Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Concealed Handgun Regulatory Changes

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3

    Default Concealed Handgun Regulatory Changes

    Just an FYI for those of you who carry concealed. This is federal so I'm not sure who holds the trump card..... state or federal.

    http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-09606_PI.pdf

    Don't want anyone to get caught unawares.
    I think this is the time that comments can be made concerning changes.

  2. #2
    Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Model 99 View Post
    Just an FYI for those of you who carry concealed. This is federal so I'm not sure who holds the trump card..... state or federal.

    http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-09606_PI.pdf

    Don't want anyone to get caught unawares.
    I think this is the time that comments can be made concerning changes.
    These changes are only "proposed" and are currently under the 60 day comment period. There are already some National Parks in Alaska that allow the carriage of firearms for defense against bear attack. An example would be Kenai Fjords..
    http://www.nps.gov/kefj/planyourvisit/firearms.htm

    This proposed change may actually force a restriction as there is currently no differentiation in carrying openly or concealed in the park rules. With this change as it is currently worded, it would only be for concealed carry.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    Federal Trumps State - State Trumps Municipal, etc...

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    301

    Default

    I would like to see the federal parks (play grounds) be removed from our state all togeather. That said I think the proposed change is a good step in the right direction, returning some control to the state that actually has that park, (federal occupation) or whatever you choose to call it, with in its borders.

    Given, Alaska's excellent concealed carry laws this is a real plus. Those states that may have more restrictive concealed carry laws then the feds can go to hell for all I care.

  5. #5
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bandhmo View Post
    I would like to see the federal parks (play grounds) be removed from our state all togeather. That said I think the proposed change is a good step in the right direction, returning some control to the state that actually has that park, (federal occupation) or whatever you choose to call it, with in its borders.

    Given, Alaska's excellent concealed carry laws this is a real plus. Those states that may have more restrictive concealed carry laws then the feds can go to hell for all I care.
    Great points, trouble is to many in Alaska suck @ the Federal breast. If you don't think they will throw you to the wolfs to protect their income, guess again.

    I have meant vary few people in my life that has the guts to hurt their own pocket books, but many that will hate you for exposing their shame.

    Vary sad.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default Good News...

    Thanks for posting this 99, it's good news and good information. Several people and groups have been working toward this for some time and it's nice to know their good work may be paying off.

    The issue here isn't who trumps whom but one of extending the states laws further into the federally controlled land, that's a good thing. And as the proposed change says ...cooperative ...between states and federal. It is not about hunting, it is not about whos' land it is but about allowing state laws to prevail even on federal land within states borders. It is also a huge step forward for the fundamental rights of the people of this nation. The right to keep and bear arms...and in this case, the right to be armed against bears.

    We should not pick at this, this is a good thing and I can't imagine why someone, even in Alaska, could find cause for objection to it. It does word of concealed firearms but plainly states that prevailing laws of the state will be extended into the federal park. Let's take this as a victory for gun owners and those who believe in the right to defend oneself from any peril be it man or beast.

    Please keep your comments, be they pro or con, along the lines of the proposed rule changes and not reference any particular group or individual or how they choose to live.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  7. #7
    Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Murphy View Post
    Thanks for posting this 99, it's good news and good information. Several people and groups have been working toward this for some time and it's nice to know their good work may be paying off.

    The issue here isn't who trumps whom but one of extending the states laws further into the federally controlled land, that's a good thing. And as the proposed change says ...cooperative ...between states and federal. It is not about hunting, it is not about whos' land it is but about allowing state laws to prevail even on federal land within states borders. It is also a huge step forward for the fundamental rights of the people of this nation. The right to keep and bear arms...and in this case, the right to be armed against bears.

    We should not pick at this, this is a good thing and I can't imagine why someone, even in Alaska, could find cause for objection to it. It does word of concealed firearms but plainly states that prevailing laws of the state will be extended into the federal park. Let's take this as a victory for gun owners and those who believe in the right to defend oneself from any peril be it man or beast.

    Please keep your comments, be they pro or con, along the lines of the proposed rule changes and not reference any particular group or individual or how they choose to live.
    This proposed rule change is a moot point if not backed up by congressional legislation. All it would take is the next anti administration to rewrite the rules again at the blink of an eye. There is currently pending legislation in the house. I would recommend that everyone write our lovely congressman and tell him to support it. I already have.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •