Stimulus bill anti gun provisions?

lawdog · February 18, 2009, 21:35

Although the version ultimately signed is not available for viewing, the version being circulated last week had a provision to declare Interstate highways from DC to Boston and in other areas to be part of the national park system.

The hidden effect could be that state concealed carry permits would be no protection for having a firearm in your vehicle as you drove on a "national park" highway.

Some of the affected highways that were to become part of the parks system include I-95, I- 78, I-81, I-80 and many others, including some in California and other states.

Anyone else notice this shenanigans?

Bama Steve · February 19, 2009, 00:04

I'm not so sure - the O admin just upheld the state park carry permit thingy.

As long as you are in your state and carrying in those parks you should be fine I would think - your vehicle is an extension of your home.

Besides, who you gonna tell? (Just don't get stopped in an interstate vehicle check point - never seen one personally).

Somebody please bash me if I am incorrect here.

lawdog · February 19, 2009, 07:21

State parks and National parks are different things. Did your reference mean state or national? My CCP is good to go in my state's park, but I had not heard that my state issued CCP gave me any ability to carry in a national park.

The implication is that if you are stopped for any traffic violation on the affected interstates and the cop/trooper/officer asks "for his safety" if you have any weapons or firearms on you or in your vehicle, you will commit a crime of giving false information if you have one and say no. If you admit having a legally concealed weapon, you could still be committing a crime if this parks thing is true.

Bama Steve · February 19, 2009, 09:52

Sounds ex post facto to me.
Could you do that last year without being a criminal?

daschnoz · February 19, 2009, 11:21

Lets see....

Defenseless dead victim
or
alive defendant

I'll take my chances with the 12, thank you very much.

Besides - many people don't know this, but when you are on trial, the law you are accused of breaking is also on trial. If the jury finds that the law is unjust, charges are dropped and the law is changed.

lawdog · February 19, 2009, 12:50

Ex post facto? What?! How so? Ex post facto legislation is legislation aimed at having retroactive application on past acts. A new bill like this would be for future or current acts. So, what is it that you are talking about?

Yes, you would not have been a criminal last year because you would still have been able to legally carry using a state CCP while driving on an Interstate (which at the time had not been declared a National Park). Thus if asked if you were carrying, you could truthfully respond "yes" and there was no crime committed as it relates to the possession/carrying of a firearm.

In/on a national park as now dictated, you have a whole new can of worms if asked the same question.

renaissance_warrior · February 19, 2009, 15:48

A stupid little con game by someone.

I would invoke the ownership defense. If the park service is now paying for all of the upkeep, employees and equipment, then it is indeed owned by the park service. If every truck you see from now on, has a neat little pine tree on it, you are screwed. If however, state and fed funds still come from transportation, etc, etc, cry foul and innocence. Just because I changed my name to Sue doesnt mean I wear a dress and am now a female.

If it walks like a duck....

**L Haney** · February 19, 2009, 16:35

Quote:

Originally posted by daschnoz
Lets see....

Defenseless dead victim
or
alive defendant

I'll take my chances with the 12, thank you very much.

Besides - many people don't know this, but when you are on trial, the law you are accused of breaking is also on trial. If the jury finds that the law is unjust, charges are dropped and the law is changed.

Not quite. If the jury is fully informed of their power, and they are NEVER so informed by the state, they MAY exercise "jury nullification". Lawyers and other legal types howl that this is not so, and is just plain wrong. Screw 'em. Is so. Juries are not required to say why a defendant was found innocent. This does not get charges dropped, as that would be pointless when a defendant is found innocent of charges. It also has NO bearing on changing an unjust law. That must be approached from a different angle. One that is much harder if it strips the government of an assumed power.

Lowell

REMBASS · February 19, 2009, 17:43

$10 million in the bill alloted to the BATFE. The money will likely be used for "other purposes" after it gets into BATFE hands.

Harassment of FFLs and their customers revved up again?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_...icleid=1152108

"WASHINGTON — The stimulus bill Congress approved late Friday provides $10 million for the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau to stop guns flowing from the U.S. to Mexico.

The $787 billion stimulus bill Democrats pushed through also provides money to build and renovate border ports of entry and for technology at the Southwest border. But it does not require contractors who receive stimulus money to participate in a program designed to make sure U.S. employees are working legally.

The money allotted to the ATF is designated for salaries and expenses of Project Gunrunner, which targets gun trafficking networks in the U.S. An estimated 90 percent of weapons seized in Mexico are from sources within the U.S., according to the ATF. Many of the weapons are found in drug-related crimes."

Bama Steve · February 19, 2009, 21:27

Quote:

Originally posted by lawdog
Ex post facto? What?! How so? Ex post facto legislation is legislation aimed at having retroactive application on past acts. A new bill like this would be for future or current acts. So, what is it that you are talking about?

Yes, you would not have been a criminal last year because you would still have been able to legally carry using a state CCP while driving on an Interstate (which at the time had not been declared a National Park). Thus if asked if you were carrying, you could truthfully respond "yes" and there was no crime committed as it relates to the possession/carrying of a firearm.

In/on a national park as now dictated, you have a whole new can of worms if asked the same question.

Admittedly, I would make a poor attorney. (Reverse logic prevailed last night - sue me, Sue).

Now, In light of this 'law' you refer too concerning the interstate highway becoming a part of a national park and possibly rendering your in-your-state-carry-permit-invalid scenario:

This is an absurd conclusion bordering on paranoia - unless you are a left wing liberal judge/attorney/politician.

The State laws in which you are traveling trump the federal as long as the State has a backbone or are NOT in-bed with any FED entity bringing charges on this basis.

What, did the fed just move the DC limits to your strip of interstate in your home state or something?

Fight 'em if this is what they mean to do otherwise you are just going to be fighting with your state neighbors (state police) because of the fed overstepping its constitutional powers.

THIS IS WHAT THE *F U C K 's* want - to divide us as a nation - GET MAD AS HELL and FIGHT THEM in THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE.

Best wishes, and I won't tell if you don't . . .

Bama -

lawdog · February 19, 2009, 21:36

Steve: no offense, but you're right. You aren't the best lawyer. Ever heard of the Supremacy Clause? You have it backwards. Generally Federal law trumps State law, not the other way around. Only when a state chooses to forego the tit of Federal money do they thumb their nose at the Fed. Very rare and not likely.

Pistolwiz · February 19, 2009, 21:58

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What else need be said.

Bama Steve · February 19, 2009, 22:15

I'm thinking of the 10th as well.

No offense taken and none offered - we are on the same side of the retarded family tree.

I say worry not and carry-on . . .

Pistolwiz · February 19, 2009, 22:26

"Retained" is a key word in the 9th. Most times we all have to fight to retain something that is ours. It's all about what price any or us will pay for retaining justice and/or liberty. Whether it be in greenbacks or our own blood. Getting it back once it's lost would cost the most high price for not just buying it out when it was cheaper to do.

Bama Steve · February 19, 2009, 23:24

Which is partially why we need to take back congress in 2010.

We also need to write our state reps and express our desire for them to push forth resolutions stating our state sovereignty - Oklahoma passed theirs today.

http://iwilldefendtheconstitution.com/node/783

Beckman · February 20, 2009, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by lawdog
[...]
a provision to declare Interstate highways from DC to Boston
[...]
including some in California and other states
[...]

Even if true, it's not much of a loss, if any. A simple look at a map shows that a trip on I-95 from Bahh-ston to DC will take you through some of the most violently anti-gun states in the union: Mass, RI, Conn, NY, NJ, Maryland, and the non-CCW DC. NONE of those states/district has reciprocity with ANY state! You MAY get reciprocity for a few minutes, when you drive through Delaware, and if you choose to drive the few miles through Penn.

IMNVFHO, consider yourself lucky if a police officer obeys FOPA with respect to an unloaded out-of-state handgun, even if it is locked in your trunk. Reports are that FOPA is commonly ignored in places like NY, NJ, and Mass.

California also has no CCW reciprocity.

cotter · February 20, 2009, 20:56

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...id=f:h1enr.pdf
or http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...public_review/ and then hit the link on the page. I saw the ATF $$$$$$$$$$$$ but have not gotten around to the whole thing. A TON of money wasted though.
Chad

February 18, 2009, 21:35	#1
lawdog Registered FALaholic #: 7773 Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,093	Stimulus bill anti gun provisions? Although the version ultimately signed is not available for viewing, the version being circulated last week had a provision to declare Interstate highways from DC to Boston and in other areas to be part of the national park system. The hidden effect could be that state concealed carry permits would be no protection for having a firearm in your vehicle as you drove on a "national park" highway. Some of the affected highways that were to become part of the parks system include I-95, I- 78, I-81, I-80 and many others, including some in California and other states. Anyone else notice this shenanigans?

February 19, 2009, 00:04	#2
Bama Steve Registered FALaholic #: 1982 Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Where I am Posts: 3,594	I'm not so sure - the O admin just upheld the state park carry permit thingy. As long as you are in your state and carrying in those parks you should be fine I would think - your vehicle is an extension of your home. Besides, who you gonna tell? (Just don't get stopped in an interstate vehicle check point - never seen one personally). Somebody please bash me if I am incorrect here. __________________ Being dyslexic has a bright side - it's easy to put things back together

February 19, 2009, 09:52	#4
Bama Steve Registered FALaholic #: 1982 Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Where I am Posts: 3,594	Sounds ex post facto to me. Could you do that last year without being a criminal? __________________ Being dyslexic has a bright side - it's easy to put things back together

February 19, 2009, 11:21	#5
daschnoz Registered FALaholic #: 20534 Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 780	Lets see.... Defenseless dead victim or alive defendant I'll take my chances with the 12, thank you very much. Besides - many people don't know this, but when you are on trial, the law you are accused of breaking is also on trial. If the jury finds that the law is unjust, charges are dropped and the law is changed. __________________ 7.62NATO - because shooting something twice with 5.56NATO is just plain silly. -------------------------------------------------

February 19, 2009, 15:48	#7
renaissance_warrior Registered FALaholic #: 13689 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 8,558	A stupid little con game by someone. I would invoke the ownership defense. If the park service is now paying for all of the upkeep, employees and equipment, then it is indeed owned by the park service. If every truck you see from now on, has a neat little pine tree on it, you are screwed. If however, state and fed funds still come from transportation, etc, etc, cry foul and innocence. Just because I changed my name to Sue doesnt mean I wear a dress and am now a female. If it walks like a duck.... __________________ "In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." - Mark Twain “The government turns every contingency into an excuse for enhancing power in itself.” - John Adams "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome becomes bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." ~ Cicero , 55 BC ~

February 19, 2009, 07:21	#3
lawdog Registered FALaholic #: 7773 Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,093	State parks and National parks are different things. Did your reference mean state or national? My CCP is good to go in my state's park, but I had not heard that my state issued CCP gave me any ability to carry in a national park. The implication is that if you are stopped for any traffic violation on the affected interstates and the cop/trooper/officer asks "for his safety" if you have any weapons or firearms on you or in your vehicle, you will commit a crime of giving false information if you have one and say no. If you admit having a legally concealed weapon, you could still be committing a crime if this parks thing is true.

February 19, 2009, 12:50	#6
lawdog Registered FALaholic #: 7773 Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,093	Ex post facto? What?! How so? Ex post facto legislation is legislation aimed at having retroactive application on past acts. A new bill like this would be for future or current acts. So, what is it that you are talking about? Yes, you would not have been a criminal last year because you would still have been able to legally carry using a state CCP while driving on an Interstate (which at the time had not been declared a National Park). Thus if asked if you were carrying, you could truthfully respond "yes" and there was no crime committed as it relates to the possession/carrying of a firearm. In/on a national park as now dictated, you have a whole new can of worms if asked the same question.

February 19, 2009, 17:43	#9
REMBASS Registered FALaholic #: 3037 Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: USA - way out west Posts: 54	$10 million in the bill alloted to the BATFE. The money will likely be used for "other purposes" after it gets into BATFE hands. Harassment of FFLs and their customers revved up again? http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_...icleid=1152108 "WASHINGTON — The stimulus bill Congress approved late Friday provides $10 million for the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau to stop guns flowing from the U.S. to Mexico. The $787 billion stimulus bill Democrats pushed through also provides money to build and renovate border ports of entry and for technology at the Southwest border. But it does not require contractors who receive stimulus money to participate in a program designed to make sure U.S. employees are working legally. The money allotted to the ATF is designated for salaries and expenses of Project Gunrunner, which targets gun trafficking networks in the U.S. An estimated 90 percent of weapons seized in Mexico are from sources within the U.S., according to the ATF. Many of the weapons are found in drug-related crimes."

February 19, 2009, 21:36	#11
lawdog Registered FALaholic #: 7773 Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,093	Steve: no offense, but you're right. You aren't the best lawyer. Ever heard of the Supremacy Clause? You have it backwards. Generally Federal law trumps State law, not the other way around. Only when a state chooses to forego the tit of Federal money do they thumb their nose at the Fed. Very rare and not likely.

February 19, 2009, 21:58	#12
Pistolwiz Registered FALaholic #: 4378 Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WA Posts: 5,301	Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. What else need be said. __________________ "The constitution is not a bunch of suggestions. It's the law." "People will chew and swallow an entire sweet and delicious brick of lies. And enjoy it. Rather than taste one bitter grain of truth. No wonder they are hoodwinked so easily." "I don't run with lemmings...even well armed ones." "If we had as many misconceptions about the FN FAL as we do about the constitution. The body count from accidents would be much, much higher around here."

February 19, 2009, 22:15	#13
Bama Steve Registered FALaholic #: 1982 Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Where I am Posts: 3,594	I'm thinking of the 10th as well. No offense taken and none offered - we are on the same side of the retarded family tree. I say worry not and carry-on . . . __________________ Being dyslexic has a bright side - it's easy to put things back together

February 19, 2009, 22:26	#14
Pistolwiz Registered FALaholic #: 4378 Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WA Posts: 5,301	"Retained" is a key word in the 9th. Most times we all have to fight to retain something that is ours. It's all about what price any or us will pay for retaining justice and/or liberty. Whether it be in greenbacks or our own blood. Getting it back once it's lost would cost the most high price for not just buying it out when it was cheaper to do. __________________ "The constitution is not a bunch of suggestions. It's the law." "People will chew and swallow an entire sweet and delicious brick of lies. And enjoy it. Rather than taste one bitter grain of truth. No wonder they are hoodwinked so easily." "I don't run with lemmings...even well armed ones." "If we had as many misconceptions about the FN FAL as we do about the constitution. The body count from accidents would be much, much higher around here."

February 19, 2009, 23:24	#15
Bama Steve Registered FALaholic #: 1982 Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Where I am Posts: 3,594	Which is partially why we need to take back congress in 2010. We also need to write our state reps and express our desire for them to push forth resolutions stating our state sovereignty - Oklahoma passed theirs today. http://iwilldefendtheconstitution.com/node/783 __________________ Being dyslexic has a bright side - it's easy to put things back together

February 20, 2009, 20:56	#17
cotter Registered FALaholic #: 23754 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 496	http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...id=f:h1enr.pdf or http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...public_review/ and then hit the link on the page. I saw the ATF $$$$$$$$$$$$ but have not gotten around to the whole thing. A TON of money wasted though. Chad

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode