They believe they’ve discovered a loophole:
The carefully worded gun amendment forbids any Interior Department regulation that “prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System.†But it includes a loophole, presumably out of deference to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves undelegated powers to the states.
The loophole says that the new permissive rules must be “in compliance†with any state law where a park is located. An Interior Department spokesman agrees that a state law would take precedence over the new federal law.
It’s not a loophole, it was the exact intent of the bill. If states wants to prohibit firearms in National Parks, they are free to do so. I’m rather amused by a bunch of reporters at the Bangor Daily News sitting around thinking they’ve figured out a way to pull a fast one on us knuckle dragging gun owners.
To what is something a “loophole” if it was intentionally put into the careful wording of a statute?
Wolfwood: Because these folks believe that unless permission is spelled out in the law, it is by default forbidden and is somehow an oversight that needs correcting. Just like the so-called “gun show loophole”. Same reasoning.
If they’re jumping for joy over this discovery then I’m laughing my ass off. Go ahead, lobbying the State legislature for new laws to “correct” this loophole and be introduced to the real grassroots. That will be really fun to watch.
You call that a loophole? I scoff at your loophole!
Here in Texas, firearms are forbidden in state parks by state code (except for hunting during season in specified locations), unless permission is obtained from the Dept of Parks.
Texas concealed handgun licensees have an executive order from the Parks Director dating from 1998 that allows them to carry in state parks.
In other words, we just did not publicize it.
Reading the Texas state codes, one would think guns are banned in state parks. Reading the rather unpublicized executive order (found for example via a link at Texas State Rifle Association or by some intensive googling) one realizes licensees may carry legally, keeping their handguns concealed.
Not the best of all outcomes, but the feeeeeelings of the anti-gunners are preserved from outrage and the legality of the licensees is likewise conserved.
Now that is what I call a loophole.
There must be a word for that peculiar mentality, the negative, illiberal, and shuttered mindset that believes, “Nothing is permitted unless it is explicitly stated.”
It’s quite opposed to the more positive and open mindset that believes, “Everything is freely to be done unless it is explicitly forbidden.”
Therein lies the problem with Liberals/Progressives. They are the exact opposite of Libertarians. Unless it is written
(in legalize from the legal-industrial complex) it is not allowed.
Totally anti-freedom.
Loophole means complying with the law. Every good reporter and politician knows that.
If you are not speeding on the free way, you are abusing the speed limit loophole and costing the government money.
If you only own US made semi-auto rifles, you are abusing the gun law loopholes and costing the government money.
If you take deductions on your taxes you are abusing the tax code loophole (ok, I didn’t make that one up, they talk about this ALL the time).
It’s a special kind of stupid to believe that complying with the law is abusing a loophole in the law, but we have a lot more than these examples showing that’s how complying with the law is reported.
Ah, the Tenth Amendment. One of those annoying “loopholes” that the Founders accidentally wrote.
Like Say Uncle says, a loophole is a law that someone doesn’t like.