The U.S. Senate, which struggles mightily with topics such as health care, education, and balanced budgets, had no troubles Tuesday amending a credit card bill of all things with a measure to allow concealed weapons to be toted about national parks and wildlife refuges.
On an easy vote of 67-29 the senators tacked on the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, to a bill concerning how many fees credit card companies can charge you. If opponents to concealed carry in national parks are right, the senators might not have realized what they were doing.
"Senator Coburn’s amendment to the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act of 2009 would allow individuals to openly carry rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in national parks if the firearm is in compliance with State law," the National Parks Conservation Association, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, Association of National Park Rangers, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, said in a letter sent to the Senate prior to the vote.
"As a result, individuals could attend ranger-led hikes and campfire programs with their rifles at Yellowstone National Park, Shenandoah National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, and other national park treasures across the country."
In passing the amendment, it perhaps could be said that the senators viewed themselves as being above the law. Earlier this year a federal judge blocked a somewhat similar gun regulation from remaining in effect, saying the Interior Department had failed to conduct the obligatory National Environmental Policy Act reviews before approving the regulation. The irony, of course, is that Congress passed NEPA, and now the Senate is thumbing its collective nose at it.
The measure has a way to go before it can become law. The credit-card legislation needs to pass the Senate and gain approval in the House of Representatives, and then President Obama must sign it into law.
Here's how the senators voted on the amendment:
Alabama
Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) Yes.
Alaska
Begich (D) Yes; Murkowski (R) Yes.
Arizona
Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes.
Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.
California
Boxer (D) No; Feinstein (D) No.
Colorado
Bennet (D) Yes; Udall (D) Yes.
Connecticut
Dodd (D) No; Lieberman (I) No.
Delaware
Carper (D) No; Kaufman (D) No.
Florida
Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Georgia
Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.
Hawaii
Akaka (D) No; Inouye (D) No.
Idaho
Crapo (R) Yes; Risch (R) Yes.
Illinois
Burris (D) No; Durbin (D) No.
Indiana
Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) Yes.
Iowa
Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) No.
Kansas
Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) Yes.
Kentucky
Bunning (R) Yes; McConnell (R) Yes.
Louisiana
Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) Yes.
Maine
Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.
Maryland
Cardin (D) No; Mikulski (D) Not Voting.
Massachusetts
Kennedy (D) Not Voting; Kerry (D) No.
Michigan
Levin (D) No; Stabenow (D) No.
Minnesota
Klobuchar (D) Yes.
Mississippi
Cochran (R) Yes; Wicker (R) Yes.
Missouri
Bond (R) Yes; McCaskill (D) No.
Montana
Baucus (D) Yes; Tester (D) Yes.
Nebraska
Johanns (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Nevada
Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) Yes.
New Hampshire
Gregg (R) Yes; Shaheen (D) Yes.
New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) No; Menendez (D) No.
New Mexico
Bingaman (D) No; Udall (D) No.
New York
Gillibrand (D) No; Schumer (D) No.
North Carolina
Burr (R) Yes; Hagan (D) Yes.
North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.
Ohio
Brown (D) No; Voinovich (R) Yes.
Oklahoma
Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) Yes.
Oregon
Merkley (D) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter (D) Yes.
Rhode Island
Reed (D) No; Whitehouse (D) No.
South Carolina
DeMint (R) Yes; Graham (R) Yes.
South Dakota
Johnson (D) No; Thune (R) Yes.
Tennessee
Alexander (R) No; Corker (R) Yes.
Texas
Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.
Utah
Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes.
Vermont
Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) Yes.
Virginia
Warner (D) Yes; Webb (D) Yes.
Washington
Cantwell (D) No; Murray (D) No.
West Virginia
Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Not Voting.
Wisconsin
Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.
Wyoming
Barrasso (R) Yes; Enzi (R) Yes.
Comments
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/may/24/anchorage-bar-fight-ends-shoot...
Coming to a park near you? People often do dumb things in the heat of the moment. If there is a gun handy there is a good chance it will be used. I fear that once the new law goes into effect some park visitors who in the past were comfortable unarmed will feel the need to have a gun to protect them from others who will be armed. It effectively sets off an arms race.
>....National Forest Service land has not turned into the mythical* wild west<<
Perhaps it hasn't turned exactly into the Wild West, mythical or otherwise, but some incidents in parks, forests, and BLM lands are worth noting because they do support concerns many have expressed about exactly what might happen in national parks:
* In 2007 there was a campground shooting in Sequoia NP. A no-doubt-fearless camper started firing his 9mm into the night, presumably spooked by what might have been a black bear cleaning up table scraps. Rangers found 9 shell casings.
* A Minnesota Court of Appeals just this week upheld a prison sentence for a 21-year-old involved in a 2007 "drunken shooting spree" in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, which is located in the Superior National Forest, where firearms are permitted.
* At a BLM property near Santa Fe, NM, someone "damaged by deliberate shooting" a panel of 8,000-year-old petroglyphs.
* In the Ironwood Forest National Monument, near Tuscon, Ariz., officials are thinking of banning target shooting because some visitors are resorting to old computers and TVs as targets and leaving the mess behind.
* BLM officials in Arizona also report target practice on saguaro cacti, as well as on a microwave oven that was placed in an ironwood tree.
Those incidents were cited in a story from Greenwire that ran in the NY Times on Thursday.
Also from that story:
Ah, Frank C., you're back on the gun issue, slippery slopes and all. Please admit that people can disagree with you. That's what this forum is all about. You get your say, Ray Bane gets his, I get mine. Is that an example of the domino theory?
Rick Smith
>>Kurt, thanks for showing through the use of numerous examples that prohibiting weapons does not stop people from being stupid and using weapons illegally.<<
Frank, just for clarification, while guns were, and continue to be, prohibited in Sequoia at the time of the shooting I mentioned, the other incidents occurred on U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands where weapons were permitted. Perhaps if there had been a ban the incidents wouldn't have happened. Surely target ranges wouldn't have been set up.
That said, I would agree that some people will do what they want with firearms, regardless of the regulations.
great comments and sufficiently said Desert Explorer!!!