National Parks bill moving to Senate - Perhaps tomorrow

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not a problem anymore because all three of these states honor my Utah permit.

True. However, each state has different laws about carrying in a drinking establishment.

Idaho has no law against it. Carry in a bar, no problem unless you're legally intoxicated (same as DUI).

Montana requires open carry even for concealed carry license holders, in a bar. I'm not sure what the legal definition of "bar" is in Montana.

Wyoming? I don't even know. According to some members here, the place is so socially conservative that there probably aren't any drinking establishments.:D
 
XBOX

You would have to be otherwise permitted to carry a handgun legally in whatever state the park was in. There isn't a special "park permit" nor is a park a "free zone" where one needn't have a permit to carry legally...I mean per the 2nd Amendment, all law abiding citizens should be able to carry anywhere without a government issued permit...but that is another issue all together.
 
Should have heard all the morons emailing Rick Sanchez! 80% of the responses were negative. People saying CCW in the parks is a bad idea, only the Rangers need guns, all we need is a bunch of drunk poachers in the parks, blah, blah, blah....Pretty pathetic, the way the general public thinks:rolleyes:
 
Pretty pathetic, the way the general public thinks

Trust me, that's not the attitude of the "general public".

The general public is too busy watching the American Idol winner interviews to care.

Most people in the US could care less about guns one way or the other in fact.

When you read those insane comments they are not from the "general public" they are from the hardcore left.
 
This law doesn't say "concealed" anywhere on it.

If open is legal in your state, you can carry openly.

Yosemite is in California and is unincorporated. Open carry is legal right now in unincoporated areas (not sure if that is just for residents).

Heh, how do ya like them apples Sen. Feinstein. :evil:



Oh, it doesn't go into effect for 9 mopnths from signing. February 23(or so) will be "Park Carry Day".
 
The majority of the people that watch Rick are liberals, the vast majority that actually email him are liberals, and he is only going to pick the ones that agree with him, and a few opposing ones to make him look "fair". :barf:

Back on topic, the bill just puts the power back into the hands of the states.
 
Just signed by the President so it's a done deal, but not until February 2010 when provisions of the entire bill become law.
 
Last edited:
Obama signed it.

A DOI rep has confirmed that the new policy will go into effect with the rest of the legislation, in nine months.

NEW QUESTION:

Tom Coburn has said he will try to attach the same legislation to a DIFFERENT bill to get into effect SOONER. Should we push to get it passed AGAIN, or be happy with what we have and remind ourselves that nine months isn't that long, we have waited twenty years already?

I personally am happy with the current situation, and while I'm not exactly happy with the waiting time, I don't hit at 20.
 
I am glad that the the first gun law signed by President Obama is pro-2nd amendment. Now its time for the naysayers to jump in the thread and explain how its a bad thing that the new president signed it.
 
Ok, I'll naysay it. It was a policy already in effect, expected to be reinstated anyway. HE WASN'T LOSING ANYTHING BY SIGNING IT.

How it COULD be bad, is that he can use it as leverage against OTHER gun laws in the future. YOU said that the FIRST gun bill was pro-gun. This gives him room to portray future laws as 'common sense' laws that he deserves because he has been willing to compromise. "Look, I have shown that I am willing to compromise on gun legislation. I allowed guns into national parks. Now it's YOUR turn to be reasonable and start paying a common sense tax on ammunition which will help keep us all safe."
 
Ok, I'll naysay it. It was a policy already in effect, expected to be reinstated anyway. HE WASN'T LOSING ANYTHING BY SIGNING IT.

True but in the fine print it's actually better for us than the way it was previously.

Before it was only for concealed handguns, now it's anything legal in the state.

And in fact it makes him look weak since one of his very first EO's has now been overturned, by a Democratic congress no less.

Big win for us, no matter what.

Can't start second guessing every win, we just have to fight every battle.
 
I, for one, will believe it when I see it.
I really hate to be negative, but I get a gut feeling that something will happen within the next nine months to strike it. I will be surprised if this takes effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top