In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Heading to a national park? Now you can pack heat

lovethemcoltslovethemcolts Member Posts: 536 ✭✭✭
edited May 2009 in General Discussion
WASHINGTON - Here's a list of stuff the typical American family can legally carry into national parks this summer: sleeping bag, toothbrush, change of underwear . . . loaded guns.

Thanks to a 279-147 vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives , visitors to the nation's parks and wildlife refuges will be able to carry weapons there if they abide by state weapons laws.

The bill is on its way to President Barack Obama , who faces a dilemma: Gun rights advocates attached the provision to a sweeping overhaul of the credit card industry, an initiative Obama strongly supports, so he has little choice but to let the gun section become law.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only that Obama "looks forward" to signing the bill "as quickly as possible," and didn't mention the gun provision.

Gun control advocates howled Wednesday, but to little effect. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy , D- N.Y. , protested "the bill has been hijacked," and Rep. Maxine Waters , D- Calif. , maintained, "American taxpayers ought to be incensed."

Scot McElveen , the president of the Association of National Park Rangers , predicted that the measure would provoke problems at the parks.

"Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."

Nonetheless, the gun measure, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly earlier this month, had strong bipartisan support. In the House, 105 Democrats, most from Southern, Western and rural states, joined 174 Republicans in backing the measure.

Two Republicans, Reps. Michael Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois , and 145 Democrats voted no.

"This is one of those issues that breaks down regionally," explained Rep. Chris Van Hollen , D- Md. , assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D- Calif.

President Ronald Reagan first required guns to be stored or inoperable in national parks 25 years ago, but last December, just before leaving office, the Bush administration overturned that rule.

That began a game of legal Ping-Pong. In March, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the Bush rule, and the Obama administration said it wouldn't appeal.

That action spurred Sen. Tom Coburn , R- Okla. , to include the gun rule in the credit card bill. It wound up winning by an unexpectedly lopsided vote.

Coburn and his backers said that they didn't want, nor did they expect, people to be in danger of random shooters in national parks.

"It's really common sense," he said. "This is not about guns. What I want is gun rights. I want our constitutional rights to be protected."

Rep. Rob Bishop , R- Utah , said the measure was also a matter of self-defense.

"The real issue is that law-abiding Americans will no longer be treated as criminals" when they carry weapons, he said.

National Rifle Association officials argued that weapons are needed for protection in parks that are becoming increasingly dangerous. Asked why police couldn't handle criminal activity, Andrew Arulanandam , the NRA's director of public affairs, said, "At that moment when you're confronted by a criminal, it's between you and the criminal. Law enforcement cannot be there in position at any time."

Gun control groups said a new kind of danger would be lurking once the ban was overturned.

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke , the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He added that Obama "should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns."

Brady group spokesman David Vice suggested that Democrats were overreacting to gun rights advocates. Democrats still have bitter memories of losing congressional races in more conservative areas in the 1990s after being tagged as soft on guns.

Vice suggested that last year's results, in which Democrats won their biggest congressional majorities since the early 1990s, are evidence that those districts recognize the need for some limits on guns.

"We're trying to change that perception," he said, "but it's been difficult."

Comments

  • ruger41ruger41 Member Posts: 14,665 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am glad it passed, but just not wild that it was buried in some other bill. I hate when they do that because they could of course bury some antigun legislation in some other bill. I love how the anti's think folks are going to go around in the park and go target shooting or blast some animals. The only animals that will get blasted will be of the bruin type if they attack someone and you can be assured there will be a massive investigation if that happens.
  • BaseJumperBaseJumper Member Posts: 5,570
    edited November -1
    If I were going to engage in "opportunistic shooting" I surely would not need to go to a National Park. I have run across some two-legged varmints right in the local Wally World parking lot that outta be shot, but I refrained from taking matters into my own hands.

    With most gun crimes and violations being perpetrated by people who have guns "illegally" do they really think that we will just start shooting up the parks?
  • zinkzink Member Posts: 6,456 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Somehow I get a sinking feeling this is a way to "prove" something and use it as a way to "get in the back door".

    Lance
  • givettegivette Member Posts: 10,886
    edited November -1
    Well, it's obvious. Someone, somewhere got to Congress. Let's face it, without the proverbial "tap on the shoulder" by the citizenry, whomever it may have been, Congress would not have placed positive firearms posession on the legislative docket.

    ..and I don't care who takes credit for it. I'm just happy Congress was "prodded" in a positive direction, and hope those that did the "prodding" persevere, and can be sucessful in the future when it comes to future legislative action. Thanks, Joe
Sign In or Register to comment.