Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Credit Card and the NRA
Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage. - H.L Mencken
The most surprising thing during the week of May 17th was not Dick Cheney slithering out of his Jackson Hole in order to affix blame for the next terrorist attack (whose advent he breathlessly awaits so he can say "I told you so"). It was the success of the National Rifle Association in securing passage of the bill that gives all American citizens the right to bear loaded and cocked arms in national parks in the United States. This was not a success that was easily achieved since in order to get passage of this bill the NRA had to agree to some incidental arcane provisions dealing with the credit card industry that, though unpalatable to many NRA members, proved acceptable to them in order for them to achieve their overarching goal of restoring the right to bear arms in National Parks, a right that had been taken away by their former idol and president, Ronald Reagan.
President Reagan believed there should be some places where citizens did not have to fear being shot by careless gun owners. In 1984 his Department of the Interior issued regulations that protected the public from gun owners while traveling through their national parks. Under the Reagan era rule, gun owners were permitted to transport firearms through national parks so long as they were unloaded and reasonably inaccessible.
As George Bush was preparing to return to private life, his Department of the Interior issued a new regulation overturning the Reagan administration rule. The new regulation said if the gunslinger had a valid state permit, he or she could carry a loaded gun into a national park.
Commenting on the proposed new Regulation prior to its issuance, seven former National Park Service directors sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior explaining why they opposed changing the Reagan rule. In part the letter stated: "The current regulations have served the Park Service and the public well for the past 25 years. These rules, promulgated during the Reagan Administration, are essential to park rangers in carrying out their duties of protecting park resources and wildlife, and in assuring the safety of visitors to the parks."
The Bush Interior department had a different take from the former directors. It believed the park rangers were incapable of carrying out their duties. As reported in Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence V. Salazar, the court decision enjoining enforcement of the December Bush Regulation, the Interior Department said: "We [Interior Department] . . . recognize that the NPS and FWS [Fish and Wildlife Service] together employ approximately 3,000 full and part-time law enforcement officers who are responsible for patrolling and securing millions of acres of land, a substantial portion of which is remote wilderness. In these circumstances, NPS and FWS law enforcement officers are in no position to guarantee a specific level of public safety on their lands, and cannot prevent all violent offenses and crimes against visitors." The Bush Interior Department believed that a sort of informal deputization of the citizenry could be effected by permitting it to march about in national parks with loaded weapons, confident that not all would prove as incompetent as former vice president and now official doom-sayer, Cheney, who inadvertently plugged a hunting companion.
When the judge in the Brady case issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of the Bush Regulation, the NRA got busy. It asked its Congressional supporters to pass a law that would supersede any court opinion or Federal regulation and it didn't matter to the NRA if other matters had to be addressed in the legislation in order to get it passed. And that is how it came about that credit card reform occurred.
The coupling of credit card legislation with a bill permitting guns in national parks might seem odd since the two issues have nothing in common. One bespeaks increased governmental control in the private sector (credit card rules) whereas the other bespeaks less governmental control (guns in national parks). The NRA, however, is never concerned who its legislative companions are so long as it gets what it wants. It did. Incidental beneficiaries of its efforts, of course, are those who while in greater danger in the national parks from careless gun owners, will be at less peril in the commercial world, from unscrupulous credit card issuers.
(A few people have expressed concern that tourists will be able to tour the White House, a national park property, with loaded guns since the District of Columbia has no law prohibiting guns in its national parks. The Secret service has let it be known it will not permit visitors to that particular national park to bring along loaded guns. That probably comes as a disappointment to the NRA which probably figures there are few places where being able to protect oneself is more important than the White House.)
38 Comments so far
Show AllThis author does not know the NRA. It is a ultra conservative organization. They really believe in obeying the law. They censure members who break laws, or otherwise act against the by laws and rules of membership.
I don't agree with many of their platforms, but they are law abiding.
If you don't like the law work to change it; and the NRA does this very well.
BTW, there are many many current and former military and police in the NRA. I would not antagonize that group. If the law and order breaks down in this country, you will find out their power in forming militias complete with war lords leading.
Nader would have vetoed this.
I think what bothers me most about this ruling is that even the most die-hard gun nut wouldn't pack his gun into a Cathedral. These National Parks ARE our Cathedral. There's something blasphemous about taking something capable of so much ugliness into a place of such serene, God-given beauty. Like letting your dog pee on Michelangelo's David.
Sioux Rose
UBREW: Your words echo those in my heart! So true. And now instead of "going postal" those who have lost jobs or their homes (there is ample cause for a wellspring of anger to rise up in the land) can go on shooting sprees in these sacred places intended for quiet contemplation, a break from the insanity of modern urban life (and some of its suburban extensions). Shakespeare understood when he said, "How can thinking men (and women) think so wrongly." Indeed!
I call on gun control advocates to pick up some semi-automatic AK-47's or Uzi's, something that looks pretty fierce. Train on how to use it, register it, sling it over your shoulder, and take it to your nearest National Park Visitors Center.
Once the tourists disappear and local merchants howl, this ruling will be overturned. There's nothing wrong with the previous ruling (gun unloaded and in your locked trunk): its prudent and still pays service to the 2nd Amendment and the NRA. The current law is an excuse for people to start firing.
When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will accidentally shoot their kids.
Guns don't kill people; bullets kill people.
"A well regulated militia being neccesary for the security of a Free State..." well, we've thrown out the regulations and the Free State, too. All that's left is the militia.
When I traveled through parks in the 60's, firearms had to be disassembled. Is this another history-is-wrong-I-know-becasue-I-was-there moment?
Who will eventually take control of the country? The rich, the educated, the powerful, the politicians, the workers? No, it will be the NRA members and others who are stockpiling guns and ammunition as fast as they can. They have bought and paid for our weak and self-serving lawmakers who know how dangerous this is for our country but choose to toady to these trigger-happy maniacs to get elected. Assault rifles, anyone? You never know when a mean elephant or lion may threaten so be prepared. Use your credit card to get plenty of firepower to keep us safe.
I always felt safe feeling that "ya-Hoo's" would not be carring guns when visiting National Parks. I feel this legislation will have ramifications the first time someone innocent gets injured or killed by the discharge of a firearm in a National Park, weather intentional or by accident. It just had cause me to have more hatred for the "NRA". We have lost alot of our civil liberties but we can carry guns. What a great nation we live in. God "I Hate Guns".
Then don't own any. Duh.
The author wrote, "Department of the Interior issued regulations that protected the public from gun owners while traveling through their national parks."
By the second star! He could have said "'the' national parks", out of respect for the indigenous people we exterminated in order to steal the parks. Imagine you were an indigenous person reading that stuff, would't you be overtaken by anger?
As FDR said: "Nothing in politics is an accident."
Paranoid Pessimist, a Libertarian, said above that even though he is not for banning guns, among other things, "... we seem to be heading toward a free-for-all shoot out."
That would be my guess, given what will happen in the U.S. as the economy, by design, tanks and tanks and tanks. Who needs the U.S. worker to make automobiles? ... so much cheaper to do that in China, especially since China ... and a rising India ... are the new markets of choice with billions of their citizens ready for "the good life." The U.S. of A. has a population of a paltry 305 to 320 million, including a goodly percentage still children, and that population, with numbed, dumbed down, ignorant minds from a surfeit of television-watching and pill-taking, but also with apathetic hearts that don't become passionate about much more than who wins the Super Bowl or "American Idol," this paltry population has been draining dry the excesses of "the good life" for quite some time now. That is about to be over, and a new, rougher path is before it, with a government filled with people who could care less. They'll go through the motions, and then they'll return to their comfortable homes and turn up for "work" again because the salary, prestige and perks are darn good.
Capitalists aren't out to get anyone; they do business where the maximum profits and markets are. And if you haven't noticed, the unions have been weakened; most jobs, including technical have gone overseas; and we are now a country of service industries for fairly low wages, which will likely go lower.
Accident? Nah. Manifest Destiny manifested through the boom years. It's just time for the Big Boy Robber Barons, with their focus on more and more and more mega-bucks to make, to move on to where the money-making is gonna' be prime.
Ralph Nader in another essay asked, "What is Congress ... a potted plant?" You got it, Ralph. And that's the way it's s'posed to be. No accident.
And the wars will go on because that at least brings in some money and work for the locals, but more importantly, it's a way to gain control of other nation's resources. One of these days, it all may turn into a free-for-all shootout in the not-so-ok, U.S. of A. Corral, as life turns sour for enough of the people. Maybe they will get it; maybe they will not, but they will be damned angry.
The Shock Doctrine is here and relentlessly doing what it is supposed to do. No accident, made in the U.S. of A.
So what are we going to do about it? and is there anything we really can do to reclaim our Nation. Or is it over, and we best tend to finding ways to take care of ourselves, our families and maybe our communities?
/cm
Sioux Rose
CEE MIRACLES: I feel I related similar points on a different thread today. In any case, you did a masterful job of stating the facts and allowing them to point towards a dark probable future destination. I wish I didn't agree. Powerfully-stated, Cee.
SR- Thanks. I wish I didn't see the darkness that I do see now. But when the pieces fit, they fit. And the escalation on all fronts is getting scary.
... and yet, all is perfect, and moving along right on time; otherwise, we would be in a different place and time.
pax tecum, Sioux Rose, cm
Swell, The National Mall is a 'national park' with a splendid view of the White House.
I'll never go there anymore unless heavly armed to protect from Brownshirted gunmen.
Memo to the morons:
The National Mall is located in the District of Columbia. Carrying concealed weapons is ILLEGAL in the District of Columbia. I will leave it to you to figure out the rest.
What this ends up meaning is that people will now hunt in national parks.
And the line about militias has always made me wonder if my right to form an armed militia was guaranteed in that phrase.
If a child's toy hits the market and it has a tiny daub of lead-based paint on it, maybe a couple kids get sick after chewing the paint off... That product is pulled from the shelves, the distributor faces massive litigation, the factory in China is scraped out and the manager faces hanging if he doesn't commit suicide first.
But any fool can buy a box of bullets and bullets kill 23,000 Americans every year. They are the most dangerous unregulated substance in this country. Untrackable, no registry of barrel riflings to compare against when they are found where they don't belong. No certification of competence or sanity, no pee test, nothing. All you need is enough money and enough ID to prove that you are over 18. And that doesn't get recorded with the batch number of the bullets.
The NRA has campaigned, successfully, to allow the sale of Teflon-coated armor piercing bullets and .50 caliber bullets for sniper rifles. They have lobbied to allow plastic guns that don't set off airport metal detectors. You have to wonder what they are thinking, where their responsibility is.
There are no plastic guns that do not set off metal detectors, all have enough steal to set off the detectors. You might want to study the issue before spouting off on somthing you have no clue about.The most unregulated substance, are you kinding? Have you ever purchased a gun? It is the only thing you have to prove your inacent before buying, not that I mind the regulations but unregulated? Give me a break!!
Sioux Rose
CV: Thank you. This Mars-rules nation thinks guns are holy, and soon there will be "accidental" shootings in national parks, but what, those of us who want to hike or meditate in peace have to just accept that as domestic style collateral damage?
Interesting logic. Despite the subject NEVER being mentioned in the constitution, it is believed here that there is some kind of god given "constitutional" right to abortion on demand and gay marriage. At the same time, despite this sentence: "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed", it is argued here that there is no right to keep and bear arms.
Interesting logic.
Actually, what the second amendment says is: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Regulation, of all things!
But I'm pretty much libertarian too and don't think banning things like guns and drugs and quirky marriages is a good working idea even though we seem to be heading toward a free-for-all shoot out.
As a Libertarian I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it's voluntary and nobody else gets hurt. I therefore support the right to keep and bear arms, although I don't see what this has to do with consumer protection. I also support the right of a gay couple to marry if they wish. I'm straight, so I have no desire to do this, but if they want to, fine, as long as I don't have to.
As far as abortion goes, I'm pro life. I also oppose the death penalty.
What any of this has to do with credit card protection still escapes me.
Gosh - you Libertarians are clueless, which is why nobody takes you seriously.
We have a Senator from the Socialist Party. How many Senators are from the Libertarian Party. Golly, that would be... none.
So you say "...long as it's voluntary and nobody else gets hurt. I therefore support the right to keep and bear arms..." And you say this with a straight face when referring to guns?
Astounding.
I wish I had the right to protect myself from law abiding idiots like Dick Cheney. I guess I should get a gun just in case I am mistaken for a terrorist or a bear or a homosexual! Constitution? isn't that just a piece of damned paper? USA: home of the scared.....land of the paranoid.
. . . the success of the National Rifle Association in securing passage of the bill that gives all American citizens the right to bear loaded and cocked arms in national parks in the United States.
NRA = Nuts Run Amok
so if I understand this correctly - the second amendment now also guarantees the right to bear credit cards?
actually, no, as I understand it, it permits anyone who is denied a credit card by a bank to bear his/her arms and blast to smithereens any employee of that bank.
thereby putting their account in the red?
Sioux Rose
VCB: Good one! Gallows humor, to be sure.
National parks don't need protection from firearms. 1984 was an entirely different matter. Today is different. If law abiding gun owners want to defend themselves, it is their sole right and the Second Amendment states it clearly. This author needs to go back and read the Constitution first.
You stupid gun toters never bothered to actually read the Second Amendment carefully. Ever heard of "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" ? If not, then you didn't read the 2nd amendment or the constitution for that matter. The Second Amendment is about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, not giving some sicko the right to shoot as he pleases.
Are you advocating the return of the militia via the Committees of Safety? If so, do you consider the militia every man and woman capable of bearing arms, as Jefferson and other founders did (for men, at least)?
How appropriate to be named 'freedom's corpse'.
So the Founders thought "every man and woman capable of bearing arms" was part of a well regulated militia? My lord, you NRA types will say any lie, no matter how obviously and blatantly false.
OK, freedomcorpse. Cough up a link that shows the the Founders considered "every man and woman capable of bearing arms" was part of a well regulated militia,
and while you're at it explain why the Founders didn't just say "every man and woman capable of bearing arms" in the Constitution.
I apologize for the confusion and hoped it was clear from my previous entry that the founders excluded women from the definition of the militia. They also excluded non-whites, which is just as morally reprehensible. Considering the expanded recognition of rights, though, could bring hope that more people get involved in the militia -- not less -- unless you prefer the standing army and all it occupies in your name throughout the world. Regardless, on to the sources, since your Googlebots are broken...
From Federalist Paper #46, by James Madison, a clear argument for individual ownership of arms and decentralized government augmented by distributed militias:
"...Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it..."
http://federalistpapers.com/federalist46.html
From the Second Militia Act of 1792, as passed by Congress in accordance with power granted to the federal government by the Constitution, establishing a concise definition that likely existed in looser form for quite some time before:
"1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges ..."
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
I'm not sure how this definition was lost, nor where the NRA steered people the wrong way -- but you might agree they're probably a bunch of paid professional lobbyists to question at every turn -- so please consider bookmarking the alternate sites I provided for deeper research in the future, lest the originally intended Constitutional meaning of the word "militia" be lost again.
Still not good enough - reads like NRA deflection.
Once again, if the Founders wanted to say what you claim, why didn't they just say it?
Kind of an obvious question, huh?
I am sorry this is not coming across clearly. The definition of militia that President George Washington and Congress agreed to in 1792 by signing and passing the Second Militia Act was, in part, "...each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."
Considering that the Constitution was not ratified by all 13 colonies until 1790, I believe that most of the members of Congress at that time could be considered Founders, and surely the definitions they codified in 1792 are much closer to the original intent of the words in the Constitution than something, say, from 1992.
While I noted my disagreement that women and non-whites were excluded from the definition of the militia, what part do you disagree with, specifically?
Would it be more acceptable if I made the claim that every able bodied person under 45 who is eligible to vote is a member of the local militia? And that this definition should hold true today, as it is the more sensible extension of the original to include more people -- not fewer -- as compared to something like a self-selecting national guard or other type of professional standing army that is often flung to the far corners of the known world? In actual practice, what would you prefer?
It seems to me that they DID say it.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Seems quite clear to me. Certainly clearer than some alleged constitutional right to abortion or gay marriage or affirmative action.
Agreed, but it shouldn't have been a rider to a consumer protection bill.