Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Not much, but it is a start.

:D

From VCDL Alert:

**************************************************
15. House bill to prevent expansion of NPS anti-gun regulations
**************************************************

Congressman Bishop (R-Utah) sponsored an amendment to the "Celebrating America's Heritage Act" that effectively would prevent the National Park Service from establishing any gun regulations different from existing local laws. While this might not change the current situation in national parks, it would help prevent expansion of the NPS' anti-gun agenda.

Below is the applicable text of the law (short), followed by a short explanatory news release.

http://tinyurl.com/39yn5x

H.R.1483
Celebrating America's Heritage Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

SEC. 6001. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL LAWS.

All designated and future designated lands within any natural heritage area for which funding is provided under this Act shall be exclusively governed by relevant State and local laws regarding hunting, fishing, and the possession or use of a weapon, trap, or net.

Passed the House of Representatives October 24, 2007.

Attest: Clerk. 110th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 1483
AN ACT

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes.

*************

Here is a news release from Congressman Bishop's office:

http://tinyurl.com/3dsbqo

Bishop Provision Protects 2nd Amendment Rights House Adds Clarifying Amendment to Heritage Areas Bill

Washington, Oct 24 - The U.S. House of Representatives today passed an amendment sponsored by Congressman Rob Bishop that will ensure there will be no federal infringement of Second Amendment rights on certain public lands.

The provision, which came in the form of the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 1483, a bill to expand and create certain National Heritage Areas, stipulates that all designated lands within these areas would be exclusively governed by state and local laws regarding hunting, fishing, and the possession or use of a weapon, trap, or net.

"What we're basically saying is that on these public lands, state and local firearm and hunting laws come first and will be enforced," Congressman Bishop said. "This amendment makes an important clarification that local and state ordinances will have primacy, and that the rights which so many have enjoyed on these lands for generations will not be threatened by federal action." The northern Utah lawmaker, who sits on the House Resources Committee, added, "This was a win for statesí rights and for individual rights."

The Bishop language was added to the underlying legislation, the Celebrating Americaís Heritage Act, by a vote of 344-71. H.R. 1483, as amended, now heads to the U.S. Senate for further action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
I have one problem with this bill myself ,It still lets the States and local Counties put up anti-gun road blocks and trust me the brady campaign will be on this like flies to a outhouse.So say if this does pass then New York pass a anti-gun bill that would make it illegal to carry in the National Parks you would end up having the same thing no guns allowed signs.

So if Congress wants to do this then they should pass a bill that bans the National Park Service from placing any regulations on the right to carry in the Parks.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
jason1 said:
Bulloch3317 said:
So now GA law affects Fed land... Great :-(
Yep thats it, Georgia would have the same laws on the books but they get to tell you what too do on Federal land. :cry:
And how would that not be an improvement over the current situation?
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,945 Posts
fallison said:
I agree with MP. We are much more likely to be able to influence state law than we are bureaucratic regulations from Washington.
I'll second, well third, that comment. GCO can do a better job of lobbying the GA house than the US house. The counties can't regulate carrying here, so it's just the stste house to deal with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
Adam5 said:
fallison said:
I agree with MP. We are much more likely to be able to influence state law than we are bureaucratic regulations from Washington.
I'll second, well third, that comment. GCO can do a better job of lobbying the GA house than the US house. The counties can't regulate carrying here, so it's just the stste house to deal with.
If I understand correctly, it is worse than lobbying the US House. Without the bill, we would have to convince the bureaucrats in the Forestry Department who answer to no one, not even voters.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
fallison said:
Adam5 said:
fallison said:
I agree with MP. We are much more likely to be able to influence state law than we are bureaucratic regulations from Washington.
I'll second, well third, that comment. GCO can do a better job of lobbying the GA house than the US house. The counties can't regulate carrying here, so it's just the stste house to deal with.
If I understand correctly, it is worse than lobbying the US House. Without the bill, we would have to convince the bureaucrats in the Forestry Department who answer to no one, not even voters.
Parks are in the Department of the Interior, specifically the National Park Service.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
fallison said:
Adam5 said:
fallison said:
I agree with MP. We are much more likely to be able to influence state law than we are bureaucratic regulations from Washington.
I'll second, well third, that comment. GCO can do a better job of lobbying the GA house than the US house. The counties can't regulate carrying here, so it's just the stste house to deal with.
If I understand correctly, it is worse than lobbying the US House. Without the bill, we would have to convince the bureaucrats in the Forestry Department Department of the Interior who answer to no one, not even voters.
The Forest service already has a rule in place that is very similar to the Bill for the parks
USDA Forest Service rules for carry in a National Forest are simply whatever the carry laws of the state the forest is in.
As for how the lobbying of the Department of the Interior goes, you are correct and that is why this bill was needed. They refused to change their regulation (which began by a petition started by VCDL). So the next step was to remove that decision from them.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Gunstar1 said:
As for how the lobbying of the Department of the Interior goes, you are correct and that is why this bill was needed. They refused to change their regulation (which began by a petition started by VCDL). So the next step was to remove that decision from them.
I think it more accurate to state that they refused even to consider the petition for rulemaking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
Adam5 said:
It may not be a large jump, but it atleast a minor step in the right direction.
unfortunately, i think that's how this war must be fought. just as our liberties have been slowly chipped away over time, we have to rebuild them bit by bit. i'd love for a radical like ron paul to get in and do some wide-sweeping, relatively fast changes, but who realistically thinks that will happen?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,809 Posts
phaed said:
Adam5 said:
It may not be a large jump, but it atleast a minor step in the right direction.
unfortunately, i think that's how this war must be fought. just as our liberties have been slowly chipped away over time, we have to rebuild them bit by bit. i'd love for a radical like ron paul to get in and do some wide-sweeping, relatively fast changes, but who realistically thinks that will happen?
Who realistically thought we could break away from England?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
ptsmith24 said:
phaed said:
Adam5 said:
It may not be a large jump, but it atleast a minor step in the right direction.
unfortunately, i think that's how this war must be fought. just as our liberties have been slowly chipped away over time, we have to rebuild them bit by bit. i'd love for a radical like ron paul to get in and do some wide-sweeping, relatively fast changes, but who realistically thinks that will happen?
Who realistically thought we could break away from England?
Even if a strong 2A candidate didn't win and just had a strong showing would be a real good thing IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,809 Posts
SigP229 said:
ptsmith24 said:
phaed said:
Adam5 said:
It may not be a large jump, but it atleast a minor step in the right direction.
unfortunately, i think that's how this war must be fought. just as our liberties have been slowly chipped away over time, we have to rebuild them bit by bit. i'd love for a radical like ron paul to get in and do some wide-sweeping, relatively fast changes, but who realistically thinks that will happen?
Who realistically thought we could break away from England?
Even if a strong 2A candidate didn't win and just had a strong showing would be a real good thing IMO.
Oh yea, definitely. At least we'd know some people have their priorities somewhat straight.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top