UPDATE: House Severs Guns in Parks from Credit Cards; Must Pass Separately to Move On
Huffington Post reported last night that the U.S. House Rules Committee separated what I call the Sunday in the Park with Guns amendment, which got tacked on via a Senate amendment put forth by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and was approved there, from the credit card reform bill.
You can read the bill here and see that Sec. 512 is the Coburn amendment. You can also read here the House Rules resolution to split the amendment from the credit card reform bill.
According to the same HuffPo piece, because that bill started in the House, and the Senate didn’t take up its own version, the House version rules. Meaning that that the removal of the amendment from the House version, by the Rules committee, requires that amendment to now get approval, on its own, in order for it to go to the White House for signature.
This Washington Post article indicates that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is inclined to let that happen (let the amendment go to a vote on its own).
If you want your legislators to know how you feel about a federal law which would allow people with conceal carry permits to bring firearms into national parks, contact your U.S. House representatives now.
UPDATE: If all the House Republicans vote for the amendment, 38 Democratic members will still be needed for it to pass. If you don’t want concealed carry in Yosemite etc., work to make sure that they don’t get 38 to cross the aisle. If you like the idea of increasing the family friendly nature of our national parks by adding concealed carry, then you still need 38 Dems.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “UPDATE: House Severs Guns in Parks from Credit Cards; Must Pass Separately to Move On”
This could be another great day for the 2nd Amendment! *fingers crossed*
But, if we're allowed to carry credit cards in national parks, shouldn't we be allowed to carry guns to protect them? Snarky comment…sorry.
Concealed weapons in National Parks provision passes House, 279-147! Robert Gibbs says the President will sign the bill!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
Jill, this may be a shock to you, but this is very pro-gun congress. The anti-gunners need to do a lot better than picking up 38 anti-gun Democratic votes, as you can see.
Panza – the issue of whether the Congress, as a whole, is pro-gun or not is completely irrelevant.
That amendment was a ploy, it didn't belong on that bill, the lobby is too powerful, the legislators too scared and the politics too much as usual. I do not know what RKBA stands for though. There's no need for this provision in terms of “protecting” “innocent” people from “violent crime” – there is no violent crime in national parks.
But let's say all that is true – let's take it as true. If it was such a slam-dunk then it should have been pursued by Coburn and all those great supporters of it on its own, not w/the credit card ploy.
Which goes back to my original point: whether Congress is pro-gun or not has nothing to do with what went down. Congressional members were weak. The law is unnecessary and it's a power grab pure and simple.
FYI: My ire is not for you – it's not even for the pro-gun lobby. It's for the abuse and misuse of the legislative system that keeps lawmaking process so laughable at times – laughable if I wasn't crying about it.
Yeah, now we don't have to choose between credit card rights and safety from anonymous loaded guns in national parks – some great quotes in this piece http://www.newsy.com/videos/congress_amends_credit
“there is no violent crime in national parks”
This is as astonishing and of course absurd a comment as I have ever seen posted. I can't remember a year where murders were not in the double digits and rapes and assaults are far from unknown. Are the rates lower than “average”, maybe but then average includes all the urban hot spots with the extremely high rates of crime. The crime in parks is significant. Rangers are actually the most assaulted of all federal law officers. Near me in Big Bend National Park there has been significant crime with drug smuggling, illegal immigrants, and poachers. There is limited presence of rangers, can take hours for backup if they need help, communication problems, really do I need to go on?
It seems reasonable for law enforcement personal, couriers of valuables (Brinks Guards, Jewelers, etc.) to have a need for and be permitted to carry a concealed weapon BUT how does a 'normal person' develop enough fear and paranoia to feel they need to be armed?
As a retired safety member (firehouse not cop shop) I saw a lot of wannabees that, while totally engrossed with the profession, were psychologically unfit to be trusted with the responsibility. IMO any 'normal person' who is so fearful of his fellow man falls into the wannabee category and I'd recommend that 'actual' normal people avoid contact with them whenever possible.
OT: EEllis – more people would engage you and your positions if you didn't always preface your remarks with ad hominem such as “This is as astonishing and of course absurd a comment as I have ever seen posted.” This style (sic) of debate is not only non productive… it's tacky.
And the comment I was responding to?
I'm really not sure where the concern comes from about this. This is only for parks in states that allow concealed carry. Nation Forests and BLM already have made this change with no increase in violence. Hell none of the States had increases in violence when the carrys laws were implemented. Need shmeed there really isn't a down side statistically so whats the problem? I understand the point about the bills having nothing to do with each other and thats fair. Mind you you can complain about every bill because there is almost always attached crap that has nothing to do with original bill. Now that it's separate that issue is done as far as this bill goes so now what?
Better to read the objections from people who work in the parks than from me, in all seriousness. I have a great aversion, but I don't work and live in the parks. Read this – it may not change your mind, it probably won't, but why our legislators play politics rather than listen to people in the parks bothers me to no end:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/05/20-17
Re: the politicking of it all – that's what might bother me even more, and Obama is right in there with it if he does indeed sign it (which everyone expects):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
“Democratic aides privately admitted many Democrats feel pressure to back bills on gun legislation or face political heat from the National Rifle Association, particularly in more rural districts. Top Democratic aides in both chambers plan to meet soon to develop a strategy to block pro-gun provisions on Democratic bills.
“We have a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and we're passing more gun legislation than when there was a Republican in the White House,” said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate. “It's disappointing.”
“Gun rights advocates defended yesterday's bill as an effort to give gun owners the same rights on national park land that they have everywhere else.
“Advocates said they will look to find other ways to push Democrats into backing gun rights measures.
“The lessons of 1994 have not been forgotten,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, referring to the year President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. “The Democrats lost control of Congress after passing a gun ban.”
EEllis, The comment you responded to has nothing to do with how you you replied. And actually there is very, very little violent crime in our National Parks:
According to a “National Parks Traveler” article – Violent Deaths in National Parks, the odds of you dying a violent death is 1 in 25,000,000.
Whoa now that's pretty scary, eh? Better pack a gun… Than while you showing your kids the wonders and joy of the great outdoors you can teach them fear and paranoia, too. And what the hell, when the drunk in the next campsite doesn't shut up when you want him to you can shoot the SOB.
So, a lot more people take this seriously than I would have thought. Both sides make valid points and points that are invalid. Americans have long been gun toters, but there is also a long history of restricting gun toting in certain locations. Currently that includes commercial airlines, government buildings and the like. Metal detector manufacturing is a growth industry.
On the other hand, not everyone who “carries” is paranoid. Speaking only from the personal experience of certain friends and relatives who “carry”, guns and conceal carry permits are more status symbols than an indication of mental illness. The primary purpose of “carrying”, as far as I can tell, is to compare guns in ones holster or purse at Thanksgiving dinner and discuss the last recreational day at the range.
As for “carrying” in National Parks, I will feel neither more, nor less, safe either way. My guess is it will amount to little more than a certain clubby group of gun enthusiasts showing off their status symbols around their tents and trailers.
The issue of how legislation is crafted has long been compared to the sausage factory (you don't want to see how it's made) and this only reinforces the image.
RKBA = Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Jill, I understand your point about non-germane amendments. The debate on that subject goes way back. For instance, remember when a Republican congress tried to give President Clinton the line-item veto power? It was ruled by the courts to be a separation of powers violation, and therefore unconstitutional. So these are the rules everybody plays by, and Democrats are just as keen to “abuse” the system in this fashion as Republicans. In other words, don't hate the playa, hate the game.
Now, you seem lament the influence of the 'gun lobby,' meaning the NRA. But the tremendous mistake the MSM media, politicians, and others make when assessing the potency of the gun issue in the US, is assuming its an organization or group of organizations that provide the muscle to the pro-RKBA movement. Its not. There are 80 million gun owners in this country. Most don't belong to the NRA(not me). There are many pro-RKBA Democrats(including myself) as well. Its a civil right that is cherished. Its from these people, we the people, that the power of the pro-RKBA movement emanates.
So every time someone from the Admin floats some nonsense about an “assault weapons” ban, or Nancy Pelosi goes on national television calling for registration, or DiFi goes on 60 min proclaiming she's foaming at the mouth for a chance ban semi-autos, more and more gun owners become activated. They write their congressmen. They pass the word on to their fellow gun owners. They buy AR-15's(the top-selling rifle in the United States, btw) and crates of ammo. They apply for concealed-weapon permits. They write their congressmen again, and maybe start up a gun blog. Gun control advocates who just dismiss this stuff as the NRA's fault completely miss the point, refusing to acknowledge their own culpability in fueling America's gun culture. Demonizing gun owners has backfired in epic fashion.
It is from here that one can observe why pro-RKBA influence on congress is ratcheting up, and why the the removal of federal firearms restrictions in national parks passed both houses by an overwhelming majority.
The smartest thing the Democratic party ever did was put gun control on the back burner.
People who go through the trouble of getting an extensive background check, take classes and pass a weapon competency test, things citizens in most states must do to be eligible for a concealed weapons permit, are not people we need to worry about. In fact, CCW permit holders are MUCH less likely to commit a violent crime than the rest of society. Its been proven time and again in each state that has passed a CCW law.
On the other hand, there have been numerous instances where CCW holders have defended themselves against violent attack. Most often they never need to fire.
So why should these people, who are not a threat to society(if anything an asset), be treated as criminals for venturing into a National Park in a state that allows CCW? Yes, it will mean some citizens who are very unlikely to commit a crime can carry in Yellostone, for instance. However, they won't be able to in Yosemite, because California does not recognize other states' CCW permits, and it VERY difficult for Californians to get a permit from their local government.(California is not a “shall-issue” state)
I did read objections from the Association of Park Rangers. Their objections became laughable when they started going on about how this will cause an increase in poaching, as well as other nonsense.
Tidbits – I agree with what you've written for the most part but especially the last line and that is really the most objectionable thing to me. I was the same way in Ohio re: casinos. In 2006, they attached ballot language to an education-funding thing that was just completely untenable and not thought out. I am not a supporter of casinos, but I am even less a supporter of casinos being done as a quid pro quo. Vote them up or down, end of story. Same with this Sunday in the Park with Guns amendment – put it there on its own, vote it up or down, end of story. I'm disappointed in a number of things related to the Obama administration but frankly, more than disappointed, I'm angry. Not sure that helps or matters but we'll have to see where my anger takes me – promise, though – never to a gun shop or a casino.
I'm all for individuals using communication tools and expression to let their elected officials know how they feel, either way. Truly. It's what I do and it's what any concerned citizen should do, no matter what side they are on. And if the arguments persuade, and win the day, fine. That's democracy.
But the NRA itself talks about how it weilds its powers, as do others (politicians, MSM and gun owners). If you're saying that that's all overblown, I won't argue with you – I really don't know from overblown, but I understand your point about how people make up a movement etc. It's a bit of semantics, but not entirely – but also hard to know how much is semantics, or not.
I have to disagree though with your conclusion that if Dems put gun control on the back burner, all would be quiet on the western front, or wherever the fronts might be found. Why? Because I analogize the self-proclaimed protectors of the 2nd Amendment to publishers who contract with writers or photographers. They send us contracts that are boilerplate and grab for them absolutely every single possibly right they can imagine (in the business, these are called “Star Wars” contracts – reminiscent of Reagan's Star Wars era desires for missile defense appropriations). And it's up to the writer to say, “WHA? You don't need or even KNOW what most of those rights ARE let alone need them” and then we (writers) work to get as much of the rights grab removed as possible.
I see the push by several cultural issue-oriented lobbies to be the same – just a power grab, completely unrelated to whether there's any actual threat or not. Just look at the people all stirred up over FOCA – which is not going ANYWHERE. Or even the Fairness Doctrine. Also not changing anytime soon.
So – just my opinion, my sense – but I think that the gun rights' advocates are like the publishers – get as many of the rights as you can, whenever you can. I do not blame them – it's what they are passionate about. I just disagree with the NEED for a lot of them and I totally and 100% resent having that rider on the credit card reform bill. THAT is shameful. But that's my opinion.
Panza (at 2:23): You lost me when you started to name call on the Assn of Park Rangers. You want me and others to buy the arguments the gun owners put forth without demonizing or mocking them. The rangers are due the same. I don't agree with the concerns you raise that you say gun owners have but I'm calling them laughable – I'm saying some of them lack rational relation to the legislation.
Anyway – only time will tell what this change in legislation will bring. I think it's very unfortunate that the people who work in the parks seem to have been so ignored on behalf of something that has no compelling reason or evidence of need to support it.
Name call??? I did nothing of the sort. I did find the objections by the Assn. of Park Rangers to be ridiculous, because they were IMO. Do you really think CCW holders will descend on national parks to shoot at bears with their 9mm Glocks? I guess if they feel like becoming lunch, but I digress. The hysteria in most of the objections they put forth did little to earn them credibility.
I do agree with you the Coburn Amendment should have been placed in the Public Lands bill earlier this year. That would've made a lot of sense. However, a small number of anti-gun politicians, who happen to make up the Democratic leadership in the House, maneuvered desperately to keep it from coming to a floor vote, even though they knew it would receive strong bipartisan support. Stonewalling was apparently the order of the day. If the Democratic leadership would have just have allowed a straight-up vote on the measure back then, we would not be having this discussion.
Instead it took a credit card bill of all things for the Democratic leadership to relent and allow a vote. They are the ones coming out of this ordeal looking like fools, and have only themselves to blame for such a non-germane amendment passing with overwhelming support.
Of course the NRA says they wield a ton of power, what do you expect? They also endorsed John McCain, who many, many gun owners can't stand. He would have sold out gun owners quicker than Obama…..the guy has a long track record of doing so, and the NRA was fooling nobody.
The NRA calculated endorsing McCain was good for fund raising, and that's about as far as it went. Its the same calculation those publishers make, and looky here, the NRA endorsement didn't do McCain much good.
It's funny how none of the anti gun people care to comment on the fact that there has never been an increase in crime or violence when CC laws have passed. There is no basis in fact to believe that there will be any increase in violence of crime in parks. Nation Forests and BLM already have made this change with no result. Sure the idea that you might need it is absurdly low, so? If it doesn't make any difference why not let people carry? Truth is I'm armed for work and have a CCL and I just feel strange without a sidearm. In 16 years I have never had to fire my gun and have only pulled it about 3 times. Statistically SteveK could argue that means I don't need to load it but I think that I still will.I also always have a flashlight with me also.