Koolblue13 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 A friend of mine sent me this and I figured I'd run it by y'all. http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmdvdnRyYWNrLnVzL2NvbmdyZXNzL2JpbGwueHBkP2JpbGw9czExMS0yMg== Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of public and private land. Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban. While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed. Another eyebrow-raising aspect of this bill is that it is actually a compilation of over 150 separate pieces of legislation that never passed out of Congress on their own merits. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills, until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in January on a vote of 73-21. As the House prepares to take up the bill, the Democrat leadership has taken procedural steps to ensure that the measure cannot be amended or altered in any way. That means that if it passes the House, it goes right to President Obama's desk, where it will be signed into law. Here are a few of the more troubling aspects of the bill: · It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the gun ban. · The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail that stretches from Rhode Island to Virginia and includes sections of major thoroughfares such as Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1, and passes through cities like Boston and Philadelphia. The entire trail would fall under the NPS and the gun ban. · The National Landscape Conservation System groups together millions of acres of federal land and places it under one new umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run administratively since then. S. 22 will codify the system, which raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners' rights will be protected. · S. 22 strips out small concessions won by pro-gunners in the House last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms possession and hunting on certain land. · S.22 allows for NO amendments. Pro-gun members who want to offer an amendment to fully repeal the NPS gun ban are prevented from doing so by the anti-gun leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Good. Now Virginia needs to start doing backround checks on everyone who buys a gun under all circumstances, including gun shows with tiny little vendors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Good luck with enforcing this. I don't think most people in DC (or east of the Mississippi for that matter) have any concept of how huge and empty public land out west is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Good. Now Virginia needs to start doing backround checks on everyone who buys a gun under all circumstances, including gun shows with tiny little vendors.What is it the Dems keep saying about the Reps? The Constitution to them is only an out dated piece of paper? Seems to me trampling on any section of the Constitution is just as egregious as another. But I guess since it fits into your POV it is justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 The supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals. At the same time, they also said the state can but reasonable restrictions on it (Just like every other amendment. The 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre). Not allowing guns into public parks sounds correct to me. Of course, what was glanced over (although it DOES say it) is that the current law allows PERMIT carrying concealed weapons. Love how it implies there is something wrong because it doesn't allow non permit.... .why would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 The supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals. At the same time, they also said the state can but reasonable restrictions on it (Just like every other amendment. The 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre).Not allowing guns into public parks sounds correct to me. Of course, what was glanced over (although it DOES say it) is that the current law allows PERMIT carrying concealed weapons. Love how it implies there is something wrong because it doesn't allow non permit.... .why would it? I agree, but making 50% of the East coast fall under the NPS makes it an unrealistic restriction. Like saying that you are entitled to free speech, as long as that speech is filtered before being passed along to anyone that the govt deems it need to filter. It defeats the purpose of having the freedom in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I agree, but making 50% of the East coast fall under the NPS makes it an unrealistic restriction. Like saying that you are entitled to free speech, as long as that speech is filtered before being passed along to anyone that the govt deems it need to filter. It defeats the purpose of having the freedom in the first place. Ok. I admit - I have studied the bill. But I doubt it is 50%..... I'll take a look at it when I can. TRUE public parks would make sense to me. In fact, it would be pretty simply to define. Any area currently moniters and maintained by Park employees. Since I never see park employees cleaning up I-95, and never see park police giving speeding tickets on I-95, seems to me that would not be a park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 What they're doing out here, that's similar, is declaring all the mountain ranges in my county as "wilderness". Meaning no motorized anything. Thousands of acres of desert where I grew up driving around dirt roads. Thousands of acres full of roads, fences, water tanks and countless other improvements aren't wilderness but it makes somebody (who enjoys wilderness as a concept) who contributed to Bingaman's campaign happy I guess. I hate both sides. I really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 What they're doing out here, that's similar, is declaring all the mountain ranges in my county as "wilderness". Meaning no motorized anything. Thousands of acres of desert where I grew up driving around dirt roads. Thousands of acres full of roads, fences, water tanks and countless other improvements aren't wilderness but it makes somebody (who enjoys wilderness as a concept) who contributed to Bingaman's campaign happy I guess. I hate both sides. I really do. It's a shame too, because most of those roads and areas have been maintained by off road clubs, who just want to see it remain nice and free. Half wit environmentalists have no idea what they are talking about. They just see 4x4's as evil forest destroyers. Idiots. Green seems to equate to unable to understand what actually happens. It's a shame. Back to the bill, it seems like an underhanded attack on guns, which we knew would be coming. The Dems just seem to want to get them out of our hands, in a manor nobody will notice, until it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Good luck with enforcing this. I don't think most people in DC (or east of the Mississippi for that matter) have any concept of how huge and empty public land out west is. it took me a few times reading this to realize what you are saying..and it's so true. Example is the Washington state/canadian border. We only have a small crew of Border agents up there patrolling hundreds of miles of border, most all very mountainous. Compare the feds trying to enforce this proposed gun ban will be very hard. With that said...many many people fear that their guns will slowly, but surely be taken away. Just like this bill, almost to a point where we won't even realize is until it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I just don't buy that increasing NPS range is some insidious plot to control guns, that's absurd citing gun control is more likely an insidious plot to stop the growth of the NPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 An "insidious" plot? That's a BIG stretch. So you can't take your gat to Yellowstone. Big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.3d05d94a5044fa9ada2aa8cc7156fc2a.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.