# CCW in our National Forests



## SaltyDog (Jan 1, 2009)

On January the 9th 2009 the Department of the Interior revised their laws concerning the right-to-carry on Federal lands. This is a small clip from NRA-ILA:

"The new rule, which takes effect today, allows Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in states that recognize their permits. The new rule will also put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while lands managed by DOI did not."

Great news!

You can get the whole story at http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4292

:smt1099


----------



## Ptarmigan (Jul 4, 2008)

That is great news. On my vacation last summer I got real tired of having to stop and secure my weapon each and everytime I went in and out of a National Park. We drove 3000 miles and were in at least three different parks.


----------



## jb1023 (Jul 15, 2008)

Any guesses as to how long it will take Obama to repeal this one? I give it 3 mos before the law is changed back.


----------



## SaltyDog (Jan 1, 2009)

jb1023 said:


> Any guesses as to how long it will take Obama to repeal this one? I give it 3 mos before the law is changed back.


It actually took less time than that but it was not Obama (directly) but the Brady Bunch filing a civil law suit against the Department of the Interior because they did not perform an environmetal impact on weapons within the National Parks PALEEEZ!

The House and Senate have bills in commitee to reverse this action S.816 and it's companion Bill HR.1684

I wrote Senator Sherrod Brown - you remember him he's the guy that cast the deciding vote for Obama's spending frenzy Bill. His reply

Thank you for expressing your position on gun control.

I do not support an outright ban on guns nor restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess guns. However, the biggest threat to Second Amendment and privacy rights is gun-related crime. In the absence of safeguards that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and distinguish between lawful and unlawful use of firearms, concerns regarding personal safety could fuel greater support for an outright ban on gun ownership.

Gun owners and gun safety advocates can and should work together to reduce gun violence without compromising the Second Amendment or privacy rights of law-abiding Americans. As the Senate considers these issues, I will support common sense reforms that balance the rights of gun owners with the need to increase public safety and protect the public from gun violence. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown
United States Senator

Well a typical Liberal Democrat answer. Wishy Washy :blah:

I wrote back

Thank you for your recent reply although I must say that I am a bit disappointed in your response.

First you stated "However, the biggest threat to Second Amendment and privacy rights is gun-related crime." Really? What has one got to do with the other? Let's look at the statistics - Violent crime continues to decrease (in the USA not Mexico) since 1994 according to the FBI. Some may contend that it was due to the assault weapon ban implemented by President Clinton. According to NRA reports "Eric Holder tried to reinstate the ban Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid were joined in opposing Holder by members of the bipartisan House of Representatives Second Amendment Task Force. U.S. Rep. and Task Force co-chair Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said "The Attorney General's recent comments about reinstating the 'assault weapons' ban are extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our Constitutional right to bear arms." Why did they do that? - It's because the ban did not do anything except take weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals still got the weapons - that is why they are criminals..

Also "support for an outright ban on gun ownership" Yes that is really working for the citizens in Australia and Great Britain. Hmm didn't someone try to do that with alcohol - prohibition. Erase the 2nd amendment - sure that will prevent the criminals from obtaining firearms just like it prevented them from obtaining alcohol- but wait maybe they will start using knives and machete's well we can eliminate those also but wait maybe they will use baseball bats well there goes the World Series. Sorry for the sarcasm but I could not help myself. If the members of the House and Senate would show support for the 2nd amendment perhaps an attempt to continue to reduce our rights as citizens of the United States of America would cease? I would hate to think that my 20 years of service in the US Navy supporting and defending the Constitution was all in vain.

"I will support common sense reforms that balance the rights of gun owners with the need to increase public safety". That is exactly why I wrote you in the first place, what could be more common sense than allowing an armed citizen who has legally acquired a conceal carry license to enter OUR National Parks? The armed citizen has and will continue to increase public safety, whether they know it or not. By eliminating places where the armed citizen may not carry a concealed weapon can only develop a haven for criminals to prey on their victims. So what you are trying to say is that the Department of the Interior implemented a policy that lacked common sense?

Respectfully:smt076

I wanted to tell him to grow a pair but I was held back by the wife.

Write your Senators and Representatives. The individuals of the Commitee in the Senate looks promising and I see it going up for vote. I'm curious to see where we stand among the new regime.


----------

