2nd e-mail from Lamar

[Guest dlstewart01]

He finally got around to addressing my orginal e-mail. His answer still sucks.

June 23, 2009

Mr. Donald Stewart

Dear Donald,

Thanks for getting in touch and letting me know what's on your mind regarding guns in national parks.

I am a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. So was President Reagan, who established rules allowing guns in national parks as long as they were unloaded. And so was President George W. Bush, who determined that gun owners with conceal-and-carry permits could carry guns in national parks - although this regulation was put on hold by a federal court. I supported these rules of both President Reagan and President Bush.

On May 12, 2009, the Senate approved an amendment to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act that would allow individuals to bring loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges - including, for the first time, individuals without conceal-and-carry permits. I voted against this amendment because it goes too far - further than President Reagan, further than President Bush, and further than Tennessee law. I have consistently been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, but I also support the Tenth Amendment respecting the powers of the states.

I am grateful that you took the time to let me know where you stand. I'll be sure to keep your comments in mind as this important issue is discussed and debated in Washington and in Tennessee.

Sincerely,

Lamar

[Guest JHatmaker]

At least he actually read your email to him this time.

[Guest mustangdave]

He finally got around to addressing my orginal e-mail. His answer still sucks.

June 23, 2009

Mr. Donald Stewart

Dear Donald,

I am grateful that you took the time to let me know where you stand. I'll be sure to keep your comments in mind as this important issue is discussed and debated in Washington and in Tennessee.

Sincerely,

Lamar

...2 words...yeh right. Snakes in the grass...they all are

[E4 No More]

I would never claim that George the first was pro 2A considering his AWB. That must be some good crack Lamar is using.

[ukerduker]

I got the same email today.

Dear Michael,

Thanks for getting in touch and letting me know what's on your mind regarding guns in national parks.

I am a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. So was President Reagan, who established rules allowing guns in national parks as long as they were unloaded. And so was President George W. Bush, who determined that gun owners with conceal-and-carry permits could carry guns in national parks - although this regulation was put on hold by a federal court. I supported these rules of both President Reagan and President Bush.

On May 12, 2009, the Senate approved an amendment to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act that would allow individuals to bring loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges - including, for the first time, individuals without conceal-and-carry permits. I voted against this amendment because it goes too far - further than President Reagan, further than President Bush, and further than Tennessee law. I have consistently been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, but I also support the Tenth Amendment respecting the powers of the states.

I am grateful that you took the time to let me know where you stand. I'll be sure to keep your comments in mind as this important issue is discussed and debated in Washington and in Tennessee.

Sincerely,

Lamar

Well, it's clear that "I went too far" in voting for this a$$-clown. I look forward to any Republican/Independent challenger(s).

[Guest HexHead]

I got it today also. I found this part interesting....

On May 12, 2009, the Senate approved an amendment to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act that would allow individuals to bring loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges - including, for the first time, individuals without conceal-and-carry permits. I voted against this amendment because it goes too far

I didn't think it applied to people without permits, but if it does, well he might get a pass from me on this ons.

[Mike.357]

Not sure how it applies to people without permits.

Don't the loaded handguns have to be carried concealed in national parks?

Maybe ALaska and Vermont would be exceptions?

[Guest jimdigriz]

I didn't think it applied to people without permits, but if it does, well he might get a pass from me on this ons.

Why? Permits are an infringement on the right to bear arms.

[Oh Shoot]

Not sure how it applies to people without permits.

Don't the loaded handguns have to be carried concealed in national parks?

...

The previous Dept of Interior rule specified concealed carry only.

But my understanding of the new law is that is it is simply based on each state's carry laws. So that in states where no permit is required to open carry, you could do so in National Park in that state, etc.

So you could open carry at Shenandoah National Park in VA with no permit at all from anywhere, for example.

- OS

[Guest HexHead]

Why? Permits are an infringement on the right to bear arms.

While I agree with you in principle, in practice the background check to ensure only law abiding citizens can carry with impunity isn't a bad idea either.

[Oh Shoot]

While I agree with you in principle, in practice the background check to ensure only law abiding citizens can carry with impunity isn't a bad idea either.

Why should a non-violent felony conviction deny one from owning a gun, or even getting a carry permit?

"restraining orders/orders of protection" are another big source of potential injustice in this regard, also.

- OS

[Guest HexHead]

Why should a non-violent felony conviction deny one from owning a gun, or even getting a carry permit?

"restraining orders/orders of protection" are another big source of potential injustice in this regard, also.

- OS

Well for starters, if you have a felony conviction, you're a criminal.

The restraining orders/ orders of protection are another issue though, as they're often used in divorce cases simply to leverage a shake down for more money.

[jughead]

while i will defend everyones right to their opinion i cannot agree with this felony crap. it is out of hand. why should people like martha stewart be denied the means to defend themselves. there are people out that did a whole lot less and are in the same boat. it is just WRONG

[Falcon1]

I didn't think it applied to people without permits, but if it does, well he might get a pass from me on this ons.

Not sure how it applies to people without permits.

Don't the loaded handguns have to be carried concealed in national parks?

Maybe ALaska and Vermont would be exceptions?

IIRC, the federal law says people can carry IAW the laws in their state. I think you've hit on it. In those states where open carry is legal without a permit, it would be legal in the National Parks. IANAL, however.

Then again, I may be thinking about the overturned rule, not the law....

Edited June 24, 2009 by Falcon1

[Oh Shoot]

Well for starters, if you have a felony conviction, you're a criminal. ..

How precisely you want to define "criminal"?

You ever broke speed limit?

Ever carried a pocket knife into a post office with blade 2.5" or longer?

You not see a difference between a pound of pot and forcible rape?

etc...

- OS

[Guest cjames38464]

How precisely you want to define "criminal"?

You ever broke speed limit?

Ever carried a pocket knife into a post office with blade 2.5" or longer?

You not see a difference between a pound of pot and forcible rape?

etc...

- OS

While I agree with OS, all of us break the law, "ocaisonally"...Hex is right there has to be a line in the sand...but, keep in mind that a criminal is "NOT" going to apply for a permit or adhear to laws regulating the carry of a weapon... We're getting wrapped around the axle on this issue, as the 2A argument is null for criminals...

The bigger issue is the relentless pursuite of those of us who follow the rules, "OS's example excluded";) We need to focus on that when speaking or writing to the $#%#%#$^ politicians in office and those thinking of running for office...

[macville]

I think it's absurd that a non-violent felon (Martha Stewart is one of them) who has completed their sentence shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Heck, I don't remember the Constitution saying anything about restricting who can have guns.... (and yes, I know it's not good for mental patents or violent criminals to have guns, but where we've gone is absurd.)

Matthew