National Parks bill moving to Senate - Perhaps tomorrow

Link to how your Reps voted on this amendment:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-277

We should expect the carry to be allowed towards the end of February 2010.

Click to expand...

Excellent, one more year of offering up park visitors to grizzlies and criminals for no good reason. How sensible!

Thanks for that link, dirt j00. Very disappointing to see that in percent of representatives, Washington was right up there behind Mass, Conn, NY, IL, and CA in voting against it (5:4 against). We think of WA as a "gun friendly" state, but that's only the people, not the elected officials. We really need to be more pro-active at elections to get reps who represent our views and not the herd mentality coming out of CA and the east.

Both of our do-nothing senators voted against on that side, too, btw:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-188

I bet the dems are really wishing they had approved the line item veto now.

Excellent, one more year of offering up park visitors to grizzlies and criminals for no good reason. How sensible!

Click to expand...

Well, there are plenty of other nice places to go until then.

NPS pisses me off anyway. Went to Craters of the Moon NM and they had all these interpretive signs about how the pollution that I cause when I drive to work might be causing the rare trees to be slightly less healthy in some unmentioned way -- but on the next sign, it said that the National Park Service POISONED most of them (6000 trees!) ON PURPOSE because the manager of the place thought that they looked ugly! The next sign had some more gratuituous but 90% false "green" crap on it.

I bet the dems are really wishing they had approved the line item veto now.

Click to expand...

There's a reason we don't have it. I never thought it was a good idea. It screws up the balance of powers even more, and turns the President into a legislator. We already have 9 black-robed extra-constitutional legislators.

Well, there are plenty of other nice places to go until then

Click to expand...

Yes ArmedBear, you are right. We recreate in the Okanagan National Forest, Wenatchee NF, etc., adjacent and nearby to the N. Cascades NP for this very reason. Fortunately those of us in the west have lots of options, but folks east of the Mississippi have so much less, I pity them...almost.

But they have all that wonderful humidity and those cute little biting insect friends...

So...the minute this is signed the antis shop a case to a sympathetic judge get it thrown out just like the last one...

Call me pessimist but that's the only reason I can imagine that the dems and w.h. are going along with this.

Not really. The only reason the last one didn't work is it was an administrative rule change, and they didn't follow proper procedure and do an environmental review (no matter how retarded doing a review is).

This is an actual bill, so pretty much short of being declared unconstitutional it's going to stand.

So...the minute this is signed the antis shop a case to a sympathetic judge get it thrown out just like the last one...

Click to expand...

No, this is law now, it will be much harder to reverse.

The administration simply doesn't have the political will to fight this, it will bite them.

Look at how many Democrats voted FOR it.

No, they have enough problems without starting a civil war in their own party.

So, we seriously have to sit on this and wait for it to become effective in 9 months?!?!? That sounds so stupid!! Here is what it sounds like (yeah, I'm preaching to the choir): "We NOW know this is the way the law should be, to save lives and allow people to excercise their rights, ... so we'll do it in 9 months".

So, we seriously have to sit on this and wait for it to become effective in 9 months?!?!? That sounds so stupid!! Here is what it sounds like (yeah, I'm preaching to the choir): "We NOW know this is the way the law should be, to save lives and allow people to excercise their rights, ... so we'll do it in 9 months".

Click to expand...

Should we expect anything different from this 'wonderful' bureaucracy we subsidize with our tax dollars?

Forgive my cynicism, BUT

Has anybody read this thing? In politics and especially legislation, the devil is always in the details. We wont know that until we have a good analysis of that bill. I'm playing hooky from work so I may pull the thing off Thomas and take a look myself. On the other hand, I know that review is likely underway now . So I'll hold off on the champagne until thats done.

I read the admendment. Here is the link to it: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1067

And here is the meat of it:

(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.

Basically possession of a firearm will be determined by State law. The amendment does not address use or discharge of a firearm. So if actually have to use it, I assume that you will be under federal jurisdiction. Good luck.

Yes, it is also my understanding that "illegal discharge of a firearm" on fed. property (however illegal discharge is defined) would still be a no-no. That would address the poaching and illegal target practice on the grounds.

Discharge for SD would be justifiable, I would hope. Regardless, "discharge" is not mentioned in the bill.

Here is the last several sections of the Coburn amendment (gives some context to what Carbon Helix posted). Emphasis added.

(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.

My lay-person translation of this is: whatever carry is allowed in the state (OC, CC, etc.) is allowed on National Parks in that state. Basically, you don't have to worry about "accidentally" walking or driving onto NPS land with your weapon. Which is what Coburn argued when this first came up on the National Park bill a month or so back.

I think there is an argument that the section is immediately enforceable.

The Effective date provides:

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.

The Specific language provides:

(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."

All other sections provide specific effectiveness timetables or enactment timeframes. The language from this section suggests that it is immediate. On the other hand, it is an ambiguity.

Basically, you don't have to worry about "accidentally" walking or driving onto NPS land with your weapon.

Click to expand...

That's a real issue around, say, Idaho and Utah, where there are many random NPS areas, not necessarily parks, and not all that well-marked either. Many people carry, too.

Camping is another issue. California, for example, allows unlicensed concealed carry at a campsite unless it's otherwise illegal in that location. There's no particular reason why a camper in one isolated part of the Sierra Nevada can have a gun for self-defense, but in a nearby area, cannot.

I popped over to Senator Coburn's web site and send a short email thanking him..

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCoburn.Home

I suppose "bear arms" would firearms capable of killing an ursine creature.

I'm sure the nine months are for getting some admin things straightened out. There are Nat'l parks that are in multiple states. The states could have conflicting laws. There are training issues, and perhaps new signs.

I popped over to Senator Coburn's web site and send a short email thanking him..

Click to expand...

I did too. It's a good idea to let these guys know you appreciate their support, even if as in my case I can't vote for him.

Tom Coburn is a good guy with a great voting record. I wish he would run for president. This texan would be real happy about that.

There are Nat'l parks that are in multiple states. The states could have conflicting laws.

Click to expand...

That tends to be a problem on adjacent non-park land as well. Some of the local highways dip into Oregon and come back to Idaho along with the terrain. Given that Oregon recognizes no other states' concealed carry permits, but also doesn't issue out-of-state permits for all intents and purposes, that's a real issue for Idahoans (who are generally superior people to Oregonians anyway, present company excepted of course).

The main example I think of is, Yellowstone. It lies within, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. It's not a problem anymore because all three of these states honor my Utah permit.

I have been scouring news and blogs all day and haven't come across a really clear answer if this will be effective immediately or after 9 months along with the credit card provisions.

I have been scouring news and blogs all day and haven't come across a really clear answer if this will be effective immediately or after 9 months along with the credit card provisions.

Click to expand...

It says:

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.

Click to expand...

The gun section doesn't specifically call out a date, so it's 9 months by default.