PDA

View Full Version : New Gun Law may come in effect for parks, carryable firearms okay?



LegalSmash
20 May 2009, 07:40am
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/politics/20cong.html?_r=1

provoking

Itch
20 May 2009, 07:59am
Most people with concealed permits have the guns in their cars anyway when they pass through these parks.. (such as YellowStone)

Not sure how big of a deal this is. I am however opposed to the practice of slapping things you want to get by congress onto bills that need to/will be passed.

zero
20 May 2009, 12:02pm
Interesting. I've carried my gun, concealed, into a few national parks already ever since I got my conceal carry permit. I didn't realize it was illegal. Oops.

Whats more frustrating is how Colorado doesn't have reciprocity with Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin since I travel through those states quite a bit during the summer. There are so many laws when it comes to guns that its hard to follow them all.

Slavic
20 May 2009, 12:07pm
Not sure how big of a deal this is. I am however opposed to the practice of slapping things you want to get by congress onto bills that need to/will be passed.

Exactly. Good law; dirty method on getting it passed.

PotshotPolka
20 May 2009, 03:31pm
Yeah.... wait didn't Obama spike an executive order by Bush that allowed the exact same thing? If so than thanks alot Mr. President, we would have gotten a carry permit for my dad for the hike through the Appalachians.

zero
21 May 2009, 08:14am
Anyone know if this passed or when a decision is to be made?

RedOctober
24 May 2009, 12:07pm
i though the President had the authority to veto a part of a bill but pass the rest of it?

i think its called line item veto....

Italian Jew
24 May 2009, 02:06pm
i though the President had the authority to veto a part of a bill but pass the rest of it?

i think its called line item veto....

The Supreme Court ruled that the line item veto was unconstitutional shortly after it was implemented.

PotshotPolka
24 May 2009, 02:44pm
Too bad states can't figure that out. But states reserve the uncanny right to wipe their asses with the constitution anyways.

broncoty
24 May 2009, 02:58pm
i though the President had the authority to veto a part of a bill but pass the rest of it?

i think its called line item veto....

Some governors can but pres cant

Astrum
25 May 2009, 01:06am
i though the President had the authority to veto a part of a bill but pass the rest of it?

i think its called line item veto....

No he can't, and thank fucking God. I never understood why you'd want to solve the problem of riders by giving the President additional powers to counteract the riders. Just get rid of the fucking riders.

Line item veto is not something you want the President to have, ever. I'd rather things stay the way they are than give the President that power. If we're going to fix the problem then we say no more riders, period.

I do find it rather amusing how the media portrays the problem and the solution, namely line item veto is the only solution.

As far as the actual subject is concerned, I can't exactly leave my gun on the side of the road when I enter the park, so fuck them. What am I supposed to do? Magically teleport the damn thing back home. It's still illegal to fire it within the park* in either case. Although interestingly enough they are requesting an environmental impact study to see what effect this is going to have on the parks. How retarded.

*Although if I'm confronted with a hungry animal I'll choose jail over the morgue.

phatman76
25 May 2009, 02:39am
I am very pro-second amendment, but I don't like the idea of people with guns in National Parks because I like to hike the back country, and I don't want to get hit by a spray of shot from some idiot. You need permits just to hike in those kinds of places in national parks, and you need permits and registration to participate in Park sanctioned hunting for overpopulated species; I would say non-hunting weapons do not need to be restricted, but a hunting firearm should be left at the gate in a locker or something unless explicitly permitted for a special reason. I am in support of derestricting firearms, but the easiest way to control illicit hunting in a national park is to not let people bring hunting materials.

As for hungry animals, I don't even think a .45 cal pistol would save you from a Grizzly bear unless you had 1337 personal defense skills. And you are just a pussy if you need to bring a rifle to feel safe, go find a safer fucking hobby like knitting.

Astrum
25 May 2009, 04:42am
I am very pro-second amendment, but I don't like the idea of people with guns in National Parks because I like to hike the back country, and I don't want to get hit by a spray of shot from some idiot.

It's still illegal to discharge a firearm in a park. Just because they're allowed doesn't mean you can use them (not even in self-defense). People are already bringing them in because they can't leave them anywhere. Nothing is going to change.


As for hungry animals, I don't even think a .45 cal pistol would save you from a Grizzly bear unless you had 1337 personal defense skills. And you are just a pussy if you need to bring a rifle to feel safe, go find a safer fucking hobby like knitting.

Of course not, and I'm not talking about a bear. If you run across a bear then don't piss it off, you're going to lose if you do. Bears are not the only things around though. Depending on where you are there can be snakes, wolves, mountain lions, etc... A .45 will definitely work in those cases (loaded with special shot for snakes). I'm not suggesting the moment you see an animal you kill it, merely if it starts charging you then you can defend yourself. This happens extremely rarely, but it does happen. If a bear is charging you then pray to/curse at whatever god you believe in, chances are you're going to die.

tank40175
25 May 2009, 06:45am
I am very pro-second amendment, but I don't like the idea of people with guns in National Parks because I like to hike the back country, and I don't want to get hit by a spray of shot from some idiot. You need permits just to hike in those kinds of places in national parks, and you need permits and registration to participate in Park sanctioned hunting for overpopulated species; I would say non-hunting weapons do not need to be restricted, but a hunting firearm should be left at the gate in a locker or something unless explicitly permitted for a special reason. I am in support of derestricting firearms, but the easiest way to control illicit hunting in a national park is to not let people bring hunting materials.

As for hungry animals, I don't even think a .45 cal pistol would save you from a Grizzly bear unless you had 1337 personal defense skills. And you are just a pussy if you need to bring a rifle to feel safe, go find a safer fucking hobby like knitting.

I have no problem with people legally carrying in National Parks. If you get shot in a park by some idiot, he is probbably not legal anyways. Just like the restrictions right now on carrying into a bank. Does this restriction decrease armed robberies? No, in fact it does the opposite. How many CCDW permit holders walk into the bank and go, "Man, if I could only bring my gun in here, I'd walk out rich." The thing is that the less restrictions they put on the law abiding citizen where guns are involved, the lower the crime rate would be across the country. The criminals will always find access to the weapons, and gun control laws will not stop them, only affect the person who follows the law.

PotshotPolka
25 May 2009, 07:58am
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081031175126AAFfeKl

Personally, I'm more concerned with being mugged or jumped near trail entrances than being fucked up by a measly Black bear on a trail.

zero
27 May 2009, 11:48am
I am very pro-second amendment, but I don't like the idea of people with guns in National Parks because I like to hike the back country, and I don't want to get hit by a spray of shot from some idiot.

Apparently, you aren't pro-second amendment, judging by your statement, though. If the government imposes restrictions on where and when you can carry a firearm, then its no longer a right but a privilege.

phatman76
27 May 2009, 02:27pm
Apparently, you aren't pro-second amendment, judging by your statement, though. If the government imposes restrictions on where and when you can carry a firearm, then its no longer a right but a privilege.

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater man, the Supreme Court has clear limits on where your right to free speech ends because it infringes, or even threatens to infringe, the rights of others. Same for firearms in certain cases, like airplanes, hospitals, schools or whatnot. National Parks are a grey area, so I say no hunting weapons. That is not anti-second amendment, that is just preventing illicit hunting and disturbance of the Park.

roach coach
28 May 2009, 12:27am
My liberal Obama-supporting parents think this is a good idea for self-defense purposes, and I agree with them.

zero
28 May 2009, 12:38pm
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater man, the Supreme Court has clear limits on where your right to free speech ends because it infringes, or even threatens to infringe, the rights of others. Same for firearms in certain cases, like...

Oh man are you talking to the wrong person in regards to this. The government shouldn't be involved in this situation either. The situation should be handled by the owners of the theater, not the federal government.


Same for firearms in certain cases, like airplanes, hospitals, schools or whatnot.

The court shouldn't have say in whether or not a person can carry a firearm on a plane or hospital either (schools are different since they are a public entity). It should be up to the airlines on whether or not a person can or cannot carry a firearm on their airplanes, not the government. Likewise for hospitals. If you don't like their policies, don't use their services and go with a competitor.

Italian Jew
28 May 2009, 12:54pm
Oh man are you talking to the wrong person in regards to this. The government shouldn't be involved in this situation either. The situation should be handled by the owners of the theater, not the federal government.

So if people were trampled to death and/or injured, the owners of the theater should be able to do what? If somebody violated the owner's rules, should the owner have the say in what punishment should be made and not any form of government?

zero
28 May 2009, 12:56pm
So if people were trampled to death and/or injured, the owners of the theater should be able to do what? If somebody violated the owner's rules, should the owner have the say in what punishment should be made and not any form of government?

Who said anything about no form of government? The person who yelled fire, thus causing deaths, should then be prosecuted for murder and be forced to pay for whatever damages he caused due to his actions. *shrug*

Italian Jew
28 May 2009, 01:04pm
Who said anything about no form of government? The person who yelled fire, thus causing deaths, should then be prosecuted for murder and be forced to pay for whatever damages he caused due to his actions. *shrug*

You said the government shouldn't be involved in the situation, therefore no form of government (local, state, federal) should have anything to do with this instance.

*The situation being the man yelling "fire" in a theater and the involvement being everything related to any action to this case.

zero
28 May 2009, 01:05pm
You said the government shouldn't be involved in the situation, therefore no form of government (local, state, federal) should have anything to do with this instance.

*The situation being the man yelling "fire" in a theater and the involvement being everything related to any action to this case.

I guess I should clarify -- the government should not be limiting any forms of speech, period, even if its yelling fire in a crowded theater. If your speech causes physical harm or damage, that's another story.

Italian Jew
28 May 2009, 01:07pm
I guess I should clarify -- the government should not be limiting any forms of speech, period, even if its yelling fire in a crowded theater. If your speech causes physical harm or damage, that's another story.

But yelling "fire" could cause physical harm or damage by causing a panic, which is why you can be punished for doing so when there is no real threat of fire.

zero
28 May 2009, 01:11pm
But yelling "fire" could cause physical harm or damage by causing a panic, which is why you can be punished for doing so when there is no real threat of fire.

That's were you, and many people, and I will disagree. I truly believe in free speech and will defend it to no end without any exceptions. In phatman76's scenario, a person should be punished for the damage he causes, not for the act of yelling fire. This is pretty much a guarantee since yelling fire in a crowded theater will cause panic and will bring in the fire trucks (which the person should also pay for).

Italian Jew
28 May 2009, 01:19pm
That's were you, and many people, and I will disagree. I truly believe in free speech and will defend it to no end without any exceptions. In phatman76's scenario, a person should be punished for the damage he causes, not for the act of yelling fire. This is pretty much a guarantee since yelling fire in a crowded theater will cause panic and will bring in the fire trucks (which the person should also pay for).

The act of yelling fire can endanger peoples lives. The goal of this law is to prevent people from endangering people's lives and to punish those who do. It is a not a punishment for simply saying a word, but for the actions caused by the word.

zero
28 May 2009, 01:23pm
dammit, I just fucked this post up

zero
28 May 2009, 01:31pm
The act of yelling fire can endanger peoples lives. The goal of this law is to prevent people from endangering people's lives and to punish those who do. It is a not a punishment for simply saying a word, but for the actions caused by the word.

For the record, we agree in a sense. I just don't think government should be making laws against the use of the word... they should be more focused, as you say, for the actions caused by the word.

Italian Jew
28 May 2009, 01:37pm
Well, don't airplanes and cars endanger peoples lives, even with all our safety precautions? We can make life safer by completely banning them...


The difference between the two is that there is a disregard to safety when someone yells "fire" when there isn't one.

There is a complete regard to safety when it comes to things such as planes and cars. Even though there is still danger, it is not recklessly disregarded and planes/cars are designed to keep people as safe as possible.


For the record, we agree in a sense. I just don't think government should be making laws against the use of the word... they should be more focused, as you say, for the actions caused by the word.

The law is not against the use of the word. Reckless endangerment can be anything, so it isn't the actual use of the word that is unlawful. It is the reason for using the word, which could be to purposefully cause a panic. It just depends on how good the lawyer is to demonstrate how the word was used in a way that recklessly endangered the public. The same could be done for any action.

LegalSmash
28 May 2009, 01:37pm
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/49/Foil1.jpg

= zero.

zero
28 May 2009, 01:40pm
You can call me whatever you want LegalSmash. I just believe in our right to free speech, freedom in general, and limited government. If that means stereotyping me as wearing a tin foil cap, so be it.

LegalSmash
28 May 2009, 01:47pm
1st amendment has been interpreted in manners protective to the public for over 100 years, its this thing called progressive development of the law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the body of interpretation and law developed thereafter is used in conjunction with it in order to govern our society, it is not the end all, be all of american jurisprudence. i find it funny that most people that spout the constitution's passages could not tell their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to actually understanding the interpretation, and contrary to popular belief, whilst a great many issues are solved simply with plain meaning readings of the law, often the other 4 steps of statutory interpretation are required in order to appropriately tailor the law and facts to get a working conclusion. its called Lawyering, and applying common sense to a situation.

your speech is not the issue when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, its your behavior. you being an asshole and yelling FIRE causing several others to get trampled is not covered by the 1st, its governed by criminal statutes for inciting a panic. The 1st does NOT, let me repeat, does NOT protect speech unequivocally, regardless of source, or coupled action, it protects expression of idea. THAT is what the founding fathers wanted to protect, rather than the town imbecile.

zero
28 May 2009, 01:50pm
1st amendment has been interpreted in manners protective to the public for over 100 years, its this thing called progressive development of the law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the body of interpretation and law developed thereafter is used in conjunction with it in order to govern our society, it is not the end all, be all of american jurisprudence. i find it funny that most people that spout the constitution's passages could not tell their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to actually understanding the interpretation, and contrary to popular belief, whilst a great many issues are solved simply with plain meaning readings of the law, often the other 4 steps of statutory interpretation are required in order to appropriately tailor the law and facts to get a working conclusion. its called Lawyering, and applying common sense to a situation.

your speech is not the issue when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, its your behavior. you being an asshole and yelling FIRE causing several others to get trampled is not covered by the 1st, its governed by criminal statutes for inciting a panic. The 1st does NOT, let me repeat, does NOT protect speech unequivocally, regardless of source, or coupled action, it protects expression of idea. THAT is what the founding fathers wanted to protect, rather than the town imbecile.

So I don't understand why you posted a picture of a tin foil hat when you pretty much reiterated exactly what I was saying. I pretty much agree with your entire statement, LegalSmash.

PotshotPolka
28 May 2009, 02:03pm
Because hotlinking images is a fun way of expressing a concept, such as your paranoia over such a simple topic instead of say... government control of 73% of GM.

zero
28 May 2009, 02:05pm
Because hotlinking images is a fun way of expressing a concept, such as your paranoia over such a simple topic instead of say... government control of 73% of GM.

Dude, don't even get me started...

LegalSmash
28 May 2009, 02:05pm
Because hotlinking images is a fun way of expressing a concept, such as your paranoia over such a simple topic instead of say... government control of 73% of GM.

This. Unequivocally this.

zero
28 May 2009, 02:11pm
This. Unequivocally this.

I guess its only fair that I post one of LegalSmash.

http://www.andrewsteinhome.com/images/nerd.jpg

PotshotPolka
28 May 2009, 02:11pm
Now lets all go bludgeon Omar and eat his Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

MtrxMn
5 Jun 2009, 07:08pm
Im for being able to carry firearms but i really dont see the need for having a gun in a park.

Italian Jew
5 Jun 2009, 07:10pm
Im for being able to carry firearms but i really dont see the need for having a gun in a park.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6477/jellystone.jpg

Bitch gonna steal your picnic basket!

PotshotPolka
5 Jun 2009, 09:37pm
Bitch hasn't met my 12 gauge slugs which have to stay back at the car next week.