I get the wierd feeling that all of us gun lovers are being baited into thinking one thing and are going to get slammed with something not so good in the near future.

I have no doubt that this is in itself a good thing. I too bristle a bit that it had to be added to an unrelated reform bill as part of a deal to pass the bill in question, but I'll take it.
The only thing that could make it a hollow victory would be if it was done in the knowledge that guns will be so restricted overall that in the end it has no effect on parks specifically. I really don't think that's the case though, so minor celebration is in order. I will celebrate by getting a cup of coffee.

silsbyj,
you are not alone.

Nate

"Does anyone else feel a little slimy about this be tacked onto a credit card regulation bill?"

Business as usual in D.C. At least it's not a "signing statement" that exempts the exec branch from following the law, nor is it an "earmark," nor unconstitutional spending commitment (like the Treasury guaranteeing automobile warranties... who imagined that the US taxpayer would be on the hook for the maintenance of consumer goods and where does the Exec branch derive the authority for that sort of sliminess?)

I am glad that we can finally have the right to defend ourselves when visiting these beautiful places. I always felt as though I was entering a foreign country in the past when visiting these National Treasures... It is too bad they had to combine it with other legislation, much in the same way they have done in the past to try and strip us of our rights.... Maybe the tide in this country is starting to change for the better....the people can only be pushed so far before they push back.......

I'm with Ken on the Gun show issue. I could never get too excited about it. I've got to believe that there's a way to wire those for the same 15 minute instacheck process that I go through at my local shop.

I have two comments-

first->
Those 27 Democrats show that Democrats are afraid of reelection if they start voting anti-2nd amendment. This is a very good thing for the coming AWB fight. Remember, they only have a filibuster proof majority if the get EVERY Democrat to vote their way.

Second->
Does anyone else feel a little slimy about this be tacked onto a credit card regulation bill?

One the main things that is wrong with Washington is dirty little tricks like sticking a gun law amendment in the middle of a credit card bill (both sides do it all the time)

Granted, We're all happy about this assertion of the 2nd amendment. But, doesn't using a shady politician trick to get it passed sort of detract from the nobility of the cause?

(for the record, I'm not saying that it does, this is just eating at me and I thought I'd share and see what you guys think?)

...In the end, its a win for the good guys though!

@ken.mccloud
Well i don't really see what a credit card bill and guns have anything to do with each other, but to differ with you on your first point, I don't see why people see a(a bunch of) democrat(s) voting differently as a sign of trying to sway and trick voters. Maybe they vote because they actually feel that way. I will not say that I believe this theory, but I just wanted to throw it out there. In fact, there are many democrats on this website, and they are still very, very pro-gun.

Nate

I still would rather clean house in 2010 and 2012 for all the mentions of gun bans, ammunition shortages, proposed ammo laws and difficulties these guys have caused since November. I will personally start the process by voting against Artie (D - PA) in 2010 he can't count that one now.

A few breezes make a change in the wind diretion when they consistently blow the same way.

It's speculation of course but here's a few observations.

1) There have always been plenty of moderate democrats who were on the fence about firearms restrictions. In my view, the "Assault weapons ban" was somewhat of an anomaly.

2) There are probably, among the ranks of the Democrats, people (apart from Arlen Specter) who would in a previous age have considered themselves Republicans, before the Republican leadership dragged the party squarely into the realm of the radical fringe. Those moderates are Democrats now, but they're never going to sign on to an anti-gun agenda.

3) ANYONE in the political world can see how badly the Democrats lost in the Congressional elections that followed the "Assault weapons ban" some decades ago, and ANYONE can see from the firearms and ammunitions sales of the last year that there is a huge latent pro-firearm sentiment in the American public. No one wants to court a backlash.

4) The Democratic party leadership (who are fringist in their own right, or shall we say "left"), have other fish to fry right now.

I think it's great that the measure was passed. I don't trouble myself w/the "paranoia" that it's all trickery, or the rationalization that it's all done out of "reelection" fears. I'm a Democrat, and I'm a gun advocate. I think you can be both. Any measure, bill, or law that's supportive of gun ownership is fine w/me, and I don't care what they tack it onto.

There have been a lot of good thoughts thrown out. I myself find it interesting and clever that the amendment officially titled "Protecting Americans From Violent Crime" (Amendment 1067) made it into the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights- HR 627. If you have not read the amendment in its original text, I encourage you to. You can find it at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-627 and click on "amendments".
It looks okay- I support it over the current laws, though it is not very explicit in its language. At face value, I take it to imply that the feds have violated the 2nd amendment as per geographic designation. The amendment seeks to rectify that. With this, I agree. I would like to see the amendment be more specific as to the conditions/expectations of use and purpose of exercising the second amendment right while in a National Park.
I never head to the woods without packing, and as a law abiding citizen, I only use it for legal purposes. Some people do not respect the law, however. I fear that this could create a situation that plays into the hands of the libs- the first time somebody clears the gray matter out of a wolf in Yellowstone, the poo is gonna hit the fan. The antis pray for the opportunity, I expect, to turn this 180 and then some.
As a park manager and ranger myself, I see other issues involved. Though I am not with the feds, but work in a County system, I support the preservation of our National cultural resources to a great extent. The county parks I manage are regulated to prohibit all hunting, and firearms must stay in vehicles at all times. The area of Concealed Weapons Permits is somewhat foggy, but I support the rights of those who have CWP's. My take on it is: If you have a CWP, then keep your personal defense firearm concealed- and I will not bother you about it, because I will not know you have it in the first place- don't ask, don't tell essentially. And if you use that weapon in my park, you damn well have better been in danger of life or limb! If I caught someone in my park violating the firearm regulation, you can bet that the cork that keeps the whoop-ass in the can would definitely come unglued!
Law abiding citizens would not be affected by the policy, and should keep their rights. I do not really support the idea of the common jackass toting rifles, shotguns etc. out in the park system. If people make an honest effort to show digression and responsibility and maintain the purpose of self defense only, then I support this whole heartedly, otherwise I would prefer that they continue to be unarmed in my park.

"I've always been a supporter of the right of private sale, that is the so called gun show loophole. Why should I have to drive 40 miles, round trip, to sell my neighbors kid a shotgun that he admires..."

Unless you're driving your neighbor's kid and your shotgun 40 miles to a gun show so that you can sell it to him there rather than in your living room, I don't see how you would have a problem with the "gun show loophole."

Gun shows attract straw man and illegal buyers because they have a pretty wide selection and because strangers come together to sell and buy firearms. You probably wouldn't sell a neighbor's kid a shotgun if he had a local bad reputation, so there's a kind of social check on selling firearms to bad guys at the community level. Closing the gun show loophole will force illegal and straw man buyers underground and narrow their range of selection. IMO that's not necessarily a bad thing. Since you could still sell your neighbor's kid that shotgun, it should come out OK.

ken mcloud,
I was not aware of that, Jim Shepard is responsible for the shooting wire and if proven wrong I'm sure he will gladly take his medicine. If you would like I can post an address so you can read for yourself, unless you've already dug it up.

den, skip that address I'm going to have to copy the article if needed. But it was Newsday reporting, if they are any more believable?

Jim-

Just to be clear, I'm by no means advocating for Gillibrand, Nor am I trying to "prove" anything.

You see, here in NY we're pretty much stuck with democrats. So, the best we can ever hope for, politically speaking, is a democrat who honors the constitution and at least understands what the term "fiscal responsibility" means. I thought (think?) that Gillibrand fell into this category.

So, as you can imagine, I was heartbroken when I read your post and started looking into it immediately.

I went to shooting wire and saw that they cited Newsday as their source. I went to Newsday and discovered that it was a horribly biased anti-gun publication.

I then found the recent article that discussed the AWB and said that Gillibrand had "undergone a transformation". That very article said that McCarthy was introducing an AWB and that Gillibrand was expected to oppose it.

Once I realized that the shooting wire story didn't jive with its own cited source I reported my findings here, and fired Gillibrand an email just to be safe.

If I have read this bill correctly it indicates that only those that hold CWP will be able to have fire arms in a national park. Am I right? The reason I ask is that in a national forest anyone can carry a fire arm as long as it's in plan sight. I've had this discussion with rangers and local sheriffs and it seems to be the general consensus.I know that in some states it's easy to obtain a CWP but here in Arnolds state it's impossible. Sacramento has decided to ignore the 2nd amendment and is doing everything it can to disarm us.So if I am correct about this, it becomes a mute point for us in Arnoldville.

Walt, Thumbs up on that but, I wouldn't be so harsh. The poor girl's just confused, sorta like John Kerry who could not speak for himself because of all the whispering in his ear from the 'others'.

Here is a link to Gallop's site. http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Recent-Shootings-Gun-Control-Support-F... .

The phrase "Judas goat" comes to mind!

The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared.

that was kind of a stupid answer up there,,if i was a polition would i want to be reelected, i would say yes then all my medical bills would be paid and and id be set for life when i retire from there dont matter how old i m

BTW, is anyone going to the NRA convention this weekend?