Gun ban lifted in Federal Parks

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#1
There has been a big stink about this lately. A short history of this was back before Bush left office he lifted a ban on a Federal Park regulation prohibiting concealed carry in Federal Parks. The Brady campaign filed an injunction in court and stalled the rule change. It's been stalled until now when it was added to another bill.

This amendment was added on to the credit card bill by Republicans in the house, and voted on by 105 Democrats as well. It passed in the Senate with another 27 Democratic votes as well.

This is a huge win for gun owners. Now we can legally carry concealed or open firearms in Federal parks for protection... just like we can anywhere else.

YouTube - Guns in the Parks

News article: Link to source.

Gun rights advocates have found a sweet spot in Democratic-dominated Washington, and they are using it to aggressively push legislation.
Their latest victory came yesterday when the House passed a bill that will allow people to bring concealed and loaded guns into national parks. Advocates won with the help of moderate Democrats.



Those Democrats, many from states in the South and Midwest, joined nearly all House Republicans to back yesterday's provision, which has passed in the Senate and could become law this week. The gun bill passed 279 to 147 in the House with the help of 105 Democratic votes; 145 Democrats opposed the bill.



The legislation was the latest defeat for gun-control advocates, who had expected more success with a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress.



The bill to grant the District of Columbia a voting member in the House remains stalled after Senate Republicans attached a provision to the legislation that effectively would repeal many of Washington's gun restrictions.



Yesterday's provision, originally sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), would allow gun owners to bring the weapons into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are permitted by the laws of the state in which the park is located. The bill codifies a change the Bush administration had sought in its final months, but a federal judge blocked the effort in March.



Obama administration officials had not sought to overturn the judge's ruling. But Coburn, who had long sought the change, inserted his amendment this month on credit card legislation that is one of Obama's top priorities. The move effectively forced Democrats to vote on the gun provision if they wanted to pass the credit card bill.



A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), one of the Democratic backers of the bill, said Reid viewed the bill as defending the Second Amendment.



A coalition of groups that included the Fraternal Order of Police and the Association of National Park Rangers slammed the bill, saying it will "increase the risk of poaching, vandalism of historic park treasures and threats to park visitors and staff."



The House yesterday passed the larger legislation, which imposes new rules on credit card companies, 361 to 64, and Obama could sign it as soon as tomorrow.



After Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. suggested this year that the Obama administration would seek to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, a bloc of 65 House Democrats, many of whom voted for yesterday's legislation, wrote to Holder saying they would oppose his effort.



Democratic aides privately admitted many Democrats feel pressure to back bills on gun legislation or face political heat from the National Rifle Association, particularly in more rural districts. Top Democratic aides in both chambers plan to meet soon to develop a strategy to block pro-gun provisions on Democratic bills.



"We have a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and we're passing more gun legislation than when there was a Republican in the White House," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate. "It's disappointing."



Gun rights advocates defended yesterday's bill as an effort to give gun owners the same rights on national park land that they have everywhere else.



Advocates said they will look to find other ways to push Democrats into backing gun rights measures.



"The lessons of 1994 have not been forgotten," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, referring to the year President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. "The Democrats lost control of Congress after passing a gun ban."
 

icegoat63

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#2
I know the first Argument here is going to be "Well Why Do you need Guns in a National Park!!!"

Allow me to explain, you dont. However, that doesnt mean you intend to have them in there.

Heres my experience. My Dad as alot of you know has a side career as a California Licensed Guide Hunter. His normal Stamping grounds is around the Sierra National Forest (which is not a national park, its 100% legal to carry guns and hunt there). However, his method of hunting requires alot of driving and following dogs. It just so happens that Sierra Nat'l Park borders both Sequioa National (protected) and Yosemite Nat'l (protected). Since these parks are bordering, there are Roads that spider in and out of them as they swerve around mountains. Pretty simple, one minute you can be in Sierra Nat'l... the next you're in Yosemite.

What has happened to my dad in the past is, Park Rangers like to sit and patrol those back roads, and because my Dads "hunting rig" is a dead giveaway that he isnt spending his time shooting pictures of the Park... chances are he's packing heat :hah: And he has been profiled, pulled over, and cited many many times in the past. Resulting in I'd guesstimate close to 1200 dollars worth of fines in the last few years.

His intent is as far as can be from "hunting in the park", but alas, because these Rangers have power and have a rule, they over enforce it and citizens like him have had to pay for it.

This lifted ban will be a sigh of relief for people like him.
 

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#3
I remember hearing about the ban before (it's probably your thread too, haha). From what I recall the area isn't even monitored that a ban only deters law abiding and responsible gun owners from carrying. In other words, it was a useless ban.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#4
Most bans usually are useless.

This has nothing to do with danger or crime. I know national parks are statistically safe (nothing is fail proof tho). The point here I believe is removing excess red tape that is not needed. Every time I have to pass thru a state or federal park in order to be in the law I have to get out, unload my gun, lock it in the safe and put it in the trunk, drive thru then repeat those steps in reverse to rearm myself on the other side. Tell me how that deters crime? I'm yet to have someone explain to me how making me disarm will prevent a criminal from committing a crime.

It's quite simply a pain in the ass, and the Brady Campaign knows it is. Their philosophy is that if it's "too much of a hassle" people will just stop bringing their guns places. That's the underlying issue here, removing that hassle so law abiding people can still arm themselves up to and in the federal park. Right now if I was to go to a federal park I'd have to leave my gun at home, rendering me defenseless the whole way there. This law removed that requirement and takes it one step better, I can carry in the park as well.
 
Last edited: