TexasCHLforum.com

I assume most know that it is a very long drive to Big Bend.

I assume we cannot go to LaJitas and take the row boat over to Mexico to eat real home cooked mexican food anymore. I heard homeland security squashed that.

The boat ride was free going over but a buck a head coming back.

Anygunanywhere

I love the picnic idea!

Also, I found this in the Q&A section.

Q: Won’t visitors and wildlife be endangered by allowing concealed firearms in parks and refuges?

A: No. The final rule continues to maintain existing regulatory provisions that prohibit poaching, unauthorized target shooting, and other illegal use of firearms. Additionally, individuals authorized to carry firearms in a park or refuge will continue to be subject to all other applicable state and federal laws. We have no reason to believe that law-abiding citizens who carry concealed firearms will disregard these prohibitions and use their firearms for illegal purposes. Moreover, the final rule does not affect existing rules limiting the possession of loaded rifles or shotguns.

FlynJay wrote:Also, I found this in the Q&A section.

Moreover, the final rule does not affect existing rules limiting the possession of loaded rifles or shotguns.

Ah, but it does affect such rules.

The final rule repeatedly says "concealed and loaded firearms". It says nothing about handguns, rifles, or shotguns.

Now, Texas is unusual, because most states ban loaded long guns in vehicles as part of their hunting laws. But in any state that doesn't, according to the final published rule as I read it, long guns are covered just the same as handguns, so long as they're concealed.

This is amazing, i am so happy!

A few years ago, before i got my CHL, i camped out at Big Bend at one of the "primitive" camping spots (Fresno). It took hours just to get there in our 4x4's but we had a beautiful campsite a few hundred yards from the old cinnabar mine there.



Anyway, i remember feeling so desolate there, and wishing i had a gun.


Also, i would hate not being able to carry the many times i have gone down to Big Shell for some surf fishing.

So glad i can carry now.

This new regulation governing handgun carry in national parks was obviously not written by attorneys. This is the legal drivel of bureaucrats.

Why would the Interior Department hold "federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects state prerogatives and authority", while in the same breath and elsewhere Interior limits possession of guns in national parks to concealed handguns?

In it's attempt to "revise existing federal regulations to more closely conform out regulations to appropriate state law", Interior has apparently decided openly carried handguns are a bad thing and concealed handguns are a good thing, completely ignoring the fact that forty-four states permit open carry of handguns as a matter of their "state prerogatives and authority."

Here's my favorite part: Despite federal precedent, including SCOTUS, that "citizens have a right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures from government officials within tents and other temporary structures on public lands...we are not aware of any case that have extended this reasoning to the Second Amendment...right...to keep and bear arms in a tent or trailer located on ferderal public lands..the Department will continue to assume ...Heller applies to a person's residential dwelling and not to a temporary dwelling on public land."

nitrogen wrote:I cant wait to hear the BLOOD IN THE STREETS! err... NATURE TRAILS from the Bradys.

.and you shall receive: FROM THE MOUTH OF MADNESS HIMSELF

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/rele ... lease=1088" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




I LOVE this...

Under the new Bush Administration rule, park and refuge visitors may be armed with loaded, hidden handguns and other firearms, endangering park users and threatening our natural resource crown jewels.

Rok

Wow, they're completely fabricating everything they say now, aren't they?

In comments filed earlier this year opposing this rule change, the Brady Campaign cited numerous studies confirming that concealed carrying of firearms does not reduce crime and, if anything, leads to increased violent crime.

NcongruNt wrote:Wow, they're completely fabricating everything they say now, aren't they?

In comments filed earlier this year opposing this rule change, the Brady Campaign cited numerous studies confirming that concealed carrying of firearms does not reduce crime and, if anything, leads to increased violent crime.

Indeed they are.

Leading researchers have also rejected studies claiming that concealed carrying of firearms decreases crime, determining that these studies are fundamentally flawed and not credible.

They say "Leading Researchers" and mention studies but provide no citations for these studies? Whatever.

Very excellent news! Thanks to all involved. I even submitted my input on their website, so almost feel like I had a tiny part of this as I'm sure many others here did. Could it be democracy in action???

Don't know the specific state laws, so may make no difference, but a friend of mine has been hiking the Appalachian trail, a piece at a time. When I found the number of people out there, not to mention wildlife, and the illegality of carrying a weapon, I thought, "no way" for me. Any nutcase out there could hold you up for your money and stuff, and what are you gonna do? Same of course for Big Bend etc., except for possibly the likelihood of running into other people (i.e. population density of the park/trail?) I think, but talk about leaving yourself exposed!

Great news, and before we concede that the next administration will overturn this on day 1, let's celebrate a little and get ready for the fight. The next administration is representing the same Americans that the current administration represents. Note, I said "represents" not "is supported by."

KBCraig wrote:http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf

This does not change 18 USC 930 and the prohibition on carrying in "federal facilities", which is defined in that section as a "building or portion of a building where federal employees regularly perform work".

Interesting, so as it is defined, it seems to me that NASA (JSC) it should be acceptable to carry into the gate, park, lock everything up (leave it in the vehicle) and git to werk...














That long pause was due to my inability to hold my breath for how long it would take for this to come about...

Knowing that NASA is not a National Park (per say)...But knowing that public access is available thru a private entertainment organization that charges (way too much in my opinion) a fee for a tour on and in NASA facilities on site...

Just thinking outside the box again...

anygunanywhere wrote:I assume most know that it is a very long drive to Big Bend.

I assume we cannot go to LaJitas and take the row boat over to Mexico to eat real home cooked mexican food anymore. I heard homeland security squashed that.

The boat ride was free going over but a buck a head coming back.

Anygunanywhere

Bandito!!! Aye Carramba!!!

I'm pleased with this outcome, but it is tempered by the knowledge that we are in a transition period in our government, and that the appointment of a new Interior Secretary can, and just might change this after January 20th...

Just shootin' from the hip...






"Stevie-D"



TexasCHLForum

"Mod Squad"

stevie_d_64 wrote:

KBCraig wrote:http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf

This does not change 18 USC 930 and the prohibition on carrying in "federal facilities", which is defined in that section as a "building or portion of a building where federal employees regularly perform work".

Interesting, so as it is defined, it seems to me that NASA (JSC) it should be acceptable to carry into the gate, park, lock everything up (leave it in the vehicle) and git to werk...


That long pause was due to my inability to hold my breath for how long it would take for this to come about...

Knowing that NASA is not a National Park (per say)...But knowing that public access is available thru a private entertainment organization that charges (way too much in my opinion) a fee for a tour on and in NASA facilities on site...

Just thinking outside the box again...

It would be nice...I'd like to carry in my car 7 days a week. But, once inside the gates you're now in the "Federal Facility". However, I've always thought they should have a CHL check-in process at B110 for those of us who office off-site and only go onsite for the occasional meeting. I'm not going to hold my breath...especially after that contractor shot and killed his NASA technical monitor last year.

In comments filed earlier this year opposing this rule change, the Brady Campaign cited numerous studies confirming that concealed carrying of firearms does not reduce crime and, if anything, leads to increased violent crime. Leading researchers have also rejected studies claiming that concealed carrying of firearms decreases crime, determining that these studies are fundamentally flawed and not credible.

Hmm, so i wonder which "studies" we should believe, the ones which show a decrease in crime in states WITH concealed handgun laws, or against?

Answer:

4 John J. Donohue, The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis, 2 CRIMINOLOGY & PUB. POL’Y 397, 399 (July 2003).

Please listen to this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdMb4DaPiA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bridge wrote:It would be nice...I'd like to carry in my car 7 days a week. But, once inside the gates you're now in the "Federal Facility". However, I've always thought they should have a CHL check-in process at B110 for those of us who office off-site and only go onsite for the occasional meeting. I'm not going to hold my breath...especially after that contractor shot and killed his NASA technical monitor last year.

Interesting...Do you work for "BAH"???

My sister just moved her office off-site, and my mother still works on the 5th floor of 4S...