johnyt101 Posted February 14, 2010 at 11:03 PM Posted February 14, 2010 at 11:03 PM Im sure everyone is aware of the rule change concerning our national parks starts Feb 22. These people sure are too and it is almost comical that they are so worked up about the rule change. They give no fact or logic as to why they oppose armed citizens in the parks, only emotional hysteria. Never mind the fact that people in those states could carry pretty much anywhere else but the parks. So park visitors still would have encountered them where ever they stopped before entering the park. The Sky if Falling!!!
PPK Posted February 14, 2010 at 11:26 PM Posted February 14, 2010 at 11:26 PM I can see how the unarmed people will be a little more risk. The BG's aren't to likely to go after the armed citizens and would probably go after the easier prey. Anyone wearing a Brady t-shirt would be at especially high risk.
GarandFan Posted February 14, 2010 at 11:48 PM Posted February 14, 2010 at 11:48 PM This is put out by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Note that these guys worked very, very hard to block this repeal. They sued, they lobbied congress, the works. Before this law, their arguments were "what will happen if" ... So, now that this is law ... out comes the same hysteria. They desperately want their predictions to come true, so that their arguments will not be seen as false (or hysteric). What else would we expect them to do? Well, one thing we'd expect them to do is that in a year or two from now, when there haven't been problems, is to say "sorry, we were wrong." We can always hope. We know that the Brady's won't do that, but hopefully the National Parks people have more sense? I don't know, but won't hold my breath.
ilphil Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:04 AM Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:04 AM I still won't be surprised if one of these groups finds a sympathetic Federal judge to issue an injunction preventing the law from taking effect like they did when the Bush administration tried allwing carry in parks by rule change. I just can't see them giving up on this without more of a fight.
johnyt101 Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:22 AM Author Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:22 AM People exercising their God given constitutional rights! How scary the thought... I personally really liked the intro. They always use the same old tired argument and are proven wrong. Its like they expect different results everytime a new place allows "more guns."
GarandFan Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM Bush's approach was an administrative rule change. And indeed, a judge slapped an injunction on it. This current repeal, however, is an act of US Congress.
ilphil Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:29 AM Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:29 AM Bush's approach was an administrative rule change. And indeed, a judge slapped an injunction on it. This current repeal, however, is an act of US Congress. And is still subject to review by the Federal Courts.
kurt555gs Posted February 15, 2010 at 01:58 AM Posted February 15, 2010 at 01:58 AM I wonder if this applies to National Parks in Illinois (are there any?) I have a UT & PA Permit, could I legally carry in Illinois?
abolt243 Posted February 15, 2010 at 02:03 AM Posted February 15, 2010 at 02:03 AM It will be tested soon enough. Second Amendment Rally on the grounds of the Arch in St. Louis, a Federal Park. Feb 27 10:00 a.m. with a tea party to be held on the same grounds at 1:30 p.m. Lawful CCW is being encouraged at both events. More details here . Those of you close to St Louis, might want to dust off your non-resident licenses and check this out. Missouri recognizes any license/permit. AB
Don Gwinn Posted February 15, 2010 at 02:47 AM Posted February 15, 2010 at 02:47 AM Kurt, the good news is that it does apply in Illinois, just as in any other state. The bad news is that it's not actually a change to allow carry in the Parks . . . it only requires that the Parks will have the same firearm laws as the state in which the park land is located. So, if you were in a National Park in Indiana or Kentucky, your PA permit would be valid because it's valid in those states, and you could carry in whatever way is permitted there. In Illinois, however, you'll still have to follow Illinois law. No true concealed carry (or open, for that matter) will be permitted. However, you should now be allowed to "transport" the way you could anywhere else in Illinois, so fanny packing and the like should become legal in, for instance, the Shawnee National Forest.
Xwing Posted February 17, 2010 at 05:49 PM Posted February 17, 2010 at 05:49 PM Im sure everyone is aware of the rule change concerning our national parks starts Feb 22. These people sure are too and it is almost comical that they are so worked up about the rule change. They give no fact or logic as to why they oppose armed citizens in the parks, only emotional hysteria. Never mind the fact that people in those states could carry pretty much anywhere else but the parks. So park visitors still would have encountered them where ever they stopped before entering the park. The Sky if Falling!!! Has the media ever brought attention to these "the sky is falling" articles by revisiting them 6 or 12 months later? I doubt it. It'd be too embarrassing to them, when they had to admit that the hysteria was for naught.
Sigma Posted February 18, 2010 at 03:49 AM Posted February 18, 2010 at 03:49 AM Man I wish this included the forest preserve
abolt243 Posted February 18, 2010 at 03:53 AM Posted February 18, 2010 at 03:53 AM Man I wish this included the forest preserve Again, this will have no effect on anything in IL as we have no RTC law. AB
kurt555gs Posted February 18, 2010 at 08:00 PM Posted February 18, 2010 at 08:00 PM How can the (anti 2A)'s be whining about this. If they are in a state that allows carry, they had to pass by people with guns in order to get to the park. Personally I would love to debate their assumption that legal carry makes the parks unsafe. I would ask them if they had a cooler of beer or cigarettes with them in the National Park. Both of those items are far more dangerous than guns and kill many more people. I guess it just comes down to the issue that I have no wish to interfere with "their" lives, but they have a insatiable burning desire to mess with mine. /rant. off;
johnyt101 Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:13 AM Author Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:13 AM I saw found this quote in an ABC article talking about the rule change..."We think wherever Teddy Roosevelt is, he's got to be rolling his eyes and shaking his head, said Peter Hamm, communications director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "The national parks are places of solitude and quiet and places to get away from the large number of firearms they are already seeing in society." Maybe Mr. Hamm should do a little research and find out how TR felt about firearms. After all it was the 26th President who founded the national park system and he was not the one who started the ban.
anonymous too Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:30 AM Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:30 AM I read something on this somewhere else and it threw me. Does one need a permit from the state the national park is located or just a permit the state recognizes? The reporter probably summarized it wrong.
abolt243 Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:52 AM Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:52 AM I read something on this somewhere else and it threw me. Does one need a permit from the state the national park is located or just a permit the state recognizes? The reporter probably summarized it wrong. As I understand it Kent, if it's legal outside the park, now it's legal inside the park. I can go to MO and carry on my FL license. Now, that includes the grounds at the Arch. That does not however include ANY buildings on those grounds, including the parking garage. If you're gonna carry on the Arch grounds, you have to park on the street, not the garage. I would warn anyone visitng the Arch, they take a dim view on certain knives there too. I was asked to leave and take my 3" Kershaw Leek with me this past December. They claimed it was a "spring assisted" knife and therefore illegal to carry into the building. I assume that prohibition still stands since the law change deals with firearms only. AB
junglebob Posted February 23, 2010 at 03:55 AM Posted February 23, 2010 at 03:55 AM I read something on this somewhere else and it threw me. Does one need a permit from the state the national park is located or just a permit the state recognizes? The reporter probably summarized it wrong.I'm guessing just a LTC that the state recognizes, can't seem to find a text for the bill that includes the amendment.
lockman Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:19 PM Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:19 PM OK, it has been one full day of gun toting national park visitors. Does anyone know the body count of innocent victims resulting from these gun toting visitors? This first day must have been chaos right?
abolt243 Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:44 PM Posted February 23, 2010 at 01:44 PM OK, it has been one full day of gun toting national park visitors. Does anyone know the body count of innocent victims resulting from these gun toting visitors? This first day must have been chaos right? I've found photographic evidence of the chaos created at a local National park in a neighboring state. I'm waiting on permission to post it. Then you'll see!!!! AB
abolt243 Posted February 23, 2010 at 02:58 PM Posted February 23, 2010 at 02:58 PM I've found photographic evidence of the chaos created at a local National park in a neighboring state. I'm waiting on permission to post it. Then you'll see!!!! AB As promised, here's proof of the hysteria and mayhem created yesterday when a right-wing/extremist/tea bagger/gunnut/vigilante carried a concealed weapon on the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial grounds in St Louis yesterday: Note the terrified masses running away up the steps!!! Note the blood running down the steps and around the dead bodies!!!! Oh, wait, I don't see any of that. And the guy holding the sign looks like a regular Joe. Hmmmmm. Maybe the Brady bunch is overstating the effect of CCW on Federal property. You suppose??? Thanks to MSPGUnner over at MOCarry for permission to use his picture. He also asked me to post this link http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/ as a sponsor of the 2nd amendment rally on Feb 27 discussed here. Those of you in the St Louis area may want to dust off your license from PA, FL or UT and travel over to attend that. More pictures of legal carry at the Arch and at the Coronado National Monument in AZ are here.
Yas Posted February 23, 2010 at 04:02 PM Posted February 23, 2010 at 04:02 PM Thank Him for us! Is that an I-Gold shirt He has on?
Ashrak Posted February 23, 2010 at 05:30 PM Posted February 23, 2010 at 05:30 PM It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This one screams millions and millions of them and is set up as a perfect rebuttal to everyone who wants to claim wild wild west shootouts are afoot simply because people carry.
mspgunner Posted March 7, 2010 at 10:56 PM Posted March 7, 2010 at 10:56 PM Video of the 2nd amendment rally at the arch can be seen here (scroll down to 2-27-2010 http://www.conservativetvonline.com Good luck IL. with CCW, sounds like it will happen, better sooner than later.
mspgunner Posted March 7, 2010 at 10:59 PM Posted March 7, 2010 at 10:59 PM Thank Him for us! Is that an I-Gold shirt He has on?It is the www.missouricarry.com hat. Sorry I don't have one of yours ... YET! http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww298/mspcrna/Firearms/2nd%20amendment%20rally%20at%20the%20arch/sign1.jpg
mspgunner Posted March 7, 2010 at 11:01 PM Posted March 7, 2010 at 11:01 PM Thank Him for us! Is that an I-Gold shirt He has on?It is the www.missouricarry.com hat. Sorry I don't have one of yours ... YET! http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww298/mspcrna/Firearms/2nd%20amendment%20rally%20at%20the%20arch/sign1.jpg
mspgunner Posted March 7, 2010 at 11:05 PM Posted March 7, 2010 at 11:05 PM Here is another picture from "Opening day" of CCW on NPS property. http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww298/mspcrna/Firearms/2nd%20amendment%20rally%20at%20the%20arch/Ontop-1.jpg http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww298/mspcrna/Firearms/2nd%20amendment%20rally%20at%20the%20arch/Dogsknow.jpg
CraigC Posted March 8, 2010 at 03:48 AM Posted March 8, 2010 at 03:48 AM I read something on this somewhere else and it threw me. Does one need a permit from the state the national park is located or just a permit the state recognizes? The reporter probably summarized it wrong. As I understand it Kent, if it's legal outside the park, now it's legal inside the park. I can go to MO and carry on my FL license. Now, that includes the grounds at the Arch. That does not however include ANY buildings on those grounds, including the parking garage. If you're gonna carry on the Arch grounds, you have to park on the street, not the garage. I would warn anyone visitng the Arch, they take a dim view on certain knives there too. I was asked to leave and take my 3" Kershaw Leek with me this past December. They claimed it was a "spring assisted" knife and therefore illegal to carry into the building. I assume that prohibition still stands since the law change deals with firearms only. AB Actually, structures such as parking garages, shelters, and outhouses/stand-alone bathrooms should be legal. Firearms in federal facilities is regulated by 44 USC §903. A federal facility under §903 (G)(1) is defined as "a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties." Subsection (H) requires conspicuous posting at every entrance and provides an affirmative defense to violations if a facility is not properly posted. So if it is posted and there is a pay-booth at the garage, the booth is off-limits. If its posted and is an attendant in the bathroom than an outhouse is off-limits.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.