Rep Tom Coburn ( Oklahoma) adds ammedment to restore Right to Carry

[Halftrack]

I guess I'll put my "devil's advocate" sombrero on for a moment.

Since the majority party in power at the moment can shut down just about whatever legislative measures they wish whenever they wish, then our guys may have no choice but to resort to the same back door tactics the other side has been using to their advantage in the past.

In an ideal world, it would be better to get these things passed on their own merit, but if it's good for one side, it's good for the other. That's politics; might as well get in there and conduct some guerrilla warfare for the good guys once in while.

[1861]

Originally Posted by Lazydog

Agree with both of you on this. I have been saying this for a long time now. This tactics is used to get things passed that otherwise might not pass and since they are attached to must pass bills they pass right along with them.

Y'all can add me to the group who thinks this is just wrong and should not be used ever as a political strategy .

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by son of the revolution

I'd like to see the practice outlawed as well , however there have also been two instances in the last few months when its benefited 2A issues . This instance and the one last month about DC getting a rep in Congress

Your statement is a classic "the ends justify the means" argument. The question is: what happens when the "ends" are something you don't agree with? At that point, how do you dispute it when you support it now?

Originally Posted by dc dalton

Sorry bud, can't have it both ways .... if it sucks when some liberal sneaks some BS into a bill right before it's voted on the same has to work the other way.

Originally Posted by Lazydog

Agree with both of you on this. I have been saying this for a long time now. This tactics is used to get things passed that otherwise might not pass and since they are attached to must pass bills they pass right along with them.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Halftrack

In an ideal world, it would be better to get these things passed on their own merit, but if it's good for one side, it's good for the other. That's politics; might as well get in there and conduct some guerrilla warfare for the good guys once in while.

Again, the ends don't justify the means. This should've been submitted as bill in it's own right. It's only a matter of time before this kind of tactic will come back and bite those who work hard for the preservation of our rights.

[kht428]

I absolutely cannot understand how firearms in federal parks relates to credit cards. All bills should be read before they are voted on and all bills should have amendments only directly related to the bill. This law was already passed before the anointed one took office. The bullshit about an environmental impact study should have been overturned by now and the law reinstated. While I applaud them for coming to our defense, it's time for a change. No more earmarks, no more backdoor politics, transparency in gov't,.........sound familiar? Practice what you preach.

[Halftrack]

I agree that it's a bad thing to do, but I'm also a realist. I'd really like to see it done the right way, but we don't have a level playing field right now (may not have one ever again), and I'll take whatever we can get. If using the other side's tactics work for our goals, run with it.

If anybody thinks things will get better in that regard with the current gang in power, I can dig up some really neat bridges to sell you on the cheap.

It is what it is. This isn't anything new, and I doubt it will stop any time soon. Politics is a dirty business.

[MikeB0]

Originally Posted by dc dalton

Sorry bud, can't have it both ways .... if it sucks when some liberal sneaks some BS into a bill right before it's voted on the same has to work the other way.

I never said I wanted it both ways. I said I agreed they shouldn't add riders, then said I liked the bill to allow carry in National Parks, not that I liked that it was a rider.

I then stated we should have a committee that does nothing but look for bad laws to repeal.

[soup]

Even though I'm for the result of this particular add on (which doesn't change my stance on it being outlawed) I hate this type of bullshit and it needs to stop. I agree with everyone else, one bill, one topic end of story... This is the same way they passed that stupid law about online poker (Which hit me pretty hard, lost on avg. $500/month because of that damn bill) Tack an amendment onto a port securities bill that outlaws online poker because some one some where doesn't know when to quit... ugh... I'm still pissed off about it...

Just because this one is one we happen to all like doesn't make the process right. It needs to be stopped.

[tl_3237]

Here's the amendment:

SA 1067. Mr. COBURN proposed an amendment to amendment SA 1058 proposed by Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mr. Shelby) to the bill H.R. 627, to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes; as follows:


At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed''.

(2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that ``except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net''.

(3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not ``possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges'' of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(4) The regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals while at units of--

(A) the National Park System; and

(B) the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(5) The existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009--

(A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and

(B) the new regulations--

(i) are under review by the administration; and

(ii) may be altered.

(7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the

[Page: S5384] GPO's PDFSecond Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.

(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals to Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

and the voting results:

5/12/2009:
S.AMDT.1067 Amendment SA 1067, pursuant to the order of May 12, 2009, having acheived the required 60 votes in the affirmative, was agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 67 - 29. Record Vote Number: 188.

[-JD-]

From my reading, the CC requirement in the original regulations would not apply here if not required by state law.

Any thoughts on the implication for carry in NPS buildings?

[tl_3237]

Originally Posted by -JD-

From my reading, the CC requirement in the original regulations would not apply here if not required by state law.

Any thoughts on the implication for carry in NPS buildings?

Your points are well taken - another proposed law with ambiguities. It appears that OC is allowed if not prohibited by state law.

My take is that this does not effect 18 USC 930 (possession in Federal facilities) because the prelude only references the CFR proscriptions of DOI and the court ruling - all of which were non-facility issues. Also the prohibition is against DOI only which has no connection with 930.

That said - it does seem incongruous that the amendment tauts the right of self protection and 2A as the reasons allowing firearm possession but, at the same, time, allowing those reasons to be twarted by 930 while in park buildings (ie these that qualify as Fed facilities).