anotherKevin
Member
CA senators
I'd write, but my senators are Feinstein and Boxer. Unless I'm missing something, what's the point for me?
I'd write, but my senators are Feinstein and Boxer. Unless I'm missing something, what's the point for me?
S.4057 introduced, carry in National Parks
- Thread starter Nightfall
- Start date
- Status
thexrayboy
Member
Yes, must push hard on this one. With Harry Reid being Senate leader it has a good chance of passing. I and my wife have met our other senator from NV. and I know he is definitely pro 2A. However the battle will be in the House. Pelosi was just elected speaker and is consolidating her power as we speak. She is already busy making appointments and rewarding key allies with appointments to powerful positions on many committees. We will be lucky if this bill makes it out of committee and on to the house floor to even be voted on. Don't just contact senators. Contact the people representing you in the house. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts also.
michaelbane
Member
PA covered
Both Senators from Pennsylvania covered.
On a related note, I thought I should share with everyone the letter I wrote a few months ago to the Superintendent of Independence National Historic Park (Liberty Bell, Independence Hall) here in Philadelphia. The had made a notice of public comment for rulemaking for the proposed security measures at the park. Here is what I wrote:
Dennis Reidenbach, Superintendent
Independence National Historic Park
143 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dear Mr. Reidenbach:
I am writing to comment on the environmental assessment report on the security screening and fencing proposals for Independence National Historic Park dated July 2006. It is my understanding that the comment period has been extended to September 1, 2006, at the request of several local elected public officials.
It is my position that either there should be no screening whatsoever at Independence National Historic Park, or that provisions should be made to permit park visitors who are lawfully carrying weapons for the purpose of self-defense to possess them on park property. My reason for this is that park visitors have a constitutional, legal and basic human right to self-defense, which should not be denied merely because a person enters NPS controlled property. The current policies preventing people from carrying weapons not only make people vulnerable to criminal attack while on park property, but also while traveling to and from park property. This is a harm that outweighs any harm sought to be prevented by keeping weapons out of park property.
On this point, I must address the language on page 17 of the environmental assessment concerning the “no screening” alternative. The report states that this alternative was eliminated because it does not “protect two of the nation’s icons” and that it “would expose the structures and park visitors and staff and would provide a vulnerable target for terrorist attack”. Such reasoning is simply wrong. Any determined terrorist group can take into account increased security measures and plan their attack to defeat those measures. This possibility negates any efforts of the park service to protect visitors and park property, no matter how much in good faith such security measures are implemented. In fact, it makes matters worse. If a terrorist group were to attack park property, law-abiding visitors would be unable to assist in thwarting such an attack but for the fact that they were unarmed in order to be in compliance with NPS policy.
Federal law also addresses this issue. 18 U.S.C. §930, which regulates the possession of weapons in federal facilities, has a clear exception in subsection d (3), which allows for “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” In my opinion, the possession of weapons by law-abiding citizens for self-defense purposes fits this exception. Since the National Park Service is an agency of the federal government, it is obliged to follow the provisions of the United States Code and may not enact any rules, regulations or policies contrary to it. To the extent that a screening policy prevents law-abiding citizens from possessing weapons on park property for self-defense purposes, such policy is contrary to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §930 d (3), and is technically null and void.
But most importantly, there is an ethical, moral and historical standpoint to this issue. Screening visitors for weapons at Independence National Historical Park violates the basic principles that the founders of our nation, for whom the park was established to honor, stood for. In the troubled times of oppression by Great Britain, our forefathers realized the importance of personal freedom. This personal freedom included the possession of weapons for the purpose of self-defense and the purpose of protecting oneself from tyrannical government. Without the ability to carry arms, the citizens of the thirteen colonies would have been unable to throw off the shackles of the British government and create a new nation, founded on the principles of liberty. To deny visitors of Independence National Historical Park the right to possess weapons while on NPS property would be an ironic and tragic rebuke to the very ideals that the founding fathers espoused.
WHEREFORE: It is the recommendation and request of Michael L. Bane that the following actions be taken:
· That the Environmental Assessment of the National Park Service dated July 2006, regarding fencing and security screening at Independence National Historic Park be withdrawn;
· That the Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America reverse his/her decision to dismiss the “no screening” alternative, as documented in the Environmental Assessment of the National Park Service for Independence National Historic Park dated July 2006, page 17; and,
· That the Environmental Assessment of the National Park Service dated July 2006 be re-issued, incorporating a new “Alternative D”, which provides for the constitutional, legal and basic human right of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons on the grounds of Independence National Historic Park for the purpose of self-defense.
Sincerely,
/s/Michael L. Bane
Both Senators from Pennsylvania covered.
On a related note, I thought I should share with everyone the letter I wrote a few months ago to the Superintendent of Independence National Historic Park (Liberty Bell, Independence Hall) here in Philadelphia. The had made a notice of public comment for rulemaking for the proposed security measures at the park. Here is what I wrote:
Dennis Reidenbach, Superintendent
Independence National Historic Park
143 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dear Mr. Reidenbach:
I am writing to comment on the environmental assessment report on the security screening and fencing proposals for Independence National Historic Park dated July 2006. It is my understanding that the comment period has been extended to September 1, 2006, at the request of several local elected public officials.
It is my position that either there should be no screening whatsoever at Independence National Historic Park, or that provisions should be made to permit park visitors who are lawfully carrying weapons for the purpose of self-defense to possess them on park property. My reason for this is that park visitors have a constitutional, legal and basic human right to self-defense, which should not be denied merely because a person enters NPS controlled property. The current policies preventing people from carrying weapons not only make people vulnerable to criminal attack while on park property, but also while traveling to and from park property. This is a harm that outweighs any harm sought to be prevented by keeping weapons out of park property.
On this point, I must address the language on page 17 of the environmental assessment concerning the “no screening” alternative. The report states that this alternative was eliminated because it does not “protect two of the nation’s icons” and that it “would expose the structures and park visitors and staff and would provide a vulnerable target for terrorist attack”. Such reasoning is simply wrong. Any determined terrorist group can take into account increased security measures and plan their attack to defeat those measures. This possibility negates any efforts of the park service to protect visitors and park property, no matter how much in good faith such security measures are implemented. In fact, it makes matters worse. If a terrorist group were to attack park property, law-abiding visitors would be unable to assist in thwarting such an attack but for the fact that they were unarmed in order to be in compliance with NPS policy.
Federal law also addresses this issue. 18 U.S.C. §930, which regulates the possession of weapons in federal facilities, has a clear exception in subsection d (3), which allows for “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” In my opinion, the possession of weapons by law-abiding citizens for self-defense purposes fits this exception. Since the National Park Service is an agency of the federal government, it is obliged to follow the provisions of the United States Code and may not enact any rules, regulations or policies contrary to it. To the extent that a screening policy prevents law-abiding citizens from possessing weapons on park property for self-defense purposes, such policy is contrary to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §930 d (3), and is technically null and void.
But most importantly, there is an ethical, moral and historical standpoint to this issue. Screening visitors for weapons at Independence National Historical Park violates the basic principles that the founders of our nation, for whom the park was established to honor, stood for. In the troubled times of oppression by Great Britain, our forefathers realized the importance of personal freedom. This personal freedom included the possession of weapons for the purpose of self-defense and the purpose of protecting oneself from tyrannical government. Without the ability to carry arms, the citizens of the thirteen colonies would have been unable to throw off the shackles of the British government and create a new nation, founded on the principles of liberty. To deny visitors of Independence National Historical Park the right to possess weapons while on NPS property would be an ironic and tragic rebuke to the very ideals that the founding fathers espoused.
WHEREFORE: It is the recommendation and request of Michael L. Bane that the following actions be taken:
· That the Environmental Assessment of the National Park Service dated July 2006, regarding fencing and security screening at Independence National Historic Park be withdrawn;
· That the Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America reverse his/her decision to dismiss the “no screening” alternative, as documented in the Environmental Assessment of the National Park Service for Independence National Historic Park dated July 2006, page 17; and,
· That the Environmental Assessment of the National Park Service dated July 2006 be re-issued, incorporating a new “Alternative D”, which provides for the constitutional, legal and basic human right of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons on the grounds of Independence National Historic Park for the purpose of self-defense.
Sincerely,
/s/Michael L. Bane
creitzel
Member
Michigan done
I just contacted both of my senators here in Michigan. Lets put some pressure on them guys
Chris
I just contacted both of my senators here in Michigan. Lets put some pressure on them guys
Chris
ZeSpectre
Member
As I said earlier, I also want to send a plain old paper letter to the appropriate persons. However, I can't seem to draft up anything that I'm satisfied with sending. Anyone feel like creating a "boilerplate" letter on this issue that the rest of us letter writers can borrow from.
Funny, usually I'm pretty good at writing up letters but I guess my mind is on other stuff right now.
Funny, usually I'm pretty good at writing up letters but I guess my mind is on other stuff right now.
I do not Camp in National Parks due to thier draconian gun rules. I can still remember cases of criminal rapists stalking and victimizing multiple people in some. Yet firearms completely prohibited. Not just hunting banned to preserve the animals, but firearms period. Which means any criminal that wants to be able to victimize people in the middle of nowhere and be content in knowing they can't legaly have anything to defend themselves with can arm themselves and be the only one armed.
One of those free love hippie ideas where they picture all the disarmed people coexisting with nature holding hands , instead of being victimized by rapists and bandits.
Of course the solution for liberals would be, you guessed it, more government! Lets add ranger stations every couple hundred yards, hire tens of thousands more personel, install cameras everywhere, and charge people prohibitive amounts to finance it. Then everyone can 'safely' spend as much to sleep outside under the stars as to rent a hotel. Of course that means less people do it, and less people develop a sense of appreciation for nature or the enviroment they are preserving.
One of those free love hippie ideas where they picture all the disarmed people coexisting with nature holding hands , instead of being victimized by rapists and bandits.
Of course the solution for liberals would be, you guessed it, more government! Lets add ranger stations every couple hundred yards, hire tens of thousands more personel, install cameras everywhere, and charge people prohibitive amounts to finance it. Then everyone can 'safely' spend as much to sleep outside under the stars as to rent a hotel. Of course that means less people do it, and less people develop a sense of appreciation for nature or the enviroment they are preserving.
gunsmith
member
zrex
many of us I'm sure feel the same way, still it is important to write and call
because if we use our guns to defend life we may be subject to draconian punishment.
many of us I'm sure feel the same way, still it is important to write and call
because if we use our guns to defend life we may be subject to draconian punishment.
WeedWhacker
Member
IIRC, the penalty for being caught carrying an otherwise legal weapon in a National Park is some paltry fine (the figure $50 comes to mind) and, if anything else, a misdemeanor Trespassing charge.
Seems a lot less important than getting much/all of 18USC922 repealed...
Seems a lot less important than getting much/all of 18USC922 repealed...
Smurfslayer
Member
Not just the fine...
Remember that your mileage may vary... The Federal circuit you go to court in will matter as will the specific severity the Park assigns it.
Some things to think about. NPS LE may also enforce the law of the state in which the park resides. If more than one, the specific territorial jurisdiction of the offense location. Thus, if your state concealed law reads that it is a state violation to carry where prohibited as most do, you are subject to both Federal AND state charges.
The gun may be subject to confiscation, at both the federal, and state level depending on your state law.
A conviction of this nature could cost you dearly in the future. While in and of itselt it's not a "crime of violence" it is enough to show up on a criminal background investigation. This could affect your:
Employment, current and future, current and future ability to obtain a purchase, ownership & carry permit, security clearance, auto insurance (? - they already run credit checks), perhaps even ability to own a firearm at some point in the future...not to mention the scorn and ridicule of your potential cell mates...
It's way too easy to run afoul of this odious rule since Parks are sometimes not boundary posted, and almost never post prohibitions (on firearms) at the entrances.
Remember that your mileage may vary... The Federal circuit you go to court in will matter as will the specific severity the Park assigns it.
Some things to think about. NPS LE may also enforce the law of the state in which the park resides. If more than one, the specific territorial jurisdiction of the offense location. Thus, if your state concealed law reads that it is a state violation to carry where prohibited as most do, you are subject to both Federal AND state charges.
The gun may be subject to confiscation, at both the federal, and state level depending on your state law.
A conviction of this nature could cost you dearly in the future. While in and of itselt it's not a "crime of violence" it is enough to show up on a criminal background investigation. This could affect your:
Employment, current and future, current and future ability to obtain a purchase, ownership & carry permit, security clearance, auto insurance (? - they already run credit checks), perhaps even ability to own a firearm at some point in the future...not to mention the scorn and ridicule of your potential cell mates...
It's way too easy to run afoul of this odious rule since Parks are sometimes not boundary posted, and almost never post prohibitions (on firearms) at the entrances.
Malum Prohibitum
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 572
Huh?
Um, yes, I guess so. The main difference here is that all of 922 is not going to be repealed during this legislative session. There is a real, live bill, S. 4057, to permit carry in National Parks.
It needs to come to a vote in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee before it can go to the floor.
Chances are slim, but maybe if enough pressure were applied, this bill could get through.
This will be our last chance for at least two more years.
Do your part!
Contact your two Senators and Domenici (chairman of the committee) and get them to push it!
Contact info for all Senators is here.
Um, yes, I guess so. The main difference here is that all of 922 is not going to be repealed during this legislative session. There is a real, live bill, S. 4057, to permit carry in National Parks.
It needs to come to a vote in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee before it can go to the floor.
Chances are slim, but maybe if enough pressure were applied, this bill could get through.
This will be our last chance for at least two more years.
Do your part!
Contact your two Senators and Domenici (chairman of the committee) and get them to push it!
Contact info for all Senators is here.
gengarnett
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2006
- Messages
- 70
not fair
Naturally the Republicans wait until they are lame ducks to do this.
Roscoe, this bill is the result of the hard work of the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Senator Allen himself. Hell, the NRA has not even played a roll in this. We should thank Senator Allen and we should ALL move on this. To think Senator Allen waited until he lost so he could sneak this through is a joke. He made a promise to the gun owners of Virginia and the USA during the campaign and now he is making good on it. The least we can do is contact our reps, Senator Allen (to thank him), Senator Frist and Domenici.
Naturally the Republicans wait until they are lame ducks to do this.
Roscoe, this bill is the result of the hard work of the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Senator Allen himself. Hell, the NRA has not even played a roll in this. We should thank Senator Allen and we should ALL move on this. To think Senator Allen waited until he lost so he could sneak this through is a joke. He made a promise to the gun owners of Virginia and the USA during the campaign and now he is making good on it. The least we can do is contact our reps, Senator Allen (to thank him), Senator Frist and Domenici.
gengarnett
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2006
- Messages
- 70
nightfall
I sure hope more people took action on this item than have responded to this thread.
__________________
heck, you should see the responses on some of the other gun boards such as glocktalk and 1911forum. You can count them on one hand.
For some reason this is just not getting through to folks. If we get this through, by pushing hard, it will be bigger than the end of the AWB. We are talking about millions of acres of this country, including many highways and comuter roads, that are virtually a Second Amendment Excluded Zone!
Personally I think all other gun control issues at this precise moment are trivia. We all need to get together and do something here, our only chance is right now, today!
I sure hope more people took action on this item than have responded to this thread.
__________________
heck, you should see the responses on some of the other gun boards such as glocktalk and 1911forum. You can count them on one hand.
For some reason this is just not getting through to folks. If we get this through, by pushing hard, it will be bigger than the end of the AWB. We are talking about millions of acres of this country, including many highways and comuter roads, that are virtually a Second Amendment Excluded Zone!
Personally I think all other gun control issues at this precise moment are trivia. We all need to get together and do something here, our only chance is right now, today!
gengarnett
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2006
- Messages
- 70
not true
maybe in your locale this is true, but this is not the case nationally. I can give you the example of the George Washington Parkway in Virginia and Maryland. This is a major commuter route that hundreds of thousands take to work every day. The highway is policed by the Park Police and it is illegal to drive ccw. Trust me, this has been checked and rechecked. We are NOT just talking about camping once a year here, we are talking about millions of acres of this country that do not have a 2nd Amendment.
maybe in your locale this is true, but this is not the case nationally. I can give you the example of the George Washington Parkway in Virginia and Maryland. This is a major commuter route that hundreds of thousands take to work every day. The highway is policed by the Park Police and it is illegal to drive ccw. Trust me, this has been checked and rechecked. We are NOT just talking about camping once a year here, we are talking about millions of acres of this country that do not have a 2nd Amendment.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about the vast majority of gun issues and laws.
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is this fascination with National Park carry??? I keep seeing these bills get introduced, and I keep seeing threads popping up with people supporting it. More people get enthusiastic for National park carry than they do for more serious issues.
How does this help the cause? This sounds more like creating a convenience for a small, small minority of concealed carriers, while allowing the GOP to promote a "pro-gun" bill that is safe for them to promote not to ruffle the feathers of moderates or anti-gunners, while acting like they're doing something for us instead of going after REAL gun control issues.
Am I totally off base here? Please educate me. I'm being 100% honest here, not a smart ass. Is this an incremental step like "cop carry" was suppose to be? If so, I have a very doubtful negative opinion of that flawed and self-defeating strategy. Is this suppose to set some sort of Federal precedent in law that the Feds will start respecting concealed carry? I don't see the benefit, I'd be adamantly against national concealed carry because it would involve compromise with morons in gun-grabber states. The less the Feds are involved in concealed carry, the better.
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is this fascination with National Park carry??? I keep seeing these bills get introduced, and I keep seeing threads popping up with people supporting it. More people get enthusiastic for National park carry than they do for more serious issues.
How does this help the cause? This sounds more like creating a convenience for a small, small minority of concealed carriers, while allowing the GOP to promote a "pro-gun" bill that is safe for them to promote not to ruffle the feathers of moderates or anti-gunners, while acting like they're doing something for us instead of going after REAL gun control issues.
Am I totally off base here? Please educate me. I'm being 100% honest here, not a smart ass. Is this an incremental step like "cop carry" was suppose to be? If so, I have a very doubtful negative opinion of that flawed and self-defeating strategy. Is this suppose to set some sort of Federal precedent in law that the Feds will start respecting concealed carry? I don't see the benefit, I'd be adamantly against national concealed carry because it would involve compromise with morons in gun-grabber states. The less the Feds are involved in concealed carry, the better.
gengarnett
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2006
- Messages
- 70
hmmm
well maybe you do not live within a hundred miles of a national park? Maybe you don't care that people who do are forced to disarm to make their daily commute?
I am not going to keep reciting the same things posted by myself and others. We are not going to beg you to help out. The fact remains that millions of acres of this country are National Park land. The fact remains that our nation's national parks are crime ridden areas. The fact remains that there are huge national parks on our border with Mexico. These lands are full of criminals, illegal alien transporters, and drug dealers/growers.
You can say this issue is not important. Fine, then tell us what is so much more pressing that you wish to stamp down enthusiasm for this issue? The National Parks carry bill, S4057, has one chance, right now. Please tell us why it is not worth a few calls of support? Please tell us what is so much more pressing that discussing this is a hindrence.
look, I thought we were all in this together. I thought we are all trying to support 2a rights. This issue is NOW, the only chance it has is NOW. Senator Allen lost his seat in the Senate and will be long gone on Jan 1.
Look, we all have opinions, and they vary. But i do know that almost every state in this country has a National Park. At the moment, a person with a ccw license in their state can NOT carry if they enter a national park located in their state. These are just the facts. If you care nothing about the issue then fine. But to me it seems odd for a pro RTKBA type to take the time to stamp down on the enthusiasm of others.
well maybe you do not live within a hundred miles of a national park? Maybe you don't care that people who do are forced to disarm to make their daily commute?
I am not going to keep reciting the same things posted by myself and others. We are not going to beg you to help out. The fact remains that millions of acres of this country are National Park land. The fact remains that our nation's national parks are crime ridden areas. The fact remains that there are huge national parks on our border with Mexico. These lands are full of criminals, illegal alien transporters, and drug dealers/growers.
You can say this issue is not important. Fine, then tell us what is so much more pressing that you wish to stamp down enthusiasm for this issue? The National Parks carry bill, S4057, has one chance, right now. Please tell us why it is not worth a few calls of support? Please tell us what is so much more pressing that discussing this is a hindrence.
look, I thought we were all in this together. I thought we are all trying to support 2a rights. This issue is NOW, the only chance it has is NOW. Senator Allen lost his seat in the Senate and will be long gone on Jan 1.
Look, we all have opinions, and they vary. But i do know that almost every state in this country has a National Park. At the moment, a person with a ccw license in their state can NOT carry if they enter a national park located in their state. These are just the facts. If you care nothing about the issue then fine. But to me it seems odd for a pro RTKBA type to take the time to stamp down on the enthusiasm of others.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
