|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 21, 2009, 04:09 PM | #26 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by ZeSpectre; January 21, 2009 at 06:33 PM. |
|||||||||
January 21, 2009, 04:10 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
|
I know this is not politically correct for this forum...
but I've been in the Whitehouse and on the grounds and that is the last place you would need to have a gun... if the need arose all you'd want to do is dig a real deep hole.... you don't want to know how many people there are there with guns... I dare to say most gun clubs during a good meet don't have as many... and most even though you can't see them are very very close.
|
January 21, 2009, 04:27 PM | #28 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 3, 2000
Posts: 575
|
Another golden quote from the Association of National Park Rangers, which provides context for the value placed on civil rights (individual self defense) within their jurisdiction:
http://www.anpr.org/guns_in_parks.htm Quote:
To repeat, (as many argued in the soccer mom open carry thread), if the desires of gun owners must be subjugated to the wishes of the general public, to preserve harmony and avoid the appearance of fringe lunacy; its game/set/match. |
|
January 21, 2009, 04:53 PM | #29 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
The Federal regulation in this discussion is the equivalnet to and has the effect of legislated law. Again on topic. The fact that some, think this regulation may be abrogated by an EO (another form of regulation) is on topic. As stated in the "rules," political discussion should be peripheral to the discussion of Law and Civil Rights. I will be the first to admit that some political discussion will be greater than peripheral in some topics than others. This appears to be the case here. This thread will close if the discussion turns completely away from the core discussion of National Parks and lawful concealed carry. As yet, I don't believe that point has been reached. There are 5 other moderators that are more than capable of overruling me. |
|
January 21, 2009, 08:27 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
This may not be politically correct on this forum, but...
I am disappointed by the number of posts, both in this thread and on other forums, in which guns owners react to "news reports" that are misleading or, at best, poorly written. The information necessary to properly assess the news is readily available. Gun owners should be knowledgeable about the legal process if we are to protect our rights.
National Park carry was authorized by a federal regulation that became final on January 9, 2009. There is nothing pending about the regulation that the new administration can stop "by the stroke of a pen." Final federal regulations cannot be changed by Executive Order. The process for changing federal regulations is detailed and explicit and is contained in the Administrative Procedure Act passed by Congress in 1946. There are only four ways to change the new National Park carry regulation at this point: 1. The Congressional Review Act gives Congress 60 in-session days to review and reject any new federal regulation. Precisely one new federal regulation has been rejected since this process was enacted in 1966. 2. All federal regulations are based on underlying "enabling" legislation passed by Congress. Congress can amend the existing law to remove the basis for the regulation. 3. Federal regulations can be changed by going through the lengthly and somewhat arduous process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. If the new administration wants to change the new regulation, they can start the public and very transparent process for new rulemaking. 4. The courts can invalidate a federal regulation. BTW, the new National Park carry regulation did not come about because the Secretary of the Interior had a deep and abiding love for gun owners. The change also did not come about because President Bush wanted to further firearms rights. Rather, a bipartisan majority of the Senate wrote a letter requesting the change - that is when the Secretary of the Interior took notice and things began happening. Last edited by gc70; January 21, 2009 at 09:56 PM. Reason: rushed off to dinner before I got to item #4 |
January 21, 2009, 09:19 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Isn't the new Secretary of the Interior somewhat pro-gun rights?
Whatever his stance is on the issue could help or hurt the cause. |
January 21, 2009, 09:48 PM | #32 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I really don't know anything about the newly appointed Secretary, Ken Salazar. Hmmm, just googled him. He's no friend of gunnies, either.
I do know the outgoing Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, former Governor of Idaho and no friend of gun owners. Yet it was under his watch that this new regulation was put in place. |
January 21, 2009, 11:10 PM | #33 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
How about we start dealing with what is really going on and stop shouting about every possible "doomsday scenario" that the far righties can dream up. I am going to heed the words of Reagan and "trust but verify" as far as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary. I will be the first to scream when he veers away from his promises, but I am not going to shout out every time someone is afraid he "might" do something. Gun owners as a community are really at risk of becoming the proverbial "boy who cried wolf" these days. How many times will we yell with no true wolf in site before society as whole just stops listening to us altogether? |
|
January 21, 2009, 11:43 PM | #34 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
I think I should change it's name and do some pruning. Maybe folks will pay more attention... Nah, whatever am I thinking! |
|
January 22, 2009, 04:41 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2007
Location: Western NY
Posts: 925
|
Oh Boy..
Quote:
You will just ignore his historical record pertaining to guns??? That's simply foolish!! He will deal with guns as he has in Illinois: He thinks that's what gun ownership should entail. If there is ever a time to cry wolf, it's now. IMHO
__________________
See Ya! |
|
January 22, 2009, 01:06 PM | #36 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
I love how one minute Obama has "almost no political experience" and the next he has this massive history of political gun grabbing. Which is it? Also, getting worked up about what the Brady campaign has proposed and then acting out against Obama because of it is just unfair. Center your attacks on the Brady campaign. They are the ones "proposing" the legislation. Did you attack Bush when PETA was proposing legislation making it illegal eat beef? It is okay to prepare for these types of things and make your voices heard, but to attack Obama for something he has no hand in makes it seem like partisan rhetoric. Last edited by Playboypenguin; January 22, 2009 at 01:13 PM. |
|
January 22, 2009, 02:43 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2007
Location: Western NY
Posts: 925
|
Playboy...Once again
You seem naive to his past record - You need to do more homework is this one!
__________________
See Ya! |
January 22, 2009, 03:30 PM | #38 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
I am open to hearing what anti-gun legislation he has personally sponsored or pushed through in his career though. |
|
January 22, 2009, 03:51 PM | #39 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Pres. Obama does have a history within the context as a State or Federal legislator. While the past may be (and often is) indicative of future actions, context is necessary. As the Chief Executive, we really have no baseline, other than what he might do.
That said, we are now getting deeply into the political and off topic. Let's bring it back around. |
January 22, 2009, 03:52 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2005
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,347
|
Quote:
__________________
Just my 2¢. |
|
January 23, 2009, 11:09 PM | #41 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 3, 2000
Posts: 575
|
Legal
For the record, here's a link to the Brady lawsuit challenging the rule change, filed 12/30/08.
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pd...-complaint.pdf case# 1:08-cv-02243 I don't know how to track legal records, (pacer?) perhaps other knowledgeable members can post links to subsequent court filings/decisions as they accrue. Assigned to Judge Colleen Kotar-Kotelly (A Bill Clinton appointee, who has slapped the Bush administration on at least a couple of occasions.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Kollar-Kotelly Is this pertinent? Interesting, 2 of the 3 named defendants on this lawsuit are now gone (Kempthorne and Bomar). Replaced by Salazar, and another Obama appointee TBA. What happens when new administration's legal response is filed, essentially admitting to the malfeasance? Presumably only special interests like NRA, etc. will be left to file friends-briefs averring the charges. Will that factor into the judge's decision? How many of the 50-odd senators who signed the original letter requesting the change, are still in office? The suit asks for reversal, and injunctive relief to block implementation. I'm assuming no decision (granting or denying the injunction) has yet been issued. Scanning internet articles, it appears many forces are arraying against this rule change, including invoking the Congressional Review Act (undoing many of GWB's "midnight decisons") . Far fewer voices speaking up in favor. Time will tell, but I'd say it is quite foolish to dismiss concerns about this issue as chicken little doomsday crapola. |
January 26, 2009, 12:00 AM | #42 |
Member
Join Date: December 2, 2008
Posts: 29
|
I am planning a trip Big Bend next month and was curious as to the status of this law. I was told "until said law is entered into the National Registry" it is not law and would not be recognized as such. Firearms are not permitted onto national park land. Firearms must be made inoperable when on national park land. If caught with operable firearms you could face federal felony charges and a lifetime ban from all national parks.
|
January 26, 2009, 12:11 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
Not withstanding a change brought about by impending law suits, the Rule change took effect Jan 9th.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
January 26, 2009, 12:16 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
Last edited by gc70; January 26, 2009 at 12:58 AM. |
|
January 26, 2009, 04:35 PM | #45 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 14, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3
|
Quote:
Other people's discomfiture with individuals concealed or open carrying for personal protection should never take precedence to the inalienable right to defend yourself and loved ones. |
|
January 26, 2009, 04:51 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Would you really make a case that individuals who can be trusted to CC with a license in an urban area are somehow unsafe with a gun in the wilderness? With millions of open acres of land, and very little if any cell phone service, I can't think of a more appropriate place to take responsibility for one's own safety. |
|
January 26, 2009, 06:18 PM | #47 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
hammer4nc quoted the following from the Association of National Park Rangers:
Quote:
Quote:
I've done a fair amount of travelling in pretty remote places, canoeing in the Arctic and such, without feeling any need to cart a gun along. At the same time, if I go to a National Park, just knowing that some people may -- legally -- be packing isn't going to wreck the experience for me, or make me uncomfortable. But I do think that if their reason for carrying has anything to do with their "right of self-defense" against wildlife, that's sorta sad... better they should stay home if they're that uncomfortable outdoors, or at least take the trouble to find out how to coexist with whatever wildlife they're lucky enough to meet. |
||
January 26, 2009, 06:20 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
So if you kill an animal in self defense in a NP, be prepared to pay a big fine. That seems reasonable to me. (I'd never thought about it before)
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
January 26, 2009, 07:08 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Yeah, I'd hope it'd be a big fine. But that there's a fine if you're caught won't necessarily deter someone who's way out in the backcountry...
And the new regulation will make it harder for the Park Service to catch poachers. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the original regulation, which requires firearms to be unloaded and inaccessible (e.g. in the trunk of the car) was to help prevent poaching within National Parks, where it's easy, as many animals have lost their fear of humans. |
January 26, 2009, 07:14 PM | #50 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|