Petition to remove ban from National Parks

[safe carry]

#1593

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by CenterX

1304
Where is the one for CA state parks?

You can CCW in State parks, we have already been there done that. I'm the one who called Sac. and proved a state employee wrong.

[Hoser]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

You can CCW in State parks, we have already been there done that. I'm the one who called Sac. and proved a state employee wrong.

Here's the link that was updated after CCWI did his magic:

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/where-c...tate-park.html

[cmysprks]

1785

[FlyboyLDB]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

Have you guys checked the validity of this petition site? I want to be careful where I put my full name, email and town on the net.

The petition site is fine. It is a site where basically anyone can start a petition. They give you the option to hide your email - which most do. As far as the "legality" of the petition - it is legal. Whether it will hold any credence is another question altogether. As with any petition, it is a form of communicating our desires to our lawmakers & leaders. How well they receive or the impact it has is out of our hands. But at least some will realize their constituents are in numbers and desire certain laws to be passed, ammended or repealed. Once the petition has ran several weeks, the person who started it is going to print it out and physically mail the petition with all who signed it. Here is the original post from the gent on defensive carry.

Petition - Please sign! - DefensiveCarry CCW Forum

[FlyboyLDB]

Originally Posted by flyingm

Signed #995

I will definitely be passing this around.

We can post this on non firearms forums as well. The Anti-gun people won't be able to bring the count down because it is not a poll. You sign it if you are for it - and don't if you are against it. So post it around on other forums as well. You may draw out some of your anti-gun friends on other forums, but oh well.

[DVSmith]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

According to federal law it is not. They require adresses to make it legal.

CCWI You are close, but I suspect you are thinking about state law, which requires a voter's signature and residence address to be counted as a valid entry.

At this time there is no national Initiative or Referendum process. Having one is complicated by the form of government created by the founding fathers through the US Constitution. There are state's rights issues as well as balance of powers issues to overcome, not to mention the disinterest shown by most administrations and sessions of Congress in giving any kind of direct democratic control of federal issues to the populace at large.

As FlyBoy stated, this petition is a petition only in it's most pure form, the signers are petitioning their elected officials to do something. It has no value beyond, as FlyBoy puts it, a form of communication.

[barnowl52]

#1890

[El Gato]

#1945..... a very good year by all accounts... unless you were in a foxhole somewhere... or waiting to "go home" in some barracks in eastern whatever...
God Bless those guys...

[Panhead Bill]

Signature # 2484!!

PH Bill

[KineticNRG]

Signed....I dunno which number I am but I signed it

[emc002]

#2452 and I cross posted on CalGuns.net

[CCWInstructor]

Parks

The Department of the Interior has released its long awaited regulatory reform proposals for National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. The proposed regulations will be open for public comment for the next 60 days. It is critical that gunowners let their voices be heard on this regulation change.

As I had expected, the proposed regulations are worded to be as restrictive as possible while still trying to answer the primary complaint. Specifically, the proposed change limits firearms that “may” be carried, to those lawfully carried concealed under state law. Lawful open carry is denied. The proposal also specifically exempts buildings and facilities from lawful carry and it predicates its rules upon those of similar state lands rather than general state law. So in states like Virginia, where gunowners are fighting to regain their rights in state parks, the fight would automatically extend into National Parks. If a state wants to prohibit guns in a National Park, they should have to pass a law to do it.

Here is the actual text of the proposal for National Parks:

§ 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets.

* * * * * (Added to the end of a complex litany of restrictions and exceptions)

(h) A person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park, or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.

The proposed reg change for National Wildlife Refuges is virtually identical except for the types of state lands that it cites as comparable.

It is obvious that the bureaucrats who wrote these proposed regulations simply don’t understand the fundamental principles involved. It is ridiculous that the Department of the Interior would promulgate these convoluted half-measures when a simple statement adopting the laws of the host state regarding the possession and carry of firearms would solve the problem. I think the DOI is concerned about not being able to prosecute someone they catch sneaking through the woods with a scoped 30-06 as a poacher. By limiting the exemption to “concealed” weapons, they think they are bypassing that problem and they are ignoring the other problems such a limitation creates.

We have not yet formulated our official response as there are many factors to be considered and we would like to coordinate our efforts with other rights organizations. We will post our response as soon as we can get it put together.

In the mean time, here is the official information about posting comments:

You may submit comments, identified by the number 1024-AD70 by any of the following methods:

Electronically via the Federal rulemaking portal: redirect.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Mail:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1024-AD70; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203

Hand-deliver: 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203

Public Availability of Comments

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time.

While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Lawyer, (202) 208-3181, Mark_Lawyer@ios.doi.gov.

I'll send out an Alert in a day or two with sample comment language.

[Ken_In_Colo]

Got an email from the NRA re: public comment on the proposal. This is what I wrote:

I am wholly in favor of the proposed regulations change to allow carrying and transporting of firearms in our National Parks by persons possessing state issued Concealed Handgun Permits (CHPs).

Time has shown that persons holding CHPs are the most law-abiding citizens in our country. We are not 'cowboys' out looking for trouble. We avoid confrontations at all costs. We have had our backgrounds checked and we have been trained.

Contrary to the beliefs of the gun control advocates, the blood never 'ran in the streets' when citizens started carrying legally. In fact, to paraphrase former Vice President Al Gore, "the science is in": citizens, legally carrying handguns, have caused violent crime rates in their respective states to decline dramatically. It makes sense that [persons] legally carrying handguns in our National Parks would have the same effect.

For the above reasons, I strongly urge the passage of this legislation.

[NikNak]

Originally Posted by Ken_In_Colo

Got an email from the NRA re: public comment on the proposal. This is what I wrote:


Contrary to the beliefs of the gun control advocates, the blood never 'ran in the streets' when citizens started carrying legally. In fact, to paraphrase former Vice President Al Gore, "the science is in": citizens, legally carrying handguns, have caused violent crime rates in their respective states to decline dramatically.
[/i]

Love that use of quote .... Good one.