No more loaded weapons in National Parks??

[Jeffery8mm]

I heard on the radio news this morning that Obama :twisted: and his ilk have reversed a Bush law that allowed loaded weapons in National Parks. Obamas people say it will cut down on poaching:confused:??!!??!!
Just another backdoor attack at the 2nd ammendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff

[BD]

As a result of a legal action by the Brady group a federal judge has blocked the Bush Admin, reg change which allowed the right to carry by licensed permit holders in the states where the state laws would allow carry. Someone with more expertise will have to tell us what this means in real terms nationwide, and in which direction the fight gets carried from here. This is legislation from the bench by a liberal judge, not necessarily a move by Obama. I haven't even heard which district? I've only heard that the judge ruled that the Bush Admin "process" was illegal.

Seems to me that the restriction is clearly unconstitutional, so the process used to overturn it should be a moot point. Could be an opportunity as the "Brady Bunch" is bringing on a fight that the Democratic leadership has clearly been trying to avoid.

BD

[Old Ironsights]

Concealed means concealed. The reg change "allowed" CCW with State Permit on those NPS properties in states that have CCW permitting regulations.

Concealed means Concealed. Unless NPS cops start frisking everybody coming through the gate it doesn't matter anyway unlss you have to use it... then it's back to "tried by 12 vs carried by six".

[Geraldo]

Concealed means Concealed. Unless NPS cops start frisking everybody coming through the gate it doesn't matter anyway unlss you have to use it... then it's back to "tried by 12 vs carried by six".

Actually it will be two different issues: if the shooting is ruled justifiable or no bill is returned by a grand jury that one is over, however, that does not preclude a federal prosecutor from filing a weapons charge.

[Old Ironsights]

And that worries me in what way? So I'm alive for TWO court cases rather than dead for ONE funeral...

[waksupi]

I shall continue to do as I always have. Carry a gun. The rangers here, know the local cars will be armed, and the question never really comes up.

[Dan Cash]

"The rangers here, know the local cars will be armed, and the question never really comes up. "

The butch dames in the smokey bear here at Teddy Roosevelt National Park are sure likely to raise the question. They were absolutely gloating that the new reg. would not apply here in ND due to state law prohibiting carry in state parks. The ND house and senate just changed the law and Gov. Hoven will sign it shortly. End of problem for us but the tizzies for the Parkies.

[August]

If you had ever had a close bear encounter in the middle of the night, you wouldn't give two shizzles what the law was.

[Geraldo]

And that worries me in what way? So I'm alive for TWO court cases rather than dead for ONE funeral...

It's a legal point. Justifiable homicide probably won't result in anything more than a grand jury returning no bill. The problem though is that it almost guarantees a conviction on a weapons charge. So even if you survive the gunfight and the investigation into the shooting, you lose on a federal charge of carrying a concealed weapon in a national park. After which you spend a fortune on legal defense (particularly on a federal level), go to prison, and lose your civil rights.


The butch dames in the smokey bear here at Teddy Roosevelt National Park are sure likely to raise the question.

Dan brings up another scenario. Stopped for speeding or something else in a park and your car ends up searched...skip right to the end of my previous paragraph.

Rather than give up and say, "I'll do what I want and not worry" (which was the attitude of most of the criminal defense clients I worked with), we need to get this stopped.

[Old Ironsights]

Oh, we absolutely need to get it stopped.

But it won't stop me from carrying a gun if it doesn't get stopped, and being convicted on the charge will likely be the only way to get it to SCOTUS to have it ruled Unconstitutional anyway.

And even if I "lose" my civil priveleges, I'll still be alive to exercise my RIGHTS - regardless of what the Gooberment has to say.

[Recluse]

I shall continue to do as I always have. Carry a gun. The rangers here, know the local cars will be armed, and the question never really comes up.

That pretty well sums up my attitude regarding carrying concealed ANYWHERE. I try very hard to be invisible and inconspicuous and NOT stand out in any way. I learned that the hard way in military basic training [smilie=1: when I was eighteen years old.

The more you are anonymous, the more people will leave you alone. I don't speed in national/state parks, I make sure our cars' registrations and inspections and insurance are always in order, etc etc.

In other words, if I get pulled over and searched, someone better have one helluva damned good reason, ie probable cause, to do so--and I'm not giving them that probable cause. And, I ALWAYS carry a digital recorder in every vehicle we own--all three cars, the boat and the airplane. I DO NOT trust a lot of today's new breed of law enforcement and I especially DO NOT trust today's prosecutors.

:coffee:

[shotman]

I aways like the saying no witness no crime it works for many

[Old Ironsights]

No, it's no VICTIM no crime.

The only person being victimized by a Government Prohibition is ME, so the criminal is the Government, not me.

I get to shoot armed criminals, don't I?

[JW6108]

That pretty well sums up my attitude regarding carrying concealed ANYWHERE. I try very hard to be invisible and inconspicuous and NOT stand out in any way. I learned that the hard way in military basic training [smilie=1: when I was eighteen years old.

The more you are anonymous, the more people will leave you alone. I don't speed in national/state parks, I make sure our cars' registrations and inspections and insurance are always in order, etc etc.

In other words, if I get pulled over and searched, someone better have one helluva damned good reason, ie probable cause, to do so--and I'm not giving them that probable cause. And, I ALWAYS carry a digital recorder in every vehicle we own--all three cars, the boat and the airplane. I DO NOT trust a lot of today's new breed of law enforcement and I especially DO NOT trust today's prosecutors.

:coffee:


Anyone who finds this hard to understand should have to carry around a large rock with that chiseled on it until they do. LE officers (of which I was one until I retired) don't have the time or inclination to sniff out folks that are not drawing attention to themselves in some way.

[mooman76]

Of coarse it will work! A poacher wouldn't break the law by bringing a loaded gun into a park!

[softpoint]

I won't go into a park that restricts my right to protect myself. There is nothing in a national park that I need to see that is more important than my personal safety.

[leftiye]

" Of coarse it will work! A poacher wouldn't break the law by bringing a loaded gun into a park! "


Nope, he'd bring it in legally, then load it - DUH. It's like the Utah fishy game law prohibiting us from carrying guns in the field during hunting seasons unless we're hunting. Other than being unconstitutional. It smells a lot like they can't catch poachers, and are trying to make it impossible to poach or something (God only knows). Just one more law thrown at people who absolutely don't care about laws. DUH

[Lloyd Smale]

my thoughts exactly. Maybe if they saw they were loosing revenue because of this stupid law theyd change it. I know the DNR in Michingan runs on a shoe string and money talks to them. I dont know how well funded those fed parks are but id bet if every gun owning person in this country quit going it would put a hurt on them!
I won't go into a park that restricts my right to protect myself. There is nothing in a national park that I need to see that is more important than my personal safety.

[Forester]

I am going to Glacier NP for a week in June, so I was happy when the rule change was made. Is there a source for updates on this? I have seen nothing from the NRA. I have to assume the new ruling is being appealed?

Regardless of the rule, I will do as I always do and carry concealed. Maybe just take the Endangered Species Act approach about any 2 legged predators that make their last mistake. SSS

Judged by 12 or carried by 6...and I would like my chances with a decent Montana Jury and a good PR campaign. I am not going to go looking for this kind of fight, but if it were to find me then you can be damned sure I would make some noise.

I am not saying don't try and get this overturned, but what the heck can you do when the lawmaking is being done by judges instead of elected officials? An Oligarchy does not lend itself to having your voice heard very well.

For those that would follow the law they know is Morally and Constitutionally wrong I have a question: Citizen or Subject?

[waksupi]

Those rangers in Glacier National Park are hard to get one by on.
A few years ago, someone had poached a deer a couple miles inside the West Glacier entrance.
The Park Service, in their wisdom, staked out the gut pile for several days, in case someone should come back for it.

[KAF]

"in their wisdom, staked out the gut pile for several days, in case someone should come back for it"

Seriously?

Nobody is that dumb, are they?

[waksupi]

"in their wisdom, staked out the gut pile for several days, in case someone should come back for it"

Seriously?

Nobody is that dumb, are they?


True story. Not only that, the local news reported the stake out while it was underway.
For some reason, all of the locals found that highly amusing.

[sundog]

onliest dumber woulda been if the poacher had actually came back for the gut pile...

[Recluse]

onliest dumber woulda been if the poacher had actually came back for the gut pile...

Woulda had to have been a former GNP ranger to have done that. . .

:coffee:

[eka]

Man, what scum bags we are!

Let me get this straight, we are defacto poachers because we have concealed carry permits issued by the State.

And, we load our menacing guns with one of the most environmentally unsafe substances known to mankind: lead

Just think of all the other things us gun owners are responsible for that they haven't told us about yet. We're probably single handidly responsible for such things as jock itch, termites, and acne on teenager's faces. I just can't be a part of this anymore. :-D

Watching our government in action is like watching a never ending episode of the Twilight Zone on a TV that only gets on channel.

You know, really the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean a thing nowadays. There is so many restrictions, exceptions, regulations, ordinances, etc. The intent was lost in translation a long time ago. And I don't think that's the only amendment that statement applies to. Unfortunately, the Constitution is interpreted like nothing more than an old piece of paper with hollow promises written by a bunch of radicals in an era that doesn't correlate to today's world.

You know it's bad when you start getting used to and expect pathetic and oppressive behaviors from the powers that be.

Keith

[Recluse]

You know, really the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean a thing nowadays. There is so many restrictions, exceptions, regulations, ordinances, etc. The intent was lost in translation a long time ago. And I don't think that's the only amendment that statement applies to. Unfortunately, the Constitution is interpreted like nothing more than an old piece of paper with hollow promises written by a bunch of radicals in an era that doesn't correlate to today's world.

You know it's bad when you start getting used to and expect pathetic and oppressive behaviors from the powers that be.

Keith

Oath Keepers. http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html

This is a movement/organization that was founded very quietly, not making any big "news splashes," but is gaining momentum faster than a California mudslide during monsoon season. In its first week, it garnered over 100,000 positive responses from active duty, former and retired military.

In short, it is a pledge by all who served in the military and/or law enforcement, and especially those arewho are still serving, that they will NOT obey illegal orders that are in violation of the Constitution.

After all, anyone here who has served had to have taken the Oath. And my oath said nothing about "preserving and defending the President against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The Oath Keepers movement gives me a tiny inkling of hope. . .

:coffee:

[7br]

What I find the most annoying about this, is that the judge said there needed to be an environmental impact study done before the rule was made. How much lead does she think will be flying? Any excuse I guess.


Second most annoying is the nagging feeling I get when I think about whether or not Obama knew this was coming before he made the decision not to resind the rule like he did with stem cell research. If he did, that would indicate to me a higher level of cooperation with the anti's than I previously thought.

Watch for the anti-gun rhetoric to be amped up. A lot of it will be news stories with a very lurid slant.

[zxcvbob]

Second most annoying is the nagging feeling I get when I think about whether or not Obama knew this was coming before he made the decision not to resind the rule like he did with stem cell research. If he did, that would indicate to me a higher level of cooperation with the anti's than I previously thought.He couldn't just change the rule by executive order; it had gone thru the whole lengthy process already. The stem cell policy had not, it was just an executive order.

[Old Ironsights]

An amendment to repeal the National Park Service (NPS) gun ban is headed to the floor of the U.S. House on Wednesday, March 25.

The massive public land bill, which has bounced between the House and Senate in recent weeks, has sidestepped the issue of your right to self-defense. Several pro-gun representatives tried to amend the bill so that it offers real protection of Second Amendment rights, but they were prevented by the anti-gun leadership.

Repeal of the gun ban takes on added urgency after a federal appeals court issued an injunction last week to stop changes made by the Bush administration to allow concealed carry on NPS land from taking effect.

When the bill comes to the floor on Wednesday, pro-gun Representatives Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rob Bishop (R-UT) plan to offer an amendment to repeal the onerous NPS gun ban.

First, a procedural vote, known as "Ordering the Previous Question," will be voted on.

A "no" vote is the pro-gun position on that motion.

If we are successful on that vote, there will be a vote on an amendment to repeal the NPS gun ban. Urge your representative to vote IN FAVOR of the Hastings-Bishop amendment.

And tell them not to be fooled by language that was recently added to the bill to protect hunting and fishing on certain parts of federal land, as if the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to protect a recreational pastime.

Please urge you representative to support the Hastings-Bishop amendment, protecting your right to carry a firearm for self-defense, hunting or any other lawful purpose.

NPS bureaucrats and federal judges should not be empowered to negate self-defense on YOUR land.

ACTION: Please immediately use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written message below.


----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Representative:

On Wednesday morning, the Omnibus Public Land Act (H.R. 146) will come to the floor.

This bill, which has bounced between the House and Senate in recent weeks, has completely sidestepped the issue of my right to self-defense.

Several pro-gun representatives tried to amend the bill so that it offers real protection of Second Amendment rights on National Park Service and Fish & Wildlife Service lands, but those efforts were defeated.

Repeal of the NPS gun ban takes on added urgency after a federal appeals court issued an injunction last week to stop changes made by the Bush administration to allow concealed carry on NPS land from taking effect.

And please don't be fooled by language that was recently added to the bill to protect hunting and fishing on certain parts of federal land, as if the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to protect a recreational pastime.

First, there will be a vote on Ordering the Previous Question. I urge you to vote "NO" on that motion, in order to allow for consideration of an amendment by Reps. Doc Hastings and Rob Bishop.

The Hastings-Bishop amendment to repeal the NPS gun ban protects my right to self-defense on OUR public lands, and I urge you to SUPPORT it.

Gun Owners of America will inform me of how you vote, and will rate the procedural vote and the vote on the amendment in its upcoming Congressional rating.

Sincerely,