haven't seen the effective date of the gun amendment specifically mentioned. Do you have a source?

I'm not saying you're incorrect...just asking if you have a source so we can all read it in black and white.

scc1909
05-21-2009, 11:33 AM
Okay, I found the link in another thread, which states: "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."

A number of specific parts of the resolution do call out different effective dates, while the gun amendment (Sec. 512), does not, so it appears that the effective date will be 9 months from the date of signing.

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

Dark Paladin
05-21-2009, 11:40 AM
Yep. Wonder if that was an accidental oversight by Coburn? Oh well, better late than never.

xxdabroxx
05-21-2009, 11:49 AM
So they revoked the original that only allowed CCW'ers to carry and now anyone can carry. (signing + 9mo) Because in unincorporated territory it is lawful to open carry. But to CCW in the unincorporated territory you would have to be hunting/ fishing. Does this sound correct?

Dark Paladin
05-21-2009, 12:09 PM
So they revoked the original that only allowed CCW'ers to carry and now anyone can carry. (signing + 9mo) Because in unincorporated territory it is lawful to open carry. But to CCW in the unincorporated territory you would have to be hunting/ fishing. Does this sound correct?

Not quite revoked. It was stayed by Judge Kollar pending results of environmental study by the Dept of Interior. . . which they claim will take 2-3 years to complete.

Obligatory: Environmental impact of self-defense carry? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Vtec44
05-21-2009, 12:12 PM
Yep. Wonder if that was an accidental oversight by Coburn? Oh well, better late than never.

I hope that will give the government sometime to train the rangers on how to properly deal with the situation.

Casual_Shooter
05-21-2009, 12:38 PM
The state had no say prior to this. I'm sure we can count on our legislature to concoct some new rule set that will protect us from ourselves. California lawmakers have never passed up a chance to regulate something the fed have handed over to them.

Exactly why I posed my question. The passing of this doesn't make me jump up and down because it gives the states power to decide what or what not to allow. Have we forgotten where we live? I can't imagine California allowing us to put ourselves in danger by carrying those nasty firearms in a National Park... :rolleyes:

paul0660
05-21-2009, 12:57 PM
Carry will be legal according to state laws. That means California CCW's and unloaded open carry by non prohibited persons.

JDay
05-21-2009, 1:01 PM
What pisses me off about this is that on many other sites everyone is giving Obama credit for this.

rrr70
05-21-2009, 1:04 PM
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke , the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He added that Obama "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."


WTF? I would seriously love to hit this idiot in the face with a showel. What a tool.

223Junkie
05-21-2009, 1:07 PM
Brady group spokesman David Vice suggested that Democrats were overreacting to gun rights advocates. Democrats still have bitter memories of losing congressional races in more conservative areas in the 1990s after being tagged as soft on guns.

Vice suggested that last year's results, in which Democrats won their biggest congressional majorities since the early 1990s, are evidence that those districts recognize the need for some limits on guns.
"We're trying to change that perception," he said, "but it's been difficult."

Trying to change what perception? The percepetion that the democrats lost the congressional races in the 1990s due to the AW ban? Of course that's one of the main reasons they lost. False information from Vise In bold. He's trying to change peoples perception on why the dems lost in the 1990s.
Typical "Spin".

rabagley
05-21-2009, 1:29 PM
The only reason the Dem's won in 2006 and and 2008 is they built a coalition that brought moderates into the party (a strategy recently abandoned by the Republicans). The problem for gun control advocates is that moderates in the American West are strong gun rights supporters.

The big consequence is that until the Republican party becomes interesting to moderates, the Democratic party is no longer anti-gun. Personally, I like this situation when it comes to RKBA. Neither party is anti-gun right now. Woot!

Roadrunner
05-21-2009, 9:15 PM
I've rarely heard a clearer statement by an anti of the underlying assumption of their position--that people are violent animals who will do as much harm as allowed to do.

7x57

They're projecting onto law abiding responsible gun owners, because that's what they would do if they had a firearm.

Roadrunner
05-21-2009, 9:28 PM
Try nine.

The bill goes into effect NINE months after passage. So by late February of 2010, we will not be prohibited from carrying in national parks and wildlife refuges in a manner consistent with state law.

Will California law allow for carrying a loaded firearm? Will it have to be carried openly, or can it be carried concealed without a license?

Alan Block
05-22-2009, 11:28 AM
if it were allowed in that states state parks. Has this changed? If this is the case there will still be no carry in Yosemite.

PEBKAC
05-22-2009, 11:53 AM
It will be nice to be able to carry more than effing bear bells to protect yourself in bear country for a change. ;)

Casual_Shooter
05-22-2009, 11:56 AM
Will California law allow for carrying a loaded firearm? Will it have to be carried openly, or can it be carried concealed without a license?

It will follow state law which is currently unloaded open carried is ok and carry-concealed is ok - with permit.

Liberty1
05-22-2009, 12:18 PM
Will California law allow for carrying a loaded firearm? Will it have to be carried openly, or can it be carried concealed without a license?

California's Cliff Notes on carry laws (http://californiaopencarry.org)

SKN
05-22-2009, 12:25 PM
Just signed by the President so it's a done deal, but not until February 2010 when provisions of the entire bill become law.

Liberty1
05-22-2009, 12:31 PM
Just signed by the President so it's a done deal, but not until February 2010 when provisions of the entire bill become law.

Now we need to get another amendment attached to another bill making the National Park amendement active NOW :chris:

7x57
05-22-2009, 1:02 PM
I liked this one:

Sure, they should, as long as they are staring down the AK from the right end and as long as all they're doing is the kind of dry fire practice Karamojo Bell used to do (mount and dry-fire at every opportunity while traveling to stay in tip-top practice).

OTOH staring down the wrong end is assault. But Mr. Helmke believes that every American is thirsting to commit a felony any time he can get away with it, or any time he's provoked in the slightest.

Except when wearing a badge or uniform, then he's a saint. So believes Mr. Helmke, and who can doubt his judgment? He was right on all his other predictions...say about duels in the streets...wait a minnit.... :kest:

7x57

rabagley
05-22-2009, 1:17 PM
It will follow state law which is currently unloaded open carried is ok and carry-concealed is ok - with permit.

As I understand it, concealed carry is also okay while hunting or fishing. Though I don't know whether it's possible/permitted to hunt or fish in national parks within CA (hope so).

Dr Rockso
05-22-2009, 1:35 PM
I wonder how many people are going to get arrested because they believed poorly written news articles that make it sound like anyone can carry a loaded gun however they want in any National Park as of right now.

2009_gunner
05-22-2009, 2:16 PM
Okay, I found the link in another thread, which states: "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."

A number of specific parts of the resolution do call out different effective dates, while the gun amendment (Sec. 512), does not, so it appears that the effective date will be 9 months from the date of signing.

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


Looking forward to Feb 22, 2010 then. I hope we are well on are way to shall-issue CCW in this state with Gorski/Mehl or Gura/Sykes.

TheBundo
05-22-2009, 2:20 PM
Carry will be legal according to state laws. That means California CCW's and unloaded open carry by non prohibited persons.

Loaded, I think. It's unincorporated area

2009_gunner
05-22-2009, 2:43 PM
It looks like Coburn will try to get another bill in to make it take effect immediately. That is what he intended.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6437535.html

Spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the Interior Department will follow Congress's directive and put the new firearms law into effect in late February 2010.

Until then, rules adopted under the Reagan administration will remain in place. The rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring that guns 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."

The Interior Department's decision drew immediate criticism from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the chief sponsor of the gun measure.

Spokesman John Hart said Coburn will offer the gun amendment to other bills in order to implement the decision as quickly as possible.

Hart said Coburn was confident the amendment will be approved again, noting that the measure received support from 27 Democrats in the Senate, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The measure, adopted by wide margins in the House and Senate, allows licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law.

Hart said Congress clearly intended for the law to take effect soon, adding that Coburn was disappointed the law apparently will not be in place this summer, when national parks are most crowded.

Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, applauded the Interior Department's decision.

CalNRA
05-22-2009, 2:50 PM
Loaded, I think. It's unincorporated area

I would assume that National Parks are unincoporated areas with fewer than X number of residents then.

Looks like I'll be open-carrying next time I go to Yosemite and show our freedom to the tourists....(I kid, I kid)

yellowfin
05-22-2009, 2:52 PM
Now we need to get another amendment attached to another bill making the National Park amendement active NOW :chris: Nope. If we get that opportunity then have it repeal 922(o).

scc1909
05-22-2009, 3:11 PM
Signed into law: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124302235634548041.html

Liberty1
05-22-2009, 3:14 PM
I would assume that National Parks are unincoporated areas with fewer than X number of residents then.(I kid, I kid)

Population doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you can carry loaded in UNincorporated territory. To determine that one must understand PC 12031 which is covered at californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org)

In a nut shell one can generaly carry loaded in UNincorporated county territory EXCEPT where the county has an ordinance prohibiting discharge of a firearm as that triggers the loaded prohibition in PC 12031 (loaded prohibited in a public place).

And if one is carrying a longarm then be sure to follow Fish and Game section 2006 - no round in the chamber of longarms while in a vehicle)

I'm curious what legislation Sac will attempt to counter this move by Congress?

Liberty1
05-22-2009, 3:18 PM
Signed into law: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124302235634548041.html

It's funny the press keeps saying "licensed" and "concealed". :chris:

pullnshoot25
05-22-2009, 3:39 PM
So will this really take 9 months or what? I am itching to go!

SiegeX
05-22-2009, 4:58 PM
In a nut shell one can generaly carry loaded in UNincorporated county territory EXCEPT where the county has an ordinance prohibiting discharge of a firearm as that triggers the loaded prohibition in PC 12031 (loaded prohibited in a public place).
So as of this time of writing, does Yosemite have any ordinances prohibiting discharge of a firearm? If so then in Feb' 2010 I can open carry unloaded, if not I can open carry loaded; is this correct?

Now what if I get a fishing license to fish in Yosemite lakes. Since somebody posted above that hunting or fishing allows concealed carry, does this mean that as long as I have a fishing licenses on me I could conceal carry? Or must I be within X-distance from a body of water containing fish? Also, does this hunting/fishing law override the loaded/unloaded aspect, or does it only talk to open/concealed carry?

bigcalidave
05-22-2009, 9:08 PM
It's funny the press keeps saying "licensed" and "concealed". :chris:

And we should leave it that way, then when people see it, they will believe that people are licensed to carry, and not call the police every time!

H2H
05-22-2009, 9:13 PM
so do you need a CCW to be able to carry in National Parks ?

still no for CA national parks right ?

TripleT
05-22-2009, 9:30 PM
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."



Sounds to me like Bryan Faehner has partaken of the Brady kool-aid.

Kicker0429
05-22-2009, 10:17 PM
In a nut shell one can generaly carry loaded in unincorporated county territory EXCEPT where the county has an ordinance prohibiting discharge of a firearm as that triggers the loaded prohibition in PC 12031 (loaded prohibited in a public place).

Merced County Ordinance 10.50.022 states, "The firing and discharge of firearms on or into any county roadway or highways is prohibited." Is this the sort of language that may "trigger" PC 12031?

brassburnz
05-23-2009, 11:18 AM
Got his email yesterday. Guess they are a little late! Why am I on their email list? It's the cyberspace version of this:

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
Sun-tzu







<<<May 21, 2009
Spread the Word>

Tell President Obama to Stand Up to the NRA!
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted 279-147 to approve a dangerous amendment to the "Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009." The amendment, drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and sponsored by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), would would allow individuals to bring loaded semiautomatic assault rifles, handguns and shotguns into National Parks as long as the firearm is in compliance with state law. The Coburn Amendment had previously been approved by a 67-29 vote in the Senate.

This legislation is now heading to President Barack Obama's desk. We must let the president know that loaded guns have no place in our National Parks. Please call the White House TODAY at (202) 456-1111 and ask President Obama to veto H.R. 627, the "Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009," and demand a clean version of the bill from Congress, MINUS THE COBURN AMENDMENT.

It is long past time for our president to live up to his record and campaign promises and stand up to the National Rifle Association. We must make it clear to President Obama that the NRA has no business imposing its dangerous agenda on the overwhelming majority of Americans who want no part of it. The safety of our families is not a political commodity to be sacrificed.

Please take action immediately to help us change the dialogue in Washington. If we all stand together as people of conscience and demand sensible gun laws, I have every confidence we can make a difference and save lives.

Sincerely,


Josh Horwitz
Executive Director





Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
1424 L Street NW, Suite 2-1, Washington, DC 20005
202-408-0061 | csgv@csgv.org

If you have received this message from a friend, please visit www.csgv.org and sign up for information on our activities. When you register, you can modify your email communication preferences, make a personal profile or remove yourself from all email lists and visit the site whenever you please.>>>

TripleT
05-23-2009, 12:59 PM
"Coalition to Stop Gun Violence" what a crock !

I think I'll start my own "Coalition" called "The Coalition to Protect Law Abiding Americans from being disarmed by Phony Coalitions" ...

Damn these guys rub me the wrong way ! The arrogance in their dishonesty is remarkable...

Vtec44
05-23-2009, 1:03 PM
Gun violence is wrong, other types of violence are okay.

dwtt
05-23-2009, 2:24 PM
You know, it's been legal to openly carry a handgun in national forests for a long time, and the amount of land covered by national forests is much larger than the national parks in this country. I don't see this bill changing much in the real world but it's good politics.

jlchavis0844
05-23-2009, 9:44 PM
What pisses me off about this is that on many other sites everyone is giving Obama credit for this.

While Obama shouldn't be given any credit on this, House and Senate Democrats who ran as blue dog's have held true to their word on gun legislation. Overall, this bill is a good bill that should be signed. Underneath it all is the hope that it signals a more pro gun friendly congress.

Liberty1
05-23-2009, 10:05 PM
so do you need a CCW to be able to carry in National Parks ?

still no for CA national parks right ?

To be clear NOBODY can carry yet (the law doesn't take effect until Feb, 2010).

When it does, you only need to worry about the carry laws of the state in which the NP is located (However the federal building prohibition will still apply). So in CA that will be:

*concealed/loaded if you have a CCW or are a LEO.
*LOC/UOC depending on where the NP is located
*"poor man's CCW" which is unloaded locked in a case with loaded mag not in the firearm.

keep in mind longarms are not effected by the concealed prohibition in 12025 so guitar cases may become very popular at NPs

California State Parks will still have a prohibition on firearm possession.

Liberty1
05-23-2009, 10:17 PM
So as of this time of writing, does Yosemite have any ordinances prohibiting discharge of a firearm? If so then in Feb' 2010 I can open carry unloaded, if not I can open carry loaded; is this correct?

Now what if I get a fishing license to fish in Yosemite lakes. Since somebody posted above that hunting or fishing allows concealed carry, does this mean that as long as I have a fishing licenses on me I could conceal carry? Or must I be within X-distance from a body of water containing fish? Also, does this hunting/fishing law override the loaded/unloaded aspect, or does it only talk to open/concealed carry?


Many county Muni-codes can be found on line (how current they are I would not want to bet my freedom).

Study everything a californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org) and also read the actual full Penal Codes to get a better understanding of how the laws work.

The "hunting/fishing" exemtion to 12025 found in 12027 has gotten very little play in the courts and I don't know of any case law. It's a use at your own risk exemption. Keeping a copy of what ever exemption you're trying to claim on you to show an officer is probably a good idea as well as a tape recorder.

In a nut shell one can generaly carry loaded in unincorporated county territory EXCEPT where the county has an ordinance prohibiting discharge of a firearm as that triggers the loaded prohibition in PC 12031 (loaded prohibited in a public place).

Merced County Ordinance 10.50.022 states, "The firing and discharge of firearms on or into any county roadway or highways is prohibited." Is this the sort of language that may "trigger" PC 12031?

I recommend obeying all local gun laws until they are overturned or repealed and it is very likely that is the kind of County Ordinance which triggers 12031.