« Condi being rude to a Stanford student | tlees2's Blog | What should our Afghanistan policy be in the future »
Concealed Weapons in National Parks
Well, now we know that the credit card companies will be tightly regulated because the new credit card bill the President is about to sign permits - - concealed weapons in national parks?
What a fiasco? Can't the President veto this because of that provision? At least, he would make the Congress override his veto?
Why must Congress worship at the altar of the NRA (money, obviously)? What can we do about this?
What a fiasco? Can't the President veto this because of that provision? At least, he would make the Congress override his veto?
Why must Congress worship at the altar of the NRA (money, obviously)? What can we do about this?
Advertisement
Thing is, the NRA turns out voters who will vote their single issue no matter what else. That's the real point.
Oh, and they're very well organized, and can turn out letters to Congress in huge numbers. Letters are always see to represent the views of ten or more who did not write, so it's a very effective pressure tactic.
May 20, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that should be mentioned is that the concealed weapons amendment has been split from the bill in order to allow a separate vote on it. After that vote, if it passes, it will be recombined with the credit card bill. Hopefully it will be shut down through this procedure.
May 20, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/politics/20cong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
May 20, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a little more:
So at this point, anyone can have a weapon in a national park, it just has to be unloaded and "secured" (whatever that means). I guess if it passes, it would be up to the states if they want to pass legislation ban concealed weapons.
May 20, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's how it works: Push an anti-gun agenda, lose control of congress. Lose control of congress, kiss everything else you care about goodbye. Pelosi knows it, Reid knows it, Obama knows it.
If they did any research Democrats would also know that Assault Weapons Ban they passed in the 90's did NOTHING to reduce crime. Zilch. Likewise, there was no spike in crime when it sunset. At the price of losing control congress they saved not a single life. Losing Congress lead to losing the White House, and we have seen where that lead.
You may have enough city folks on the coasts to dilute the electoral college and hold the White House, but rural areas have their congressman, and Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, Wisconsin, the Dakotas, Alaska and pretty much every state in the South all elect Senators who oppose gun control, even if they have a D in thier title.
The Republicans move the electorate using the Rovian levers of God, Guns, and Gays. These work only while Democrats provide the fulcrums. The God and Gays folks are pretty much the same people, so you can't move any votes unless you give up on BOTH of those. If you promise not to take away thier guns, you can pick up a lot of votes from people who hate everything else the republicans stand for.
May 20, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I don't know how not having concealed weapons in national parks has anything to do with taking people's guns away. It also should not be linked to the credit card bill.
May 20, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a good idea, either, but it would be a minor victory for the pro-gun crowd. If this is what it takes to get the credit card bill through, then so be. We'll fight it at the state level.
May 20, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, right now Texas is considering a bill to allow concealed weapons on college campuses. That seems like a much greater cause for concern.
May 20, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worth remembering here - the late, great Molly Ivins dubbed Texas "The National Laboratory for Bad Government" in one of her columns.
May 20, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your first point:
You are telling people they have to keep their guns unloaded and locked in the trunk of their car in areas where bears are protected and humans are a prey species that sleeps in tents. Places where people venture far from cell coverage and where cannabis is cultivated. Places where female hikers are raped repeataly before being knifed to death. Places where, if you do manage to call 911, can expect law enforcement to respond no sooner than several hours, and more likely within a day or two, weather permitting.
So basically, you are telling people "After obtaining the training, background check, and jumping through all the other hoops your state requires before issuing a concealed-carry permit, in this place where your gun would really be useful to you, you can still keep your gun, just as long as we can insure that it is useless to you."
And to be clear: "concealed carry" doesn't mean I have a gun up my sleeve, where I can instantly kill you for giving me the stink-eye. If it is rolled inside the spare pair of jeans in my backpack, that, under the law, is concealed carry.
To your second point:
Linking it to the CC bill is clearly a CC lobby attempt to poision the CC legislation. It gives Democrats with liberal bases and Banker/Doners cover to vote against it.
May 20, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try kevbo, but I'm not telling people anything, just pointing out what the current law is. But you do make an impressive argument for banning people from national parks.
May 20, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck in getting to that gun in your backpack during a bear attack.
May 20, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get how this amendment got legs in the first place. Any inside or background info out there?
It does seem strange, if usual practice in Congress, to tack on such an amendment, and there's no big indication that doing so brought in crucial votes for the CC bill. Just what was the political advantage in voting for this amendment?
And what is the real cost? I mean it seems like a tiny issue. Did Demos get some big hidden concession somewhere for it?
May 20, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Republican idea to feed some in western rural America?
Most poachers are caught not with the bagged game, which they vamoose with quickly, but with loaded weapons as they search for dinner meat.
The law will let armed hunters roam the parks unimpeded by gun restrictions.
May 20, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poaching enforcement?...That's what you brought to the debate?
You understand we are talking about _concealed_ carry here, right? Small, short range pistols that someone willing to break the current law could be carrying today, and neither you nor a game warden would know it, and would be pretty much useless for shooting anything edible.
I'm sure that in the archives of silly criminals that someone, somewhere, sometime, must have used such a gun to poach a deer with, but talk about the wrong tool for the job!
May 20, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poaching enforcement?...That's what you brought to the debate?
You understand we are talking about _concealed_ carry here, right? Small, short range pistols that someone willing to break the current law could be carrying today, and neither you nor a game warden would know it, and would be pretty much useless for shooting anything edible.
I'm sure that in the archives of silly criminals that someone, somewhere, sometime, must have used such a gun to poach a deer with, but talk about the wrong tool for the job!
May 21, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink