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

NPS petition for NPS weapons regulation amendment to be changed!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Smurfslayer, Apr 29, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
  2. fletcher

    fletcher Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    TX
    I haven't heard any news of this in some time - what is the current status?
     
  3. deanf

    deanf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    N46º 54’ x W122º 34’
    Uh, isn't this old news? I knew months ago of the same-as-state-parks change.
     
  4. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    As far as I know, this effort took two forks: One administrative, referenced here (possibly old news), and one legislative, referenced here, stalled since April 11th. The legislative fork is the better of the two, if it can get done in a satisfactory way, since anything an administration does can be undone by the next administration.
     
  5. Oro

    Oro Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,496
    Location:
    WA state
    Yes, this is old news from February. At that time, the Sec. of the Interior responded to Senator Mike Crapo's letter and lobbying. He said then that the public rule changes were to be made public by the end of April for commentary before being adopted.

    After the 60 day public commentary period is up, they will review and ammend/approve the rules and set an effective date. I am not sure how long that will take, but perhaps by the end of the summer the laws will be changed.
     
  6. Well Regulated

    Well Regulated Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    Commonwealth of Virginia
    This is not old news. If you look at the date, it is the official publication of the Change of the Regulation and request for input from the public. This is the official start of the administration change process. Up until today, it has been all talk and no action by the DOI.
     
  7. Oro

    Oro Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,496
    Location:
    WA state
    This is EXACTLY the action promised in Secretary Kempthorne's letter of February 22nd to Senator Crapo. It is "new action" but it is based on "news" that was reported several months ago. Here is the outline of the process as initiated in February, courtesy of the NRA. This is when this was "news":

    http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/KempthorneRTC.pdf

    Yes, the DOI dragged their heals through out 2007 on this issue, but they had no mandate from the White House or congress to act - the only outside authorities that can direct them to do anything. Once a majority of the Senate was behind it in Feb 2008, they have responded clearly and timely, even without a congressional mandate to do so - there was no congressional vote, and the house has been silent, and would be unlikely to vote on the issue anyway. Sen. Reid blocked it in the Senate through some unethical dealings.
     
  8. lacoochee

    lacoochee Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    689
    Location:
    San Antonio, FL
    This is definitely not "old news" it looks like we are going to get National Park carry in the states that allow concealed carry in their state parks and National Forests. So in Florida, concealed carry in National Parks is legal, in Tennessee it's not.

    This is a huge first step even though everyone will not reap the rewards just yet but with a enough pressure on your state legislature you too will get National Parks on your list of allowed places.

    Wow, all I want now is permitted open carry (to address "printing") and I am pretty much satisfied with the ways things are now in Florida. There is almost no where left in Florida that I can't carry a concealed weapon.
     
  9. Oro

    Oro Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,496
    Location:
    WA state
    Lacochee, this is only "new news" if you haven't been paying attention to the issue or not heard about it here or from the NRA. It has been in some newspapers, but not very widely reported. This is just the process as outlined in February moving forward - feel free to follow the links above or below talking about Senator Crapo, Sec. Kempthorne, and check out the NRA-ILA coverage of it. Here's the new release from February outlining this policy change from the NRA web site:

    http://www.nraila.org/news/read/newsreleases.aspx?id=10651

    It will likely now be news in the "main stream media" since they have ignored it until now, but it's not "new" - it's been around for months, since the February hearings. There have been a ton of threads here as well as other gun boards covering it in detail for six months or more.

    In our favor, it getting it into the media is a good thing since it will make a strong distinction between left wing gun-grabbers and those pro-gun during the fall elections and presidential race. Trying to head off a senate vote to protect Clinton and Obama is why most suspect Senator Reid did what he did.
     
  10. lacoochee

    lacoochee Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    689
    Location:
    San Antonio, FL
    I knew about the proposal this is just the first time I have seen it actually codified.

    [FR Doc. 2008-9606 Filed 04/29/2008 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 04/30/2008]

    It really doesn't matter if it's old or new news, it's mostly hopefully good news. :)
     
  11. Oro

    Oro Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,496
    Location:
    WA state
    Yep, Lacoochee, I totally agree. This is going to make things feel more secure for lots of people, hopefully cut some crime, help secure our 2nd Amendment rights, and help keep things from eating us or our livestock! Almost like it was 100 years ago...(sigh)
     
  12. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    The proposal says, "you may submit comments," and gives several ways to do so. Are requests that the rule be placed into effect an appropriate for us to submit at this time?
     
  13. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    old news, new news it's really not important.

    Because the petition response contains additional 'restrictive' language which will effectively disenfranchis several hundred thousand petitioners, the official response from the petitioners is under review. As we've seen, DOI can best be described as dysfunctional. Once we've discussed the response from DOI we will put out a suggested comments notification.

    It would good for as many of us to be on the same page as possible regardless of whether you think the idea is great, or it's crap. I would wait to submit comments (as a petitioner, obviously I have a biased view ;) ).

    Listen to VA Congressman Jim Moron whine about the petition in Congress:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88512175
     
  14. Siderite

    Siderite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    175
    Location:
    Indiana
    Smurfslayer,
    could you elaborate on the "additional 'restrictive' language" that you mention? I tried the link in your signature, but that seems to be for a separate petition.

    Reading over the petition on regulations.gov, it states that the federal lands would be under the same as the restrictions of their home states. I know this doesn't help WI and IL, but it does avoid the change being postponed while those states take the federal government to court to determine whether federal law supremecy (federal laws overrule states law) or tenth amendment powers (states get powers not granted to federal gov) is at stake.
    Thanks,
    Siderite
     
  15. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Here is what the new regulation promulgated by DOI reads:

    "A person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park, or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law"

    First, they're requiring concealment. Think Texas, where you can be cited for brief, unintentional exposure. Second, instead of "weapons" it now says "firearms". Third, and perhaps most important, the "permission" they're granting you is contingent upon your state's law on firearms in state parks OR "any similar unit of state land".

    Totally unnecessary. Instead, try this regulation on for size:

    A person may possess, carry, and transport loaded, and operable firearms or other weapons within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport loaded and operable firearms or other weapons in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.

    Do the restrictions now make more sense?
     
  16. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,263
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Looking at the Senate's proposed action, Sen. Reid killed the bill that had the amendment legalizing carry in NPS parks. I don't know if the amendment's language was added to any other bill.
     
  17. Siderite

    Siderite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    175
    Location:
    Indiana
    Smurfslayer,
    thanks for clearing that up. I didn't catch the nuances.
    -Siderite
     
  18. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    I recall Coburn held up passage by either amending or threatening amendment of the original bill. Then Reid introduced an identical bill w/o the pro-2A language. Are you saying reid's bill got a vote & passed?
     
  19. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Requiring concealment?

    Yuck!

    I'm chomping at the bit to comment on this.
     
  20. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    c'mon...

    Please... let's not make this another shout-fest about open and concealed.

    We just don't want NPS making someone an example of for printing or something silly.
     
  21. fletcher

    fletcher Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    TX
    Yes. If you make comments, please express your support for the policy in its current form as well as suggesting that it should also contain some provision for open carry. It would not be in our best interest to create a 3-way (the antis and two factions of us fighting amongst ourselves) fight in getting such an important policy implemented.
     
  22. deanf

    deanf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    N46º 54’ x W122º 34’
    They are? They are allowing concealment, but I don't see where they are proscribing open carry.
     
  23. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    "the inclusion of one thing in a statute necessarily means the exclusion of other things". By telling you explicitly what method you may have loaded firearms in parks, they are prohibiting others by omission.

    My main concern here is brief printing, brief exposure, etc. They're actually making the patchwork of laws more difficult; albeit less restrictive. Leave it to government to come up with something which does that.:rolleyes:
     
  24. kd7nqb

    kd7nqb Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,207
    Location:
    Puyallup Washington
    I just go the Oregon Firearms Federation alert about this. They expressed the same objections. No OC and you have to have a permit valid in that state.

    While I agree that less restriction would be nice, I can understand that this may be best we are going to get right now.

    Here is the link to the OFF Alert

    http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/05.01.08.html
     
  25. deanf

    deanf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    N46º 54’ x W122º 34’
    Putting it in quotation marks doesn't give it any legitimacy. You'll have to do better than that.

    Here, I'll put my rebuttal in italics:

    that which is not specifically prohibited by law is permitted.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page