You’re right. I was going by the discussions I’ve heard here and on the radio that mentioned ‘licensed’ individuals. I’ve looked up S5383-5384 and it says ‘the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.’
I dunno, it wasn’t entirely “snuck” in. Tom Coburn’s amendment was approved by the Senate 67 to 29, with only three abstentions. Nearly half of all Senate democrats voted in favor of including the amendment. The House also apparently held a separate vote on the guns in national parks issue, and also approved it 279 to 147.
But I don’t like the practice of attaching unrelated riders either, FWIW, even if I approve of this particular legislation. (In particular since it seems it could have passed under its own steam anyway…)
Well, here’s the text of the credit card legislation that applies to weapons:
Since all states, except Wisconsin and Illinois (as well as the District of Columbia) have some form of concealed carry legislation on the books, paragraph (b) of this section allows for concealed weapons in every national park and wildlife refuge not located in Wisconsin, Illinois, and D.C., in accordance with state regulations on concealed carry.
This part really bugged me too, but since I didn’t agree with the amendment, I figured nobody would take me seriously if I complained about it. If it had the bipartisan support it needed to pass, it seems pretty underhanded to attach it to a completely unrelated bill that the President was eager see passed. :mad:
Feel free to continue this semi-related hijack. Someone may be inclined to come in here and explain why we shouldn’t be irritated about this method of legislating.
Thanks for your input. I’ve briefly talked with a few rangers whom I have a great deal of admiration for. It’s a tough job and there are so many aspects to it that differ from urban law enforcement, I always find my discussions with park rangers intriguing. They are truly a breed apart.
You seem to be under the impression I am equating semi-autos with burst firing mode on fully automatic weapons. I assure you, I am not. But you still haven’t answered my question. Are semi-automatics with their auto-loading functionality capable of producing damage to a target more quickly than a manual loading or bolt-action weapon? My concern with semi-automatics is that a target has significantly less opportunity to react to a weapon being fired at him and take protective cover reducing his chance of survival. Am I wrong?
Are there non-lethal activities that a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon are better suited for than a manual loaded weapon?
Neither really ‘fires faster’ than the other. It’s a function of how fast you can pull the trigger. With a revolver, you pull the trigger and the chamber is ‘reloaded’ and the hammer drops and fires the round. With an automatic (what semi-automatic pistols are called), the hammer drops and fires the round, and then the chamber is reloaded.
Capacity doesn’t necessarily come into play. For example, a Colt 1911 has seven rounds in the magazine. A typical revolver has six in the cylinder. Or a Ruger Mk.II automatic has ten rounds in the magazine. My H&R 999 revolver has nine in the cylinder. Furthermore, most centerfire revolvers can use speed-loaders so it’s pretty much like changing a magazine in an automatic.
As far as inflicting damage, unless you’re an expert (a group not associated with criminal activities) fast shooting equals poor accuracy.
First: Fully automatic firearms are highly restricted and it is a very time-consuming and expensive process to get one. Semi-automatics are better suited for a variety of shooting activities from hunting and skeet (semi-automatic shotguns) to various course-centered competitions (semi-automatic military-style rifles and high-capacity pistols).
What are you suggesting? “Yes we know you only own a semi-auto, and you’ve trained with your semi-auto for concealed carry, and you have holsters and clothing for your semi-auto, and you can carry your semi-auto everywhere… except national parks, where you’ll have to get a revolver, sorry”?
There is the matter, too, of the meth labs and pot farms being set up in National Forests and other federal lands. This has become somewhat of an epidemic in California and Kentucky, though other areas suffer as well.
Should legitimate users of these parks and forests stay away, or go defenseless? I don’t think we need be limited by these two choices.
As I’m sure is quite obvious to you, I’m not personally familiar with these weapons. So, pardon the dumb question, but don’t you have to cock a revolver, or reload the chamber manually, as you do with to a bolt-action rifle or a pump-action shotgun?
The Kennedy assassination notwithstanding, I’m assuming that a shooter of even marginal skill has better luck hitting a moving target if he can fire uninterrupted (i.e., pull the trigger repeatedly) as opposed to having to cock/reload the weapon between shots. Perhaps I’m wrong. I guess this perception is based on growing up in the era of drive-by shootings.
Of course, this is somewhat of a tangent as drive-bys don’t seem all that likely in the backcountry. 
And why would you want to do that? Use speed-loaders, I mean. To shoot faster?
But multiple shots does raise the odds of hitting the target, right?
As they should be, IMHO.
I can fully appreciate sport shooting and, perhaps hunting, as a valid reason to use guns of that type. I do perhaps have some qualms with those activities taking place in a wildlife refuge, however.
As for self-defense, when the wildlife start taking up arms, I’ll grant that you ought to be able to do so as well.
Nope. Perhaps we should do whatever it is we have to do (collectively) to support law enforcement in our parks and forests.
Needing to pull a hammer back for every shot is called “single action” - some revolvers use that as a method of operation, but most are capable of double action - which means that the trigger pull both pulls back and releases the hammer.
Really? You don’t see the value in being able to reload your weapon faster? OH HE WANTS TO SHOOT FAST? MUST BE KILLING TODDLERS. THAT’S THE ONLY EXPLANATION.
Right, wild animals have never harmed humans.
Not really. Bricker asked me why I mentioned semi-automatics and I attempted to explain my qualms with them. My suggestion is that banning guns altogether from national parks and, especially wildlife refuges, is as desirable (to me) as banning them from federal buildings in the interest of public safety as well as ecological conservation.
I’m open to the suggestion, however, that this legislation will, in practice, change nothing, but make certain law-abiding citizens feel safer while visiting parks and wildlife refuges. I certainly hope this is true.
Or as well as anywhere else, right?
Thank you for clarifying this for me.
Wow, defensive much?
Apparently, winky was lost on you. Where’s shruggy when you need him? Oh wait, how about smacky? :smack:
In any case, invading the territory of wild animals subjects you to the risk of being held accountable for that invasion by said wild animals. Most people who go out there to experience nature unspoiled by humans appreciate this and do what they can to minimize their impact and avoid disturbing (or attracting) animals in their natural state.
It depends. Since you were asking about ‘fast shooting’ I assumed a double-action revolver, which is the most common type. When the trigger is pulled the hammer is cocked back, a loaded chamber rotates into position, the hammer is dropped, and the round is fired. No need to cock. With an automatic pistol the first round has to be manually racked into the chamber by manipulating the slide. (This can be done beforehand, but a few pistols have safety issues here.) So having worked the slide and with a round in the chamber, working the trigger drops the hammer (or cocks it and drops it, if it’s a double-action pistol), the round is fired, and the next round is loaded. So with a DA revolver: Cock, load, fire. With a pistol: Fire, cock, load.
(NB to shooters: I’m keeping it simple. Please don’t be pedantic! 
)
Drive-by shooters usually miss. But by mentioning bolt-action, etc., you’re adding complications that don’t really apply to the situation. With handguns (and I know that the law doesn’t specify them) you’re looking at revolvers vs. pistols. The most commonly-encountered revolver, the double-action revolver, fires just as fast as an automatic pistol.
Because inevitably someone says, ‘Well you can just change clips in an automatic!’ (‘Clips’ is incorrect, BTW.) Those who oppose semi-automatic firearms nearly always argue that someone can reload faster and kill more people on his shooting rampage. I brought up speed-loaders to point out that a revolver can be reloaded as quickly as an automatic.
I heard about an incident in the Old West where two guys were running around a saloon, emptying their pistols at each other. Neither was hurt. ‘Wild Bill’ Hickcock said that it was more important to aim than to shoot quickly.
As far as I know, nobody has advocated enjoying those activities in a wildlife refuge. As far as I know (and I didn’t read the amendment that closely) no one has made it legal to actually shoot in a National Park or wildlife refuge; just that guns can be carried.
Not sure what you’re getting at.
Thank you, Johnny L.A. I believe I understand much more clearly now.
I am still uncomfortable with the idea of permitting the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks. I am also highly doubtful that illegal poaching in wildlife refuges will not increase as a result of permissive gun regulations. However, the discussion in this thread has prompted me to reconsider my position on the legislation. I’m not saying I’m completely supportive of it, but I will say I’m a bit less outraged by it.
Shouldn’t the question be what law makes it illegal?
My understanding is that poaching can get you in BIG ASS trouble . Worrying that “permissive” gun regs will increase poaching is like worrying that free parking will increase the number of bank robberies.