National Park Carry Law Goes Into Effect

On February 22, 2010 the new law allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks in accordance to state laws and procedures went into effect. Read the NRA-ILA Update here.

Visitors may possess firearms within a national park unit provided they comply with federal, state, and local laws.  Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings. These places are marked with signs at public entrances.

More info and list of parks per the National Park Service:
http://www.nps.gov/nero/firearms/PA/index.htm

Parks:
Allegheny Portage Railroad National Historic Site
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Deshler-Morris House
Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site
Eisenhower National Historic Site
Flight 93 National Memorial
Fort Necessity National Battlefield
Friendship Hill National Historic Site
Gettysburg National Military Park
Gloria Dei Church
Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site
Independence National Historical Park
Johnstown Flood National Memorial
Steamtown National Historic Site
Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
Valley Forge National Historical Park

Advertisements
Published in: on February 25, 2010 at 5:10 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

CT considering micro-stamping law…

Connecticut is considering the following microstamping bill proposed by Connecticut State Senator Looney (yes, that’s his real name)
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-00353-R00-SB.htm

If you live, work in, or own property in Connecticut. Please write your legislators and your governor.

Governor
http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?a=1317&q=257276

Senate
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/slist.asp

House of Reps
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/hlist.asp

Judiciary
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/MemberList.asp?comm_code=JUD&doc_type=

List of Judiciary email addresses:
McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov
mlawlor99@juno.com
Handley@senatedems.ct.gov
Gerald.Fox@cga.ct.gov
John.A.Kissel@cga.ct.gov
Arthur.ONeill@housegop.ct.gov
Bill.Aman@cga.ct.gov
Ryan.Barry@cga.ct.gov
Jeffrey.Berger@cga.ct.gov
Charles.Clemons@cga.ct.gov
Eric.Coleman@cga.ct.gov
Matthew.Conway@cga.ct.gov
Christopher.Coutu@housegop.ct.gov 
Patricia.Dillon@cga.ct.gov
Doyle@senatedems.ct.gov
Mary.Fritz@cga.ct.gov
Bob.Godfrey@cga.ct.gov
Gomes@senatedems.ct.gov
Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov
Kenneth.Green@cga.ct.gov
Gail.Hamm@cga.ct.gov
William.Hamzy@housegop.ct.gov 
John.Hetherington@housegop.ct.gov 
Ernest.Hewett@cga.ct.gov
Gary.Holder-Winfield@cga.ct.gov 
DebraLee.Hovey@housegop.ct.gov 
Bryan.Hurlburt@cga.ct.gov 
Themis.Klarides@housegop.ct.gov 
David.Labriola@housegop.ct.gov 
Michael.McLachlan@cga.ct.gov 
Meyer@senatedems.ct.gov 
Bruce.Morris@cga.ct.gov 
Melissa.Olson@cga.ct.gov 
Peggy.Reeves@cga.ct.gov 
Kelvin.Roldan@cga.ct.gov 
Andrew.Roraback@cga.ct.gov 
TR.Rowe@housegop.ct.gov 
Joseph.Serra@cga.ct.gov 
James.Spallone@cga.ct.gov 
Joseph.Taborsak@cga.ct.gov 
William.Tong@cga.ct.gov 
Toni.Walker@cga.ct.gov 
Elissa.Wright@cga.ct.gov 

***

Below is the letter I sent, as I own property in Connecticut, for reference; though it alludes to a few personal events of significance. :

SB 353

I am writing you concerning the proposed bill number 353. This bill proposes mandating microstamping as a requirement of the sale of all semi-automatic pistols after 2011.

It is my expectation that you will veto this bill were it to come to your desk. 

First off, this legislation is just foolish. As it will not accomplish any of the goals stated by it’s proponents to reduce crime.

Most people take less than 30 seconds to figure out how to by-pass this whole scheme.  They’d just file off the micro-stamping.  Easily done. And this is exactly what criminals will do.

And why is this applied only to semi-automatics, when revolvers are the most commonly used firearm by criminals?

All this bill will do, is make it all the more difficult for law abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves and their familes.  In direct violation of the protected rights outlayed both in the U.S. and Connecticut constitutions

“SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

As someone who on the three occasions he felt the need to call 911. Received zero response from the New Haven police department. Considers impeding in any way my right to defend myself as both reprehensible and morally wrong.

It is my expectation that if this bill were to come up for a vote that you would vote it down.

The ever changing world of arms…

The Future of Firearms:

A long time ago, on a sea far far away the swashbuckling pirates stormed the merchant vessel wielding their large sharp sabers….

Many many years later another merchantman fended off a pirate vessel thru a pre-preemptive attack of arrows and crossbow bolts.

Centuries two naval vessels engaged one another. Their brass cannons firing large iron balls at one as the two ships crashed into one another; their men boarded wielding sword and firing muskets.

***

I could go on all the way to modern rifles, etc. The truth is “arms” are always evolving. The Constitution declares a right to bear arms. We usually hear the 2nd Amendment rights activists tout their right to carry a firearm. However, other aspects of this right are often neglected. It was common practice to carry a sword, saber or a dagger centuries ago. Yet even with a Pennsylvania license to carry firearm – I am still forbidden from walking around with one of my swords. Why is that?

Surely, my .45 ACP handgun is far deadlier than my sword. Why do we second amendment activists focus on the narrow view of arms to be firearms?

***

Okay, you may think I am just stirring up the pot for stirring sake. But I’m not. I am a visionary, I find that I can see the future that many are unable to see. “Arms” are evolving, and though it may be another 100-200 yrs until the next major evolution. We must be careful that we do not turn our Second Amendment right into a limitation.

I just read about a new weapon system. While it’s a tad big to be my new carry (perhaps it’ll be my vehicle gun). It’s showing how much progress is being made. This new “arm” is a combat laser system. But unlike previous laser weapon systems, this one does NOT need to be mounted on a Jumbo 747 or naval ship. While it’s still very bulky and unlikely to be on anything less than a Humvee.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/14/weaponised_rayguns_hit_shelves_in_time_for_xmas/

One must remember that we are witnessing the infancy of a new weapons platform. You would not the comparison of “blunderbuss” to an AR-15 fair would you? What about to an .380 LCP?

In another 40-80 yrs, such systems may be portable enough to be carry weapons.  What happens if all of the legislation we’ve fought to enact in defense of our 2nd Amendment is focused solely on firearms?  We may find ourselves only able to walk around with antique 9mm.  Stuck in the middle of history unable to wield older arms such as swords and crossbows and likewise forbidden from carrying the new top of the line carry blasters.

So while this post is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Remember, when you’re advocating your second amendment rights. To be careful how any legislation is worded. And don’t dismiss the banning of other arms like swords, crossbows, and knives.

Available this Christmas!

Published in: on November 14, 2008 at 6:09 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , ,