Obama administration legally defends "guns in parks rule"

Wow. I looked up and the sky was still there.

Wow... I would bet the Brady gang is "ticked".. Oh to be a fly on the wall...

A reliable source within the current administration has informed me within recent days that the Brady Bunch are fit to be tied. And so they shall remain.

I think they must be too busy spending all of our money to worry about anything else right now.

I remain committed to the idea that, while by no means our collective choice for President on several levels (for our read the THR community), the current President is a politician who needs votes to keep his job. Something like 78% of American households have a gun and a fair number of people vote.
We are much better informed today, thanks in no small part to things like THR than we were during the Clinton administration.

No, the President's NRA voting record is not good at all. Yes, he's pretty darned liberal and that scares us. But I think, and have often expressed, that this administration will not bring about the kind of 2nd Amendment cataclysm that so many fear.

Saying that allowing law abiding citizens does not represent an additional threat in the national parks is a pretty strong statement that somebody gets it. They are not saying that as a cover...I don't think. If this were purely procedural, there are other words they could have chosen.

So, remain vigilant, vote for 2nd Amendments and RKBA candidates, join the NRA (although sometimes I wonder about them), write you congressman, and be a part of the process.

I think they must be too busy spending all of our money to worry about anything else right now.

Click to expand...

They aren't spending our money. They ran out of our money a long time ago. Now they are just making up imaginery money.

Sorry, OT...

Something like 78% of American households have a gun

Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. I think it's around 40%, according to the last surveys I've seen. (Though it's probably more than that now due to the panic)

No need to wet your pants in joyous glee.

Legally defending a procedural movement doesn't mean he is for the substance of the rule.

He's still an anti, he still wants to rip your guns and freedom away from you.

He'll find a way to expand gun free killing zones.

Surveys are subject to the responder's desire, or lack thereof, to truthfully answer the question. Twice now in my forty-one years I have been surveyed over the phone about gun ownership, once by an academic researcher, and once as a few questions in a more general issues poll.

Both times, I flatly said "no" as to whether I owned guns. I figured that a "refuses" might be counted as a "yes" or otherwise counted.

I don't want anyone near real or "academic" power having even a semi-accurate picture of how many firearms or owners exist in America.

My bet would be on 40% ownership being a gross understatement.

In all of Maine I know precisely one person who does not own a gun. Seriously. Even the Obama voters I know own EBRs and similar hi-cap weapons. And that one person ... I can understand. Heck, she lives so nearby all she'd have to do is whistle.

Obama sure is on the ropes with his stimulus bill! That's why he has a 65% approval rating and 60% of Americans are for the stimulus.

I hope everyone here who makes less than 75k per year (I know that's not many) quickly finds some poor slob making more than than that to share the tax cut they'll be getting. Otherwise, you'll be abetting "socialism."

Can't we just take it for what it is. I know "doom and gloom" makes for easy internet banter but its not good for much else. Like it or not,The Democratic Republic that we all want to defend,has spoken. IMHO If we truly believe in our country, then organization and future elections are the only thing that will get us back on track.

The current regulations are unconstitutional, as were the prior ones. If Heller means you can have a handgun in your home in Dc, because that comports with the original intent and understanding of the 2nd amendment, how can rifles and (arguably) openly carried handguns be banned by the federal government when someone is out in the middle of the wilderness, all by his self?

justice4all: "when someone is out in the middle of the wilderness, all by his self?"

Speaking as someone who spends a fair amount of time in "the wilderness," let me assure you that somebody always owns that wilderness. In the case of the National Parks, the taxpayers through the feds own it. Owners can post their land. That's why I avoid posted land, and why I know well the rules regarding posting -- which can demand quite a bit of work by a poster, actually.

It is a power thing. Obama may or may not like the rule, but he does not want to set a precedent that any rule changes he makes will be reversed willy nilly just because some tiny group doesn't like it.

Click to expand...

Nailed it. Power trumps ideology everytime.

Where in the Constitution are National Parks prohibited?

Click to expand...

The more correct question is, "Where is the federal government given the authority to own and control land, and for what purposes?" The fed is allowed to have a ten square mile capitol, "necessary forts and harbors" for the military, customs houses at ports of entry, and to exercise jurisdiction over possessions and territories not yet incorporated into states. And thats it. Without a specific mention in the Constitution that the FedGov can have parks, etc - thay AREN'T legal! That right is reserved to the States, or the people therein, by the Bill of Rights.

richyoung: "Without a specific mention in the Constitution that the FedGov can have parks, etc - thay AREN'T legal!"

The Constitution doesn't specifically mention aircraft carriers, either. Or any other ships of war. Or cannon, or shot. Illegal?

Beware of wolves in......".....this guy is Stalin with big ears.

Ya think we got problems now? Wait until Justice Ginsberg goes and we get a new Obama-picked justice who's young and eager.

M14

The Constitution doesn't specifically mention aircraft carriers, either. Or any other ships of war. Or cannon, or shot. Illegal?

Click to expand...

That falls squarely under Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power... To raise and support Armies... To provide and maintain a Navy..."

Clearly a navy composed of galleys and rams, since cannon and shot are not specifically enumerated.

Obama speaks with a forked tongue.

Just wait, he is setting us up for something far worse. He is a wiley weasel.

Do not let down you guard and continue to write your Representatives to fight gun control.

richyoung: "Without a specific mention in the Constitution that the FedGov can have parks, etc - thay AREN'T legal!"

The Constitution doesn't specifically mention aircraft carriers, either. Or any other ships of war. Or cannon, or shot. Illegal?

Click to expand...

The Constitution gives Congress the right to raise and equip a navy and an army, however they see fit. How they choose to equip them is, to put it plainly, "up to them", so far as there is a reasonable conection to their power to do so. The specific language is:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



On the other hand, there would have been NO NEED to spell out that the FedGov CAN own a capitol, forts, navy bases, etc, if the FedGov had an unlimited right to own whatever it wanted. The fact that specific types of property were authorized shows that no such unlimited right of ownership exists - otherwise, why list things that would be covered by an unlimited right? Again, the language:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

See any parks in there? This power is further limited by:

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That basicaly says that if the FedGov isn't specifically allowed to do it, its prohibited tothe FedGov. No parks.

"and other needful Buildings;

See any parks in there?"

Well, the artsy-fartsies would claim Wolf Trap Farm Park is a Very Needful Building. The conservationists and environmentalists would claim ANYTHING in furtherance of wilderness maintenance is a "needful Building."

Don't get me wrong; a couple years ago some Hollywierds and New Porkers nearly destroyed my state, coming close to turning most of it into a National Park. I don't care for the idea of National Parks, or for their particular execution. But just because you don't find "National Park" in the Constitution doesn't make them illegal.

Yes, it does. A park is not a building. That which is not expressly allowed, is prohibited. This was done very deliberately by the Founding Fathers - so that susequent states could develop their tax base, just like the original 13 colonies were able to. Some western states have over 80% of their land under some kind of federal limitation or control - this is a horrible perversion of federal power.