PDA

View Full Version : National Parks Carry update


alloy
May 12, 2009, 05:24 PM
I just saw this mentioned on the news, currently attached to, of all things a credit card bill. Any chance of this working, or maybe they don't want the credit card bill to pass?

http://washingtonindependent.com/42627/and-the-first-amendment-to-the-senate-credit-card-reform-bill-is

Al Norris
May 12, 2009, 07:04 PM
It's now being reported (http://washingtonindependent.com/42641/senate-approves-coburn-gun-amendment)that the Senate passed the credit card bill, 67 to 29, with the Coburn amendment in it.

The bill will now go to conference to resolve the differences between the two houses.

The Republicans really don't want finance reform, or we would have seen such during all those years that Bush and the republican party held the majority. So this very well could be a "poison pill" amendment.

It should also be noted that the Dems have used this very tactic to get gun-control measures passed. Now the other side of the aisle is using many of the same tactics.

alloy
May 12, 2009, 07:26 PM
Well it's good...but it strikes me that the two are so unrelated seemingly, it's definately fast and loose with legislation games and political payback these days.

I did read that the President wants his credit card legislation on his desk by memorial day to avert the crisis.

jfrey123
May 12, 2009, 11:02 PM
I think it's one of those "If you damn Dems want the credit card reform, we gun totin' Right Wing Extremists want our CCW's in National Parks" type deals....




I'm strangely comfortable with this one. :D

Bartholomew Roberts
May 13, 2009, 06:53 AM
Well, if you want to buy guns & ammo on credit, I would do it now because they are going to be pulling back (actually they have already been pulling back) credit card debt before that bill takes effect. It will be interesting to see how bad they want it though :)

kraigwy
May 13, 2009, 02:04 PM
Something we should take heart in, is the numbers, 67 yeas, 29 naes.

That tells me dems are gonna have a hard time passing any anti - gun legislation.

JWT
May 13, 2009, 02:25 PM
I agree with kraigwy - the numbers certainly seem important. Hopefully those 67 yeas are a strong indication that the leanings in the Senate are more in favor of gun ownership and less inclined to pass new anti gun legislation.

I find it interesting that the press considers the ammendment a poison pill for the credit card legislation rather than a move to get the concealed carry in National Parks bill passed by attaching it to a bill dear to the hearts of the liberal senators.

ZeSpectre
May 13, 2009, 02:30 PM
Well it's good...but it strikes me that the two are so unrelated seemingly, it's definately fast and loose with legislation games and political payback these days.
Well, they announced they wanted to play dirty with their bought and paid for judge so I guess Mr. Coburn decided it was time for the gloves to come off.

I, for one, am tired of being the political punching bag and I think this was an extremely well placed thorn!

maestro pistolero
May 13, 2009, 03:00 PM
Can the legislative branch override the injunction of the judicial branch?

ZeSpectre
May 13, 2009, 03:03 PM
I don't believe so, but it does change the rules of the game. Right now the basis of the injunction is that the "rules change" didn't follow one of the guidelines (that of an "environmental impact study") A change in legislature blows that right out of the water since an EIS isn't required for the proposed law.

alloy
May 13, 2009, 03:26 PM
I, for one, am tired of being the political punching bag and I think this was an extremely well placed thorn!

Don't get me wrong i'm all for it, but i get a little worried when they pass a massive bill with no time to read them, in spite of the new era of the teleprompter's 5 day online transparency policy. Out of it comes things like the AIG bonuses shoved thru by Giethner and Dodd at the eleventh hour.(I'm not/wasn't against the bonuses, just the shell game). Unless of course they go my way, and then i'm all for it.

Don't wanna wake up tomorrow and find they snuck a total EBR ban into a healthcare bill while nobody was lookin'.:D

Strange days...

Al Norris
May 13, 2009, 04:35 PM
Can the legislative branch override the injunction of the judicial branch?
Short answer, Yes.

The injunction is against a regulation, not a legislated law. In this case, it makes no difference why the injunction was in place. Change the actual law, and the injunction is a moot point.

Does anyone have a link to the bill, as amended?

alloy
May 13, 2009, 04:41 PM
the link to it is on this first page of amendments,(1068) but im not good at navigating the site

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00627:@@@S

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c1116MtsoE::

Yellowfin
May 14, 2009, 01:22 AM
Can they sneak in "repeal 922(o) " somewhere? That's a mere 13 characters in what's likely to be over a 100 page bill, as they all are.

Ricky B
May 19, 2009, 11:54 PM
This from a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "Democrats and Guns":

Amid so much other news, a Senate vote last week to allow loaded guns in national parks slipped under the media radar. The vote shows how the political cause of gun control is as dead as a mounted moose.

By 67-29, the Senate passed Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn's amendment to let law-abiding visitors carry legal firearms into national parks. This overturns a 1983 federal rule requiring that firearms be kept unloaded and in an inaccessible place such as a trunk of a car. The provision (now part of credit-card legislation) protects Second Amendment rights, and it preserves the right of states to pass firearm laws that apply consistently, even on federal lands.

As recently as the 1990s, guns in parks legislation would have provoked a Congressional uproar. But gun control has proven to be a consistent political loser, and last year the Supreme Court cast doubt on state gun bans. No fewer than 27 Democrats voted for Mr. Coburn's amendment, and the ayes included Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is up for re-election in Nevada next year.

Congressional liberals are furious, and are threatening to hold up the credit-card bill, much as they have held up Washington, D.C. voting-rights legislation to which Republicans attached gun-owner protections. Holding up both bad bills forever would be fine with us, but in any case it's clear liberals have lost the gun control debate even within their own party.

The credit card bill passed the Senate. According to an AP article, it still has intact the Coburn amendment. Of course, it has to pass in the House too, but according to the chairman of a national parks subcommittee in the House, it is likely to pass in the House, given the pro-gun rights majorities in both the House and Senate. Democratic leaders said there was not enough time to send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee — where presumably it could be removed without a vote — and still get it to Obama by Memorial Day as he has requested.

ZeSpectre
May 20, 2009, 09:25 AM
It'd be a great way to start Memorial weekend! <wishful thinking>.

Ricky B
May 20, 2009, 12:40 PM
According to an article I read, many of the new Dems in Congress come from western states, and they don't have the anti-gun attitude of their eastern confreres.

ZeSpectre
May 20, 2009, 01:30 PM
Now we see about "resolving the differences" and then to Mr. O's desk it goes.


Govtrack
H.R.627
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-627
Current status
Occurred: Introduced Jan 22, 2009
Occurred: Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Occurred: Reported by Committee Apr 22, 2009
Occurred: Amendments (89 proposed) View Amendments
Occurred: Passed House Apr 30, 2009
Occurred: Passed Senate May 19, 2009
Not Yet Occurred: Differences Resolved ...
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President ...

With "Section 512" still intact and reading as follows
SEC. 512. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) Congressional Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’.

(2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that ‘except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net’.

(3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not ‘possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges’ of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(4) The regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals while at units of--

(A) the National Park System; and

(B) the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(5) The existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009--

(A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and

(B) the new regulations--

(i) are under review by the administration; and

(ii) may be altered.

(7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(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.

ZeSpectre
May 20, 2009, 01:49 PM
Washington Post
House Passes Credit Card Bill, Sending It to President
http://tinyurl.com/qptvtc

By Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 20, 2009; 2:29 PM

The House today gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit credit card companies from arbritarily raising interest rates on existing balances and charging certain fees.

With a 367-61 vote, the House ensured that President Obama will be able to sign the bill into law by Memorial Day, as he requested.

The House had approved a more diluted credit card reform bill last month but chose to send the stonger Senate version to the president instead. The Senate overwhelmingly passed its bill, written by Banking Committee Chairman Christoper Dodd (D-Conn.), on Tuesday.

>>>SNIP<<<<< (see online article for full text)

The House's passage of the bill came after an unrelated amendment allowing visitors to national parks to carry guns passed on a separate vote of 279-147. This morning, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama would sign the legislation even if the amendment, introduced by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), were included.

>>>SNIP<<<<< (see online article for full text)

The legislation passed today, which goes farther than the Fed's new rules, would become effective nine months after signing.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 20, 2009, 02:02 PM
The NY Times has been having hissy fits about the amendment for awhile. Why doesn't Obama stand up to the evil gun lobby? Oh, dear - he is misbehaving.

:D

dcludwig
May 20, 2009, 02:06 PM
I think this is great news for more than one reason. Now, I am FAR from being an Obama supporter (and would need a lobotomy to become one), but this is one piece of legislation he has pushed for that I agree with. I am extremely glad that the National Parks carry permission was tacked on, but even moreso because it wasn't some huge tax and/or spend bill that it was attached to. I am a capitalist through and through, but the credit card industry has royally screwed its card-holders over and over. And sadly the worse victims are those who can least afford the rate change from 12% to 29% at the whim of the CC companies.

On a side note, I've skimmed through the legislation, but didn't see how this would affect those facilities maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers. Anyone able to shed some light on this?

dcludwig
May 20, 2009, 02:12 PM
The NY Times has been having hissy fits about the amendment for awhile. Why doesn't Obama stand up to the evil gun lobby? Oh, dear - he is misbehaving.

<---hands hanky to the NY Times. Actually, I love this. Puts the big O between a rock and a hard place. He' going to sign it, I'd be shocked if he doesn't. Maybe the love affair with the leftist press won't be quite so slobbery now. :)

ZeSpectre
May 20, 2009, 02:25 PM
I'm sure the NY Times and other groups are off having a drink with Justice CKK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Kollar-Kotelly) over having their legislative posterior handed to them.

HKuser
May 20, 2009, 02:51 PM
The House agreed to the Senate Amendment in two votes. The first vote was all but Sec. 512. The second vote (Roll Call 277), on agreeing to Sec. 512, passed with a lesser Democratic margin than the rest of the Amd. As the House agreed to the Amd, the bill is final and goes to the President.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 277
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 627 YEA-AND-NAY 20-May-2009 2:24 PM
QUESTION: Concur In Sec. 512 of Sen Amdt.
BILL TITLE: Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009

Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 105 145 5
Republican 174 2 2
Independent
TOTALS 279 147 7


---- YEAS 279 ---

Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Etheridge
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maffei
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Ortiz
Pallone
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Scalise
Schauer
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

---- NAYS 147 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

---- NOT VOTING 7 ---

Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Braley (IA)
Polis (CO)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Speier
Stark

carguychris
May 20, 2009, 04:06 PM
According to an article I read, many of the new Dems in Congress come from western states, and they don't have the anti-gun attitude of their eastern confreres.
The Roll Call 277 tally seems to back this up... over 40% of House Dems voted "Yea". :) What was that about legislative posteriors? ;)
On a side note, I've skimmed through the legislation, but didn't see how this would affect those facilities maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers. Anyone able to shed some light on this?
Unfortunately, after reading the section myself, I don't think it has any effect on property overseen by the USACE. That stinks- we will still be prohibited from CCW at the numerous USACE-maintained parks located near TX lakes. I had my hopes up. :(

Wildalaska
May 20, 2009, 04:50 PM
I am a capitalist through and through, but the credit card industry has royally screwed its card-holders over and over. And sadly the worse victims are those who can least afford the rate change from 12% to 29% at the whim of the CC companies.

No you arent a capitalist through and through. You are only one to the extent that your ox isnt gored.:D

Nopw us guys that pay our cc bills on time and have nice low rates and no fees and perqs are gonna get screwed as the banks spread the loss from deadbeats around.

And the gun ammendment is great :)

WildnowicancarryindenaliAlaska ™

grymster2007
May 20, 2009, 04:58 PM
Still can't carry in Yosemite. But the place is so crowded I don't think there's room to draw anyway.

Nopw us guys that pay our cc bills on time and have nice low rates and no fees and perqs are gonna get screwed as the banks spread the loss from deadbeats around. Thanks for subsidizing me big guy! :D

Brian Pfleuger
May 20, 2009, 05:23 PM
I am a capitalist through and through, but the credit card industry has royally screwed its card-holders over and over. And sadly the worse victims are those who can least afford the rate change from 12% to 29% at the whim of the CC companies.


Bull. Read the contract. If you don't like it, don't deal with that company. If it's a policy they all use, don't carry a credit card. There are no "victims", only people who don't read contracts or who think "it'll never happen to me..."

dcludwig
May 20, 2009, 06:12 PM
No you arent a capitalist through and through. You are only one to the extent that your ox isnt gored.

Nopw us guys that pay our cc bills on time and have nice low rates and no fees and perqs are gonna get screwed as the banks spread the loss from deadbeats around.

ummm, you don't know me, nor how well I pay my credit cards or any of my other bills. I pay on time. I have paid off all but one credit card, and the one remaining card is at a 2.9%. However, I DO have friends who DO pay their CC on time, but did make the mistake of running their cards up to close to the limit... THAT is what made the CC companies jack their rates up. Got that? They made payments on time. IMHO, they should NOT have gone so far into debt, but does that in itself justify SCREWING them by doubling their interest rates? That type of blood-sucking from the CC companies is what has helped get a socialist like Obama elected. No doubt there are many out there who don't pay their bills on time or not at all. And no, I don't want to share that burden of having their debts forgiven. But why punish those who go into debt and honestly try to pay off those debts off by grossly increasing their interest rates?? Perhaps you think Madoff and Enron are shining examples of capitalism. Not I. Nor do I think those CC companies that gouge honest consumers promote the interest of capitalism. But perhaps the victims of Enron and Bernard Madoff are simply whining because their "ox got gored" btw, if you are such the financial wizard, I suggest you invest in a decent spell-checker! :D

Wildalaska
May 20, 2009, 06:19 PM
However, I DO have friends who DO pay their CC on time, but did make the mistake of running their cards up to close to the limit... THAT is what made the CC companies jack their rates up. Got that? They made payments on time. IMHO, they should NOT have gone so far into debt, but does that in itself justify SCREWING them by doubling their interest rates?

Should have read the FINE PRINT in their contracts before they agreed to accept the card then

That type of blood-sucking from the CC companies is what has helped get a socialist like Obama elected.

LOL....Obama saaaaaaaaaaave us LOL

btw, if you are such the financial wizard, I suggest you invest in a decent spell-checker!

BTW,learn how to capitalize.:rolleyes:

WildthatsallfrommeonthisthreadAlaska ™

grymster2007
May 20, 2009, 06:51 PM
Funny how they can get away with wrapping so many seemingly disparate issues into one law. I often wonder why we would allow this.... besides we don't need any help pulling our threads off topic.

thatsallfrommeonthisthreadCheaper 'n a spell checker anyway.:)

Jofaba
May 20, 2009, 07:45 PM
I'm glad they split the bill. Even when the hoodwinking works towards my own views, I don't like how they tie in unrelated legislation into things pretty much guaranteed to pass. I think each thing should be voted on individually. I understand that some bulk legislation would be a tidal wave if it wasn't tied together in a single vote, but I really don't care if the have to work late hours and, God forbid, work the same hours we do without break to make sure that all legislation gets fair consideration.

That said, Kudos. It's amazing the commentary between say a Huffington Post comment thread and one here. Polar opposites and it's just mind boggling how anti's think that this means that any goon with a gun will be able to walk in and start firing away. The Brady's even went as far as to say that regular folk shouldn't have to worry about someone carring an AK47 around as they tried to enjoy the parks.

Do any of you plan on taking your AK47 into Yellowstone? Didn't think so.

rantingredneck
May 20, 2009, 08:06 PM
Unfortunately it appears as if the regulations will go into effect 9 months after signing by Obama. That means I still won't be able to carry when I'm up on the Blue Ridge Parkway here in a couple weeks.......:(

Sevens
May 20, 2009, 10:46 PM
Okay, in effect in 9 months --
But does it immediately un-do the injunction?

Or are you correct that we will be waiting 9 months?!

My annual BRP run is set for the second weekend in June.

I'm ****** if I can't carry. I'll be the guy loading a subcompact Glock on the BRP exit ramp when we head to town for a meal, fuel and a room. :(

Al Norris
May 20, 2009, 11:47 PM
Is this thread about the amendment to carry in National Parks in the Credit Card bill, or about the Credit Card bill itself?

Some of you are to be commended for trying to keep this on topic. Others of you may well find your access to this forum, if not TFL, in jeopardy. :mad:

tiberius10721
May 21, 2009, 09:39 AM
how come we wont be able to carry in yosemite park?

rantingredneck
May 21, 2009, 09:51 AM
Okay, in effect in 9 months --
But does it immediately un-do the injunction?

Or are you correct that we will be waiting 9 months?!

I hope I'm wrong, but that's the way I read it.

I doubt this legislation will undo an injunction that was filed against a regulatory change, but IANAL so maybe some of our resident legal eagles can weigh in there........

grymster2007
May 21, 2009, 10:17 AM
how come we wont be able to carry in yosemite park? Good question, but I'm under the impression that the law is subject the state law. No?

Al Norris
May 21, 2009, 10:46 AM
how come we wont be able to carry in yosemite park?
Short answer: The new law forces National Parks to conform to State law on carry questions. In California, open carry is rather problematic. Under Concealed Carry, you must have a CA CCW. Only residents may obtain a CA CCW. CA does not recognize any other States permits.
Okay, in effect in 9 months --
But does it immediately un-do the injunction?
The injunction is against a regulation, not a law, so it stands. The law (a legislated act) overrides any regulation to the contrary. Hence, when the law goes into effect, the injunction (against the regulation) will be moot.

grymster2007
May 21, 2009, 11:19 AM
The new law forces National Parks to conform to State law on carry questions. In California, open carry is rather problematic. Under Concealed Carry, you must have a CA CCW. Only residents may obtain a CA CCW. CA does not recognize any other States permits. That's what I thought and since the average Schmuck in CA is denied CC, only special people will be carrying in Yosemite. My local Sheriff thinks I'm special, but not in the sense that he would issue me a permit.

Gary L. Griffiths
May 21, 2009, 11:54 AM
Okay, in effect in 9 months --
But does it immediately un-do the injunction?
The law will become effective when it says it will be effective. If the credit card provisions are immediate, I don't see why the carry provisions wouldn't be, but then I haven't read the bill.

Color me pessimistic, but I don't see anything to prevent the Brady Bunch from going back to the same judge and getting an injunction against the law taking effect because the "environmental impact" hasn't been studied, either. :mad::barf::barf::barf:

spacemanspiff
May 21, 2009, 12:22 PM
The credit card provisions are NOT immediate.

ZeSpectre
May 21, 2009, 12:26 PM
Color me pessimistic, but I don't see anything to prevent the Brady Bunch from going back to the same judge and getting an injunction against the law taking effect because the "environmental impact" hasn't been studied, either.

Unlike regulations surrounding a "change of policy" for the DOI (which include steps like an environmental impact study) the creation of a LAW on this subject has no similar steps or restrictions.

maestro pistolero
May 21, 2009, 12:37 PM
Color me pessimistic, but I don't see anything to prevent the Brady Bunch from going back to the same judge and getting an injunction against the law taking effect because the "environmental impact" hasn't been studied, either.

I think it was Antipitas who pointed out that the only reason the judge had jurisdiction in the first place, was that it was a rule or regulation, not a law passed by congress.

maestro pistolero
May 21, 2009, 02:10 PM
What did the final text say, if anything, on the subject of loaded and unlocked long guns? And is there any provision for loaded open carry? Isn't it possible to LOC in unincorporated areas in most states? If so, why not in a National Park?Perhaps this should be another thread.

carguychris
May 21, 2009, 03:15 PM
What did the final text say, if anything, on the subject of loaded and unlocked long guns? And is there any provision for loaded open carry? Isn't it possible to LOC in unincorporated areas in most states?
The bill says, quite simply, that guns may be carried in accordance with the laws of the state in which the park or refuge is located.

Open carry is not specifically mentioned. Yes, LOC is allowed in many states, but discussing which states is IMHO somewhat outside the topic of this thread. Plenty of threads discussing LOC can be found on TFL and elsewhere already.

ZeroJunk
May 21, 2009, 07:33 PM
I wonder if this will apply to US Army Corps of Engineers parks like Phillpott Lake, Buggs Island etc. or is that a different animal?

carguychris
May 21, 2009, 08:53 PM
I wonder if this will apply to US Army Corps of Engineers parks like Phillpott Lake, Buggs Island etc. or is that a different animal?
It's a different animal. The amendment calls out national parks and national wildlife refuges by name.

I expressed frustration about this earlier in the thread. The USACE operates parks at several popular recreational lakes in north TX, so the prohibition againt CCW will apparently continue. :mad:

SKN
May 22, 2009, 02:30 PM
Just signed by the President so it's a done deal, but not until February 2010 when provisions of the entire bill become law.

gc70
May 22, 2009, 07:42 PM
I think it was Antipitas who pointed out that the only reason the judge had jurisdiction in the first place, was that it was a rule or regulation, not a law passed by congress.

Federal judges have jurisdiction to hear cases contesting federal rules and regulations or federal laws. The issue in the Brady case involved whether an agency had followed the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act in creating a regulation; those requirements do not apply to laws passed by Congress.

gc70
May 22, 2009, 07:47 PM
What did the final text say, if anything, on the subject of loaded and unlocked long guns? And is there any provision for loaded open carry? Isn't it possible to LOC in unincorporated areas in most states? If so, why not in a National Park?Perhaps this should be another thread.

Section 512 of the Credit Card Act of 2009 (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.627:) reads as follows:

(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.

In short, if the state says it is okay - handgun, rifle, or shotgun, concealed or openly carried - it is also okay in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

maestro pistolero
May 22, 2009, 11:20 PM
In short, if the state says it is okay - handgun, rifle, or shotgun, concealed or openly carried - it is also okay in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

There's my answer, LOC permitted, if permitted by by state law, right? The way the media has exaggerated the impact of this rule change (though now actually a law), it probably won't surprise anyone much to see Aunt Bessie OCing her .38. After all, they are expecting AKs and ARs, thanks to the alarmists.

Mtn Biker
May 25, 2009, 11:12 PM
(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.

Anyone know if National Monuments are part of the National Park System? Here in New Mexico there are quite a few National Monuments out in the middle of nowhere and it would be nice to carry while visiting.

VL

Ricky B
May 26, 2009, 10:27 AM
Anyone know if National Monuments are part of the National Park System?

It would appear that National Monuments are part of the NPS:

http://www.nps.gov/legacy/nomenclature.html