# House lawmakers pass allowing concealed, loaded firearms carried in national parks



## arizonaguide (May 23, 2009)

*WASHINGTON* -- Gun rights advocates found an unlikely ally in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on Wednesday as lawmakers passed a measure allowing concealed, loaded firearms to be carried in national parks. The House approved a measure Wednesday to allow concealed firearms in national parks. The proposal passed 279-147, winning overwhelming Republican support and that of a significant number of more conservative rural and western Democrats.

The Senate voted 67-29 on Tuesday to attach an identical measure to a bill cracking down on credit card fees. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was among 27 Democrats backing the measure. Under the measure, any person with a state permit to carry a concealed weapon would be able to bring that weapon into parks and wildlife refuges unless a state law specifies otherwise.


----------



## lancero (May 24, 2009)

I read in my local newspaper that it was not going into effect until Feb 2010, when the credit card portion goes into effect.


----------



## Tracker275 (May 24, 2009)

arizonaguide said:


> *WASHINGTON*Under the measure, any person with a state permit to carry a concealed weapon would be able to bring that weapon into parks and wildlife refuges unless a state law specifies otherwise.



Personally, I never understood how being a CCW Permit holder didn't allow me to carry there. Having a CCW myself, if I can carry in a major city, I would think that I would be allowed to carry in a state park. Call me crazy, but I think that them having to pass a bill that is this far in the weeds is a little ridiculous in the first place. It should have been a given.

However, I will say that I am glad that it was presented and passed. It is rather interesting that they included it with the bill they did though.


----------



## arizonaguide (May 24, 2009)

Amen.


----------



## Brooklynben (May 24, 2009)




----------



## LibraryLady (May 24, 2009)

Tracker275 said:


> Personally, I never understood how being a CCW Permit holder didn't allow me to carry there. Having a CCW myself, if I can carry in a major city, I would think that I would be allowed to carry in a state park. Call me crazy, but I think that them having to pass a bill that is this far in the weeds is a little ridiculous in the first place. It should have been a given.
> 
> However, I will say that I am glad that it was presented and passed. It is rather interesting that they included it with the bill they did though.



First.  The law is about national parks and wildlife refuges, not about state parks.  State parks are entirely under the jurisdiction of that particular state.  

Second.  The new law basically allows the state that contains the national lands to be the governing body for firearm carry.  *EXCEPT*!!!!!! No open carry, period.  :doh:

Third.  The old laws from the Reagan era allowed transportation of unloaded/dismantled/inaccessible weapons but that's about it.  This is a MAJOR step forward for protection while in these areas.

This ably points out a little issue everyone loves to hate, the line item issue.  Personally I think this is an effective use of adding line items to a bill.  Without a line item veto, the President HAD to sign the bill in order to get the bigger issue taken care of - more oversight of the unsecured credit market.  Whomever managed to get this added used incredible political skill and should be applauded.

That being said, I'm not really in favor of multiple items on a bill, though I do recognize the necessity.  I AM in favor of the line item veto, even though I'm admiring this particular maneuver.

Not dogging you in particular, Tracker275, just wanted to make the facts are straight in this discussion.

LL


----------



## Tracker275 (May 24, 2009)

LibraryLady said:


> First.  The law is about national parks and wildlife refuges, not about state parks.  State parks are entirely under the jurisdiction of that particular state.
> 
> Second.  The new law basically allows the state that contains the national lands to be the governing body for firearm carry.  *EXCEPT*!!!!!! No open carry, period.  :doh:
> 
> ...



State, Federal....hell....local yocal...this should have never been in a bill and should have been assumed if you had a CCW.

So, line-item-veto...or whatever, it was just a formality and should have been allowed a long time ago.

I have to tell you, I've never obeyed the law about CCW loaded weapons in Federal or State down here on the Arizona/Mexico border anyway. Those silly laws don't mean much down here. You go down to Colornado National Park and see what happens when you come across a mule load of dope with armed escorts carrying AK's and you are just hiking with your family.

I don't let any dope smuggler dictate when and where I can go if it is a national park in the US and I live here. Therefore, if the government won't stop illegal trafficking, I won't stop carrying a loaded weapon concealed. Just how it is down here on the border.


----------



## LibraryLady (May 24, 2009)

Tracker275 said:


> State, Federal....hell....local yocal...this should have never been in a bill and should have been assumed if you had a CCW...



This was put into the bill to correct/counteract the law established back in the Reagan era.  ;)



LibraryLady said:


> ... Third.  The old laws from the Reagan era allowed transportation of unloaded/dismantled/inaccessible weapons but that's about it.  This is a MAJOR step forward for protection while in these areas...



I'm not sure I'd want to head into the back country down in your neck of the woods, but some of the places I go up here in the Northwest, you'll find the dope growers, large hairy critters, and slithery critters... wait, guess it's not much different than down there!

LL


----------



## Tracker275 (May 24, 2009)

Tracker275 said:


> State, Federal....hell....local yocal...this should have never been in a bill and should have been assumed if you had a CCW.
> 
> So, line-item-veto...or whatever, it was just a formality and should have been allowed a long time ago.
> 
> ...



Just another case of the government being out of touch with what really goes on in small town America, especially on the border. hahaha

Fun watching ignorant law makers talk like they know what is going on. Of course, I think we can all say that our former Governor has definitely helped in creating an "alarmist" attitude.


----------



## Tracker275 (May 25, 2009)

Accident...double post


----------



## arizonaguide (May 25, 2009)

Tracker275 said:


> Just another case of the government being out of touch with what really goes on in small town America, especially on the border.


 
Amen.

I'm right there with ya, Tracker. :2c: To *me,* it's the biggest threat to our country when you include the OTM terrorists coming across, the murders/assaults, and the Jobs lost. I've written McCain about it...I don't know what else to do...other than keep calling attention to it, protect the family, and prepare for the worst. Nobody else gives a shit unless you live down here amongst it. And know people who have suffered/died from it.



> You go down to Colorado National Park and see what happens when you come across a mule load of dope with armed escorts carrying AK's and you are just hiking with your family.


Pretty much of an "insurgency" in every sense of the word, isn't it?
Pretty fucking sad that this is allowed to happen in our own country.
Stay safe in the National Park, Bro.


----------



## AWP (May 26, 2009)

AG, how many times are you going to edit your post? I know of 3 revisions so far, my favorite was the use of a quote of mine with you putting "we" in bold. If you have a problem with me as a person, so be it. If you have a problem with me as a mod then take it up with any of the three admins. Either way, get over it. You quit once because your fingers were writing checks you couldn't cash and you kept apologizing for certain posts or topics, but damned if you don't go out and do it all over again.

FAIL


----------

