Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or just reply to this post!
Posted on 09/12/2008 8:22:36 AM PDT by marktwain
With solid bipartisan support, a Senate panel approved legislation on Thursday to allow loaded guns in national parks.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved, 18-5, a draft bill by Sen. Jim DeMint , R-S.C. It would allow people to bring loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges unless state laws bar them from doing so. Park Service regulations now allow guns only if they are unloaded and stowed.
“The purpose of this bill is to protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks,” DeMint said.
Park advocacy groups immediately decried the move and warned it could be far more difficult for park rangers to stop poaching. “America’s national parks shouldn’t be made a political football in the gun debate,” said Bryan Faehner, associate director for park use at the National Parks Conservation Association.
The push to allow firearms in the parks has been a rallying point for the National Rifle Association. A non-controversial public lands measure was held up for months when Tom Coburn , R-Okla., unsuccessfully tried to bring up a floor amendment on the same topic.
In response to requests from more than 50 senators, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed a regulatory change this year to allow guns in national parks if the state in which they are located permits them in its state parks. The rule could become final before President Bush leaves office.
DeMint’s bill as drafted would allow individuals to carry guns in national parks even if the state bars them in its own parks. Senators agreed before approving the bill make the bill consistent with the proposed regulation before bringing it to the floor.
This bill, if it is as described, would be much better.
for your ping list
Now this bill requires a full vote of the Senate?
Somehow I don’t feel good about that outcome.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Umm, are poachers presently waiting for permission to carry guns in national parks? Somehow I don't think they are worried about breaking the law as it NOW stands.
Woohoo! Let’s get this onto the president’s desk!
DeMint’s bill as drafted would allow individuals to carry guns in national parks even if the state bars them in its own parks.
So which is it? Does it trump state law or not?
I gotta think it would not trump state law...but that a state could still have restrictions on its own parks vs federal land.
The two lines look completely contradictory, one saying “unless state laws bar them” and the other saying “ even if the state bars them”. The article is pretty pointless with things like this left unclarified.
Does that answer your question?
If the states retain the power to ban guns in federal parks located within their borders, then the law would be pointless, as states which currently bar guns in state parks but not federal parks (where they are currently barred anyway) will just quickly amend their laws to include the federal parks.
I think you are mistaken. First, the states that allow either open carry or concealed carry, which is the vast majority of states, would then allow these options in Federal Parks. This would be a large improvement over the current situation.
In States that currently ban both types of carry in State Parks but allow one or the other type of carry elsewhere (I cannot think of an example, right off) one or the other or both of the two carry options would be allowed in Federal parks until the State legislature, if they do, changes the law. In the current climate, it is often difficult for legislatures to enact blatant anti-gun legislation.
you can carry on days of a full moon if you wear blue boxers, carry less than $10 and are of at least 1/4 native American heritage and holder of a federal duck stamp.
Several long papers have probably been written about this, but essentially it comes down to the Civil War. After the War Between the States, or, as some would prefer, The War of Northern Aggression, the 14th Amendment was passed to insure, among other things, that the States would not be able to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the freed slaves.
The Supreme Court was still dominated by Southerners at this time, and they ruled, essentially, that the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) only applied to the Federal Government, not to the States.
In the 20th Century, the Court started to enforce the Bill of Rights against State governments. This doctrine became known as “incorporation”, and a number of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights have been “incorporated”, including the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.
Significantly, the Second Amendment has not yet been “incorporated”, though there is an excellent case to be made that the Heller decision at the Supreme Court strongly suggests that it should be.
That is how we have gotten to this absurd position.
For the FreeRepublic "banglist", please click HERE .
True. If your state prohibits guns in state parks, then you couldn't carry in a national park. In Alaska, you can carry open or concealed in state parks, so the same would apply to national parks.
Don't be surprised if the Rats play along in an attempt to help Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.