Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

National Park Carry Vote Delayed:Not Enough Votes Says GOP Sen.Coburn

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Winchester 73, Apr 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    As was feared ,they are just not enough votes in the Senate with its 60 vote rule to get this deal done right now.Short and not so sweet from GOA.

    http://www.gunowners.org/a041108.htm

    Gun Owners of America
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
    Springfield, VA 22151
    (703)321-8585
    Friday, April 11, 2008
    Gun Owners of America alerted you on Tuesday to the looming battle over Senate legislation that will determine whether or not you will be able to carry a gun on lands controlled by the National Park Service.

    The showdown has been postponed until later, as Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (who had planned to offer the pro-gun amendment) determined he didn't have enough votes. Senator Coburn does plan to find another vehicle to offer his amendment at a later date. So please stay tuned
     
  2. kd7nqb

    kd7nqb Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,207
    Location:
    Puyallup Washington
    sorry to hear it, I suppose its better than a vote that fails right?
     
  3. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    carebear put this notice in my thread in Activism late yesterday.
    I did not see that until after I started this new thread.
    Sorry,carebear.
     
  4. rocinante

    rocinante Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    Alpharetta GA
    I thought they had changed earlier this year deciding the carry rules in federal land would follow what was the state laws.
     
  5. csmkersh

    csmkersh Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,050
    Location:
    San Antonio TX


    No. what happened is 50 Senators sent a joint letter to the Park Service requesting the change. Here's the NRA press release:

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10651

    The simple answer is, "It ain't gonna happen." The Park Service is riddled with anti-gunners.

    The Park Service immediately countered with this press release:

    http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/2008/gunsinparks_022208.html

    Maybe after the hogs have been fed---
     
  6. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Sorry but that's incorrect. The press relese you posted was from the National Parks Conservation Association, an "independent, membership organization dedicated to protecting the park system."

     
  7. CBS220

    CBS220 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    868
    Coburn is a good man, as far as I'm concerned. I think we can expect to see a bill or amendment on the subject before too long.
     
  8. romma

    romma Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    Southeastern,CT
    A government of the Park service, by the Park Service and for the Park Service... They should just do the jobs the tax payers pay them to do...

    Last I heard, we the People should decide these matters.
     
  9. Right Wing Wacko

    Right Wing Wacko Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    I don't know how it is in most states but in mine we have three major National Parks. There are major highways thru all three of them.

    1. Mt Rainier National Park
    State Route 410 to Chinook Pass - One of the routes to the eastern half of the state
    2. Olympic National Park
    US 101 - One of the Major Routes north/south thru the state (and in this case the COUNTRY
    3. North Cascades National Park
    State Route 20 - Major Route east/west across the mountains. Incidently a route that goes to one of the states major hunting areas.

    To legally drive in these highways requires one to unload and pracitically dissassemble ones gun... almost as bad as DC!
     
  10. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Right Wing Wacko, In Arizona, the freeways and state routes don't count, as long as you stay on 'em. As far as I recall. I'm surprised that's not the case for Washington as well.

    So many laws for honest men to run afoul of. :(
     
  11. misANTHrope

    misANTHrope Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    829
    Location:
    Hixson, TN
    I do agree with this, but in a different direction. Rather than see them defer to state law, I'd like to see a uniform regulation be applied across all national parks, a regulation stating that carrying is OK. This regulation would not be pre-emptable by state law.

    The real benefit of this for me would be that I could carry in national parks located in TN- whereas if they defer to state law, I'd still be banned, as parks are a prohibited location in TN.
     
  12. lacoochee

    lacoochee Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    689
    Location:
    San Antonio, FL
    Yet, this is done for National Forests and Federal WMA's. Thankfully we have very few National Parks/Monuments in Florida but it is still incredibly annoying.
     
  13. Right Wing Wacko

    Right Wing Wacko Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    From the North Cascades National Park Web Page:

    Note the addition to the two NRA's that are nearby and not part of the park. Even though they are not part of the park, they are still administered by the Dept of the Interior.


    Olympic National Park has a different twist that I find interesting!

     
  14. csmkersh

    csmkersh Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,050
    Location:
    San Antonio TX
    If anyone truly believes the Park Service will make changes in our favor, I've some ocean front property to sell 10 miles West of Phoenix.​
     
  15. jrfoxx

    jrfoxx Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,168
    Location:
    Evanston,WY
    I was thinking the same thing. Thier excuse is that it would be too confusing for park LEO's and visitors to know the laws of the state the park is IN, but it's NOT confusing for the parks rules to be entirely different from the laws of rest of the state that surrounds it? Thats so contradictory it makes my brains hurt!
     
  16. slidelock15

    slidelock15 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    19
    I must be missing something

    I thought the administration was gonna throw us a bone and open up the parks with a presidential directive. That was what the NPCA was whining about. I remember Ms Pelosi was threatening to do something but I'm not clear about what. She cant pass a law without the threat of a veto. Whats she gonna do, hold up funding for the parks? The tree huggers would go nuts! Could somebody explain this to a poor hillbilly?
     
  17. Oro

    Oro Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,496
    Location:
    WA state
    Yeah, like slidelock said, that press release bears no reality to the regulatory process going on to change the rules. It COULD be done through legislation passing both houses, but it doesn't have to. It is being done as a simple administrative rule change directed by the DOI. The Secretary of the Interior has instructed his subordinates to draft new rules making Park policy conform with the local state policy.

    I think whoever put this press release together was just doing some scaremongering of their own. Here's the real deal linked below. Note especially the first link, Kempthorne's letter about how they (DOI/NSPS) are planning on changing the rules. This doesn't require a congressional vote - none was taken back in 1981 or so when the Reagan administration banned guns in National Parks (yes, it was the Reagan administration who did it, no vote taken or federal law made).

    http://www.nraila.org/news/read/newsreleases.aspx?id=10651
     
  18. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    I expect this proposal to come back up for a vote.

    Most senators are hoping they don't have to vote on it during an election year
     
  19. Pat McCoy

    Pat McCoy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    158
    Location:
    Lander, WY
    While a Senate vote to change the law would be nice, it is not needed as the Interior Department can change their rule at any time.

    As you get old enough to purchase the "Golden Age" pass for National Parks and recreation areas, be sure to do so somewhere OTHER than a national park (BLM, Forest Service) and write a letter to Park Service letting them know what you did, and why. The majority of the $50 fee goes to the department that sells the pass, and putting a little financial pressure on the Park Service can't hurt.
     
  20. romma

    romma Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    Southeastern,CT
    Make it East of Phoenix and you got a deal!!
     
  21. waynesan

    waynesan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    141
    Location:
    TN
    A Senate vote would be nicer.
    . Getting a vote in Congress to change the law would be much harder to overturn than a simple change in Park rules initiated by the Secretary of Int. And if Obama or Hilary is elected in Nov. you can be sure that the next Sec. of Int. will change that rule on his/her first day in office.
     
  22. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    not true

    Institutional inertia would grind efforts to a halt. It can't be altered by E.O. as some claim and going through the Admin. process is an exercise in patience.

    Frankly delay on this vote works in our favor. If the vote had gone down wrong, then DOI would spike the proposed rule change entirely with some trumped up ideas. So long as they're gridlocked, they have a little more motivation to act on our behalf.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page