"House May Decide Fate of Concealed Guns in U.S. Parks," reads the Washington Post headline.
The credit card bill heading to the House of Representatives includes a rider that could help settle whether concealed weapons will be permitted in national parks -- a question whose answer has shifted from no to yes to maybe in the last six months.
The Senate has already passed the bill, and it appears Barack Obama will sign it when it reaches his desk:
The White House is lukewarm at best on the gun provision, which was added to a popular measure imposing new rules on credit card companies. But the Democrats who now control both Congress and the White House appear ready to allow it to survive rather than derail a consumer-friendly credit card measure that Mr. Obama is eager to sign as Congress heads off for a Memorial Day recess.
Even arch enemies of gun rights are resigned to political reality:
“It is a shame,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California. “But you have to come to a realization around here that at this point in time, the N.R.A. gets the votes,” she said referring to the National Rifle Association.
“Either you are going to bring down the whole Senate and never do anything or you or going to swallow hard and say, ‘I will just vote my conscience on those amendments and speak out until people get a hold of their senses,’ ” Mrs. Boxer said.
So what's the dilemma? After all, we've seen the anti-gunners aren't shy about using any weapon in their legal arsenal to mandate "gun free zones"--including inventing a legal fiction via judicial activism that possessing the means of defense has "environmental impacts."
The dilemma for those who believe in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution is reconciling just where the enumerated delegated power for Congress and the President to dictate credit fees and terms is authorized.
But hold the phone...Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically empowers Congress:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes...
See--it says it right there: "Among the several states." So I must be wrong. Right?
Not if you consider what the Framers intended:
The right to regulate commerce means the right to impose tariffs on the importation of articles of trade for purposes of gaining reciprocal trade advantages with other nations. It was never viewed or interpreted as being a police power or a power to regulate the industries that produce exportable goods.
In reality, that horse left the barn a long time ago. Court cases, legislation the New Deal and subsequent assumption of total regulatory control over the marketplace, that is, economic fascism, have seen to that. A farmer can't even grow wheat to feed his own livestock without federal intervention. And gun owners have found it to be a two-edged sword, as evidenced by recent moves on the part of states to enact protective legislation for firearms not sold in interstate commerce (see "State firearm freedom movement growing" section at the end of this column).
So what's my bottom line? Am I grousing against the Coburn amendment to allow national park gun rules to conform with applicable state laws? Would I rather see no incremental gain in the name of ideological purity? And how do I square that against my self-proclaimed "Any chair in a bar fight" slogan?
Hey, I'm just pointing out that you don't get benefits without costs, that you dance with the devil at your peril, and that he is unexcelled at making you think you're the one leading. I'm just saying that--amidst all the cheering about what a victory this portends to be--for gun owners and for credit card customers--the central government will emerge with more power than it had before.
But we all knew this, right?
Related: Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner Daniel White says "Stop littering National Parks with dead bodies."
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Restaurant with anti-gun policy saved by a gun
- Austin: Violence Policy Center proves that more guns means less violent crime, murder
- Boston: Massachusetts: Gun Control in a State of failure
- Charlotte: Armed self-defense: Getting essential training
- Cleveland: Stop littering National Parks with dead bodies
- DC: Arming sailors on US flagged ships goes mainstream
- Denver: The new Prohibition
- Los Angeles: Gun rights on the air.
- Minneapolis: A great couple of days in the Midwest
- Seattle: Did record-setting NRA convention cement decline of anti-gun lobby?
- St. Louis: Due process: it's for veterans, too
- Wisconsin: DA decides not to charge armed biker
Comments
This reminds me of the old Bismark quote about laws and sausages.
Coburn is merely using a tactic the left has used many times.
I am as conflicted as you are about it. What good is it to win if we become what we despise in the process?
I thought you were a "Gun Rights Examiner".
national parks are not a thing i recall the constitution allowing.
it's either legitimately "owned" land by "us," which is not a real entity with an individual life and will and right to property (see: tragedy of the commons) and cannot truly own anything, or, it is contraband, in violation of the supreme law of the land, revealing the government for the thieves they are.
in either case, it's just national socialism for parks, and you have to accept a certain amount of doublethink in order to believe otherwise.
The Gentleman's War is over.
Do you have something to say that's not cryptic, "Melancton"?
Your point about the Constitution, and how the underlying bill utterly ignores it, is well taken, but that bill was going to pass anyway.
Besides, it's always fun to see the commies go into apoplexy:
www.pww.org/article/articleview/15697/
I think I understand Melancton's comment, because I was going to make a similar comment myself.
When I read this piece in my daily feed, I assumed it was written by one of the "Civil Liberties Examiners" I subscribe to. It's not often that a "gun rights writer" makes an argument that "we gained incremental ground in gun rights today, but at the cost of an overall loss of our other freedoms." However, it was the right observation to make, and I applaud you for making it. If it were up to me, "gun rights" writers would be making the same argument against the "guns in parking lots" laws being passed, that further destroy private property rights. And, for the record, I too wonder if the gun amendment was "allowed to pass" in order to blunt conservative activism against this socialist travesty of a bill, rather than having been inserted to "stick it to the man."
Henry Bowman, I held the private property discussion on WarOnGuns and received a lot of heat for it. The truth is, as the cliche says, it's not about guns, it's about freedom. None of this happens in a vacuum.
And you'll find one of the lies the antis constantly condemn us with is gun rights people are only concerned about the 2nd Amendment and the hell with the rest. Not me. I'll speak out against McCain/Feingold 1st Amendment restrictions, against 4th Amendment violations, against denial of due process, against the War in (some) Drugs that fuels the corruption and demand for gun control and a police/surveillance state, and against any other assault on Liberty--and I'll find a tie-in to the gun rights issue.
The commerce clause discussion is totally relevant, because the gun amendment is tacked onto a credit bill, and also, because it illustrates further usurpation of powers--which is the core problem that confronts us on the gun issue. That some perceive a net gain does not make the cost of that gain go away, and people ought to be aware of what that is--after all, we're the ones paying the cost.
If anyone is looking for only one dimension, they're on the wrong page.
It appears to be a done deal. However the provision got there, it seems that PBHO is going to sign it into law.
Let's see. Unless I have been misinformed, this bill supposedly restores 2nd Amendment rights only to SOME Americans. Only those that have concealed carry permits that are recognized in the State the NP is in and as long as it is also allowed by that state's laws.
What about all the Americans that are suppose to have those 2nd Amendment rights too. How's the 14th Amendment "guarantee" of "equal treatment under the law" come into play?
Don't ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS have constitutional rights? I couldn't find in the Constitution where it says "the right of the people, except those convicted of ... or ...., to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
While I understand the "reasonable" argument re. felons and those convicted of crimes which could result in a year or more of incarceration being disallowed certain rights. I couldn't find it in the Supreme Law of the Land. Couldn't even find the word "reasonable" in the 2nd Amendment anywhere!
However, felons and others disallowed "by law" from KABAs aside, what about all the americans that have NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING?
Why are their rights being denied UNLESS they apply and pay for a CCW Permit? We have to pay fees and obtain permits to exercise "guaranteed, fundamental, God-given rights" these days!?
It's all BS perpetrated by corrupt legistraitors and judges across the country!
By the way, while we're on the subject, the so-called "Incorporation doctrine" is BS too! But I'll leave that for another day/post.
If nothing else this bill confirms and expands our RKBA. Something we shall need in the times to come.
III
Henry Bowman..You are correct that the "Guns in Cars" law is about private property, however, you are looking at it in the wrong light. It is about me being able to keep a gun in MY private property, which does not violate the employer's private property rights at all.
Let's not derail the topic. If I do a guns in cars on private property post, we can discuss that then. Please keep comments focused on the column.
i am heating up the tar and gathering the feathers because the tyrants are coming.
Seems to me your beating a dead horse. Not that it shouldn't be beat. But you're making it sound like this one amendment is somehow lending power to that ability. When in fact, it's been done for decades. Second, it would have been done regardless. 3rd the pro-gun amendment is not in violation.
So I'll take a restoration of part of our 2nd Amendment along side more violation and expansion of Article I, Section 8. Over the alternative...more violation and expansion of Article I, Section 8.
Weird...my post got truncated. But at least it got truncated at a decent point.
The concealed carry rider and the credit card bill were separated and debated separately in the House. Each passed on it own and the two parts will be merged again to avoid a conference with the Senate. However, the increase in state power is a loss for freedom and the RKBA gains are piddly at best.
This bill is an example of how bad the underlying legal system has become. The Federal Government "owns" around 80% of land in the Western States. A fiat person often has more "rights" than a r
Mine was truncated too. If there is a limit on the size of a post it would be polite to let us know what it is.
Funny I seem to remember george the first clamoring for a 'line item veto' or maybe my brain is fogged by the war.
The only 'fix' for this mess if there is one is lots of expensive suits hanging along Pennsylvania Ave. Until enough see that we will stay on the dance floor with you know who.
Don't understand? Go to willowtowndotcom and read my quotes page.
Why doesn't this absurd site allow URLs to be posted in comments?????
No idea the site truncated columns--not something I control--I see some are longer than where you got cut off so suspect there was a system glitch--will ask.
And no, they do not allow live urls, I guess to preclude spammers.
Digg has gone screwy too. My login cookies are rejected and, even if I allow all the %^$*#&% cross-site scripts (Digg has scripts from at least ten different domains) I can't get logged in. I can't even send an email to support.
I'm sure it's a conspiracy :^)
It's now the law, but it also appears to be one of the provisions that's 9 months delayed.
tinyurl.com/o3cj3r
HR 627, Title V, Sec. 512
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!