Page 1 of 2
National Parks
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:14 am
by stash
I read in the current issue of "Rifleman" (I am sure a lot of you did also) that within the coming weeks (whatever that means) the National Park Service and the U. S Fish and Wildlife plan to change firearm regulations to mirror state firearms laws for state parks. I knew things had been afoot in this arena for awhile but this sure makes it look that it might finally happen. I hope this will also include Corps of Engineers land.
Anyone know anything more about this?
Re: National Parks
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:32 am
by seamusTX
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... x?ID=10651
I don't think this change will affect COE land or waters that are not in a national park.
- Jim
Re: National Parks
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:21 am
by frankie_the_yankee
I'm hoping this rule change is adopted. I have this vision of cruising through Big Bend on my Harley sometime later this Summer. But there's no way I would do it if I couldn't carry a gun.
Re: National Parks
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:35 am
by Briankey
With all the Illegal Mexican Drug runners and Criminals coming across the borders down there, I don't see how its even safe to go to Big Bend. But, maybe that's why they are wanting to change the Law?. I wouldn't go down there without my Backup, much less camp overnite there.
-----------------
I have this vision of cruising through Big Bend on my Harley sometime later this Summer. But there's no way I would do it if I couldn't carry a gun.[/quote]
Re: National Parks
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:22 pm
by Liberty
OH, no!! I promised I would actually join the NRA if this happens. It looks like they might actually pull this one off.
Re: National Parks
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:49 pm
by Venus Pax
Time to go camping!
Re: National Parks
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:37 pm
by bwahahaha
Not surprisingly, the public has been tirelessly dumping on this proposal on the MSM sites. Blood in the streets all over again. Hopefully the comments at DOI are a little more on our side.
Re: National Parks
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:53 pm
by ELB
I posted the actual proprosed rule changes at this thread:
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =4&t=15551
As for
Hopefully the comments at DOI are a little more on our side.
you, and everybody else on this website, can go make comments on the proposed rule, and I suggest we do so.
Re: National Parks
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:16 pm
by artx
We do need a firemission to provide public positive comments on the proposed regs during the 60 day comment period on this site and other pro RKBA sites - we need to flood the DOI with positive feedback. I'm sure some liberal group will do the usual fear mongering.
You can provide comments right now at the DOI's website -
http://www.doi.gov/
Direct link to comments form (Click on the yellow talk bubble thing in the middle of the page, it is pretty small):
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/c ... 648053d497
Re: National Parks
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:39 pm
by NcongruNt
Question about this:
I read through the proposal text, and find it well written, clear, and concise. I am VERY glad to see this happening. I may be able to visit Big Bend soon and resume my visits to Padre Island National Seashore soon if this goes through!
My question is this: does this change anything regarding COE land? My guess is that it does not, as the the COE does not fall under the DOI as far as I can tell. If this passes, it would be an area of interest to look into, moving forward.
Re: National Parks
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:01 am
by ELB
Comment I left for DOI on the proposed rule change:
Excellent proposal, and long overdue. Actual experience of the shall-issue
concealed handgun license (CHL) laws in the states that have implemented them
has been overwhelmingly successful -- violations of ANY law by CHL holders has
been miniscule, and actual gun-related violations have been even smaller. Crime
rates are noticeably lower in those states that have CHLs, and in the unfortunate
instances where a CHL holder was forced to use a handgun to defend his or others
life, by far the law-abiding have prevailed and innocent lives saved. Please
implement this rule at the earliest opportunity.
So everybody else get going -- this is an opportunity to do something beside complain on this forum. Not sure how much affect it will have, but no positive comments will have at most zero effect, and at worst let negative ones dominate the input. Auf geht's!
Re: National Parks
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:27 am
by anygunanywhere
Done.
Anygun.
Re: National Parks
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:23 am
by frankie_the_yankee
Should I send in a comment to the effect that any restriction on the possession of firearms is an unconstitutional infringement of the 2A and hence, should not be allowed? Then maybe I could finish up by asking them, "What part of '...shall not be infringed..' do they not understand."
Or would it be better if I sent in a comment that was serious and thoughtful?
Re: National Parks
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:51 am
by bdickens
I vote for serious and thoughtful. You know the bigoted comments won't be. That makes us look better.
My comment was to the effect that the current regulation is confusing and that there are places where one can be a law-abiding good guy on one side of the road and a Federal felon on the other.
Re: National Parks
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:32 am
by anygunanywhere
Be sure and mention that the rule should be written so that Al-Quaida can not enter the parks with their MP-5s.
Anygunanywhere