Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Anti-gun Land Bill On The Move

-- House Vote Expected This Week

 

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151

Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

http://www.gunowners.org

 

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

 

 

Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the

Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of

public and private land.

 

Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will

greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park

Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.

 

While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to

reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a

concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are

not explicitly addressed.

 

Another eyebrow-raising aspect of this bill is that it is actually a

compilation of over 150 separate pieces of legislation that never passed

out of Congress on their own merits.

 

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills,

until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills

into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in

January on a vote of 73-21.

 

As the House prepares to take up the bill, the Democrat leadership has

taken procedural steps to ensure that the measure cannot be amended or

altered in any way. That means that if it passes the House, it goes

right to President Obama's desk, where it will be signed into law.

 

Here are a few of the more troubling aspects of the bill:

 

* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to

national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS,

and thus be subject to the gun ban.

 

* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail

that stretches from Rhode Island to Virginia and includes sections of

major thoroughfares such as Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1, and passes

through cities like Boston and Philadelphia. The entire trail would fall

under the NPS and the gun ban.

 

* The National Landscape Conservation System groups together millions of

acres of federal land and places it under one new umbrella agency. The

NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run

administratively since then. S. 22 will codify the system, which raises

concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated

from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting

and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated

by the new agency and if gun owners' rights will be protected.

 

* S. 22 strips out small concessions won by pro-gunners in the House

last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms

possession and hunting on certain land.

 

* S.22 allows for NO amendments. Pro-gun members who want to offer an

amendment to fully repeal the NPS gun ban are prevented from doing so by

the anti-gun leadership.

 

The full House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill this

Wednesday or Thursday.

 

Unless the NPS gun ban is repealed and the rights of gun owners are

protected, Gun Owners of America opposes the bill in its entirety.

 

 

ACTION: Please urge your Representative to repeal the NPS gun ban in S.

22, or to vote against the entire bill. You can go to the Gun Owners

Legislative Action Center at http://capwiz.com/gunowners/home/ to send

your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below.

 

----- Prewritten Letter -----

 

Dear Representative:

 

I urge you to oppose S. 22, a bill that will greatly expand the amount

of land controlled by the National Park Service (NPS).

 

NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban. While President Bush took

steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new

regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a

permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.

Which is why S. 22 raises so many concerns:

 

* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to

national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS,

and thus be subject to the gun ban.

 

* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile

trail, and places it under the NPS gun ban.

 

* S. 22 will codify the National Landscape Conservation System, which

raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is

consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always

allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules

will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners' rights will be

protected.

 

* S. 22 also strips out small concessions which were won in the House

last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms

possession and hunting on certain land. But the anti-gun House

leadership is preventing any amendments to fully repeal the NPS gun ban.

 

If these concerns are not corrected in S. 22, I would strongly urge you

to vote against it.

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you have it for all you folks waiting to see what the Obama gang is up to, simple making it illegal for us to own gun. This is just the first step and each one will be just as sneaky. So y'all had better start acting and stop sitting around just complianing, get onboard with the Million Gun Owner March!

Edited by bountyhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

back home some years ago, I worked as a painter, then later as a finish carpenter, on a large development that a rich farmer built on their land. you can buy the 500k house, or 100k condo, but you didnt own the land rights to it. the deed restriction ALSO said NO FIREARMS on said property.

 

there were rashes of robberies there, even with good security. go figure. I learned something about liberal america there, actually, back when.....I met a total anti-gunning democrat homebuyer on a day when I was doing touchups, I think, (may have been a closet that i forgot to do, been so long, dont remember exactly which) and they actually ASKED me if i knew about the rule on guns there.....they didnt buy, citing "what else cant I do". I got in some trouble for that, but the house sold the next week, so it wasnt much. :) true story.

 

dont want to get robbed and murdered out in the federal parks? well, why NOT buy up all the land, and search every piece of shit that tries to go in there. You and I dont need to deal with that out in the middle of the forest or mountains, I can tell you that much, and if I am going to go be outside, I dont want to have to carry for "human" while Im at it. DO YOU? I highly doubt theyd stop you from carrying in a bear or snake gun........

 

 

lately, ya'll have gotten this tone, that well, I dont relate to. No ill intended twords ya'll, but come on now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
back home some years ago, I worked as a painter, then later as a finish carpenter, on a large development that a rich farmer built on their land. you can buy the 500k house, or 100k condo, but you didnt own the land rights to it. the deed restriction ALSO said NO FIREARMS on said property.

 

there were rashes of robberies there, even with good security. go figure. I learned something about liberal america there, actually, back when.....I met a total anti-gunning democrat homebuyer on a day when I was doing touchups, I think, (may have been a closet that i forgot to do, been so long, dont remember exactly which) and they actually ASKED me if i knew about the rule on guns there.....they didnt buy, citing "what else cant I do". I got in some trouble for that, but the house sold the next week, so it wasnt much. :) true story.

 

dont want to get robbed and murdered out in the federal parks? well, why NOT buy up all the land, and search every piece of shit that tries to go in there. You and I dont need to deal with that out in the middle of the forest or mountains, I can tell you that much, and if I am going to go be outside, I dont want to have to carry for "human" while Im at it. DO YOU? I highly doubt theyd stop you from carrying in a bear or snake gun........

 

 

lately, ya'll have gotten this tone, that well, I dont relate to. No ill intended twords ya'll, but come on now.

 

The problem with your logic is they don't have the man power to search everyone. I know that and you know that as well. So if this is law then honest law abiding folks won't be armed. Perfect place for the crooks to rob people don't you think, they don't worry about the laws anyhow so they will be packing. I'm a lot more worried about a human than I am about a bear or snake......by the way....no firearms means no firearms so no bear and snake gun either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
back home some years ago, I worked as a painter, then later as a finish carpenter, on a large development that a rich farmer built on their land. you can buy the 500k house, or 100k condo, but you didnt own the land rights to it. the deed restriction ALSO said NO FIREARMS on said property.

 

there were rashes of robberies there, even with good security. go figure. I learned something about liberal america there, actually, back when.....I met a total anti-gunning democrat homebuyer on a day when I was doing touchups, I think, (may have been a closet that i forgot to do, been so long, dont remember exactly which) and they actually ASKED me if i knew about the rule on guns there.....they didnt buy, citing "what else cant I do". I got in some trouble for that, but the house sold the next week, so it wasnt much. :) true story.

 

dont want to get robbed and murdered out in the federal parks? well, why NOT buy up all the land, and search every piece of shit that tries to go in there. You and I dont need to deal with that out in the middle of the forest or mountains, I can tell you that much, and if I am going to go be outside, I dont want to have to carry for "human" while Im at it. DO YOU? I highly doubt theyd stop you from carrying in a bear or snake gun........

 

 

lately, ya'll have gotten this tone, that well, I dont relate to. No ill intended twords ya'll, but come on now.

 

 

I can't believe someone who works for/with a gunsmith/ffl whatever, would say such illogical nonsense!

 

Simply purchasing land and saying "no firearms on this land" will do nothing to stop you from being robbed or murdered while on that land. I can't believe I've got to start preaching to the choir here. Don't you know what happens in "gun free" zones? We like to call them "victim disarmament zones" or "Victim Rich zones" or some other such moniker. You seem to think that banning guns somehow protects you? Is this the official opinion of CGW?

 

Just curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anti-gun Land Bill On The Move

-- House Vote Expected This Week

 

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151

Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

http://www.gunowners.org

 

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

 

 

Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the

Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of

public and private land.

 

Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will

greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park

Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.

 

While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to

reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a

concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are

not explicitly addressed.

 

Another eyebrow-raising aspect of this bill is that it is actually a

compilation of over 150 separate pieces of legislation that never passed

out of Congress on their own merits.

 

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills,

until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills

into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in

January on a vote of 73-21.

 

As the House prepares to take up the bill, the Democrat leadership has

taken procedural steps to ensure that the measure cannot be amended or

altered in any way. That means that if it passes the House, it goes

right to President Obama's desk, where it will be signed into law.

 

Here are a few of the more troubling aspects of the bill:

 

* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to

national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS,

and thus be subject to the gun ban.

 

* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail

that stretches from Rhode Island to Virginia and includes sections of

major thoroughfares such as Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1, and passes

through cities like Boston and Philadelphia. The entire trail would fall

under the NPS and the gun ban.

 

* The National Landscape Conservation System groups together millions of

acres of federal land and places it under one new umbrella agency. The

NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run

administratively since then. S. 22 will codify the system, which raises

concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated

from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting

and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated

by the new agency and if gun owners' rights will be protected.

 

* S. 22 strips out small concessions won by pro-gunners in the House

last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms

possession and hunting on certain land.

 

* S.22 allows for NO amendments. Pro-gun members who want to offer an

amendment to fully repeal the NPS gun ban are prevented from doing so by

the anti-gun leadership.

 

The full House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill this

Wednesday or Thursday.

 

Unless the NPS gun ban is repealed and the rights of gun owners are

protected, Gun Owners of America opposes the bill in its entirety.

 

 

ACTION: Please urge your Representative to repeal the NPS gun ban in S.

22, or to vote against the entire bill. You can go to the Gun Owners

Legislative Action Center at http://capwiz.com/gunowners/home/ to send

your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below.

 

----- Prewritten Letter -----

 

Dear Representative:

 

I urge you to oppose S. 22, a bill that will greatly expand the amount

of land controlled by the National Park Service (NPS).

 

NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban. While President Bush took

steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new

regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a

permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.

Which is why S. 22 raises so many concerns:

 

* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to

national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS,

and thus be subject to the gun ban.

 

* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile

trail, and places it under the NPS gun ban.

 

* S. 22 will codify the National Landscape Conservation System, which

raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is

consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always

allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules

will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners' rights will be

protected.

 

* S. 22 also strips out small concessions which were won in the House

last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms

possession and hunting on certain land. But the anti-gun House

leadership is preventing any amendments to fully repeal the NPS gun ban.

 

If these concerns are not corrected in S. 22, I would strongly urge you

to vote against it.

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

It seems like that only the Anti's come up with the idea of making changes perm. Why is that? Why didn't W make the end of the ban permament!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...