Coburn inserts gun measure into credit card bill

[Nik]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090521_16_A1_WASHIN804261

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House easily gave final congressional approval Wednesday to provisions by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn to allow loaded guns in national parks, as well as to a crackdown on credit-card practices that critics deemed abusive and deceptive.

President Barack Obama, who has championed the credit-card legislation, is expected to sign the bill in quick order.

Attached to the credit-card measure last week by the Senate, the language by Coburn, R-Okla., was approved by a House vote of 279-147.

That followed a separate vote of 361-64 on the credit-card provisions.

Oklahoma's five-member House delegation voted for the Coburn guns-in-parks language, but split on the credit-card provisions, with Republicans John Sullivan and Frank Lucas voting no and Republicans Tom Cole and Mary Fallin and Democrat Dan Boren voting yes.

"The bill will reduce the availability, increase the cost, and reduce the amount of credit issued across the country,'' Lucas said. "All of this leads to a diminished access to credit for every American, making the current credit crisis worse.''

Coburn did not respond to a request for a comment on his amendment.

Earlier, he said the issue was not about guns but about states' rights and Second Amendment rights. Bureaucrats should not be able to decide when Americans cannot have those rights, Coburn said.

Under his language, visitors to national parks can carry loaded guns in states that do not bar such activity. Currently,
they can take guns into parks as long as they are not operable and not easily accessible.

Coburn's language does not provide for legal discharge of a gun in a park.

Still, opponents described it as dangerous and warned it could lead to more violence in parks.

They dismiss Coburn's constitutional claims, adding that the current regulations that date to the Reagan administration have not drawn such a challenge.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the major House sponsor of the credit-card legislation, expressed regret that the two issues were joined.

"We should not have to do credit-card reform with the barrel of a gun,'' Maloney said.

Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers, said the Coburn language is a fundamental reversal from why previous Congresses created the national park system.

"Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting,'' McElveen said.

John Waterman, president of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, said Congress chose to disregard the safety of park rangers, whom he described as the most-assaulted federal officers, and forgo the environmental process set up to assure the protection of national parks.

When asked about the bill, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama believes the legislation is important to protect consumers "that are represented in this town that don't have a lobbyist.''

"These are important reforms to protect consumers and to bring some common-sense rationality into our financial system, and the president looks forward to signing it as quickly as possible,'' Gibbs said.

According to a summary offered by supporters, key provisions of the bill would protect consumers from arbitrary interest rates, fee increases and prohibit universal default on existing balances, bar interest charges on paid-off balances from previous billing cycles, require payments be applied first to credit-card balances with the highest interest rates, protect students and other young consumers from aggressive credit-card solicitations and require greater disclosure of rates, terms and billing details.

I don't really have a stance on the gun issue, but it really ticks me off when politicians insert totally unrelated amendments into bills so they can get them passed. One of the slimiest moves in the book, in my opinion.

[Conan71]

Unfortunately Nik, it's not a "when it happens" issue anymore.  It seems to happen on every bill that goes through.  Far as I know, there's no cost of compliance to the taxpayers on this anyhow.

[cannon_fodder]

+1 on inserting random amendments to bills.  "Next up, the 'I support food for war orphans and California Bail Out Bill."   In a shocking story, Senator cannon_fodder voted against food for war orphans!

Guns in the parks do not bother me much.  I generally follow the advice of a professor I had who was an undersecretary in the BLM:  If you didn't spend at least a portion of any 50 days outside last year (hiking, fishing, bird watching, boating) then keep your suggestions about how to run such places to your self.  He told a great story about getting a ticket in the middle of Colorado from a park ranger for having his dog off of the leash - which was indeed against Park Service rules for a national forest, but he was 3 days hike from the nearest road.  Yay bureaucracy!

When I camp in remote locations, I almost always have a sidearm.  Bears, cougars, or in the worst case scenario people can be a problem.  Do I expect to use a firearm when I go hiking or camping?  No, but it is nice to be able to defend myself if the need ever arises.

I understand the perspective of rangers also.  Currently firearm = bad.  It's simple and easy.  But I do not believe they will be at any greater risk as I imagine the current rule is very commonly ignored (no one ever breaks you down looking for firearms).

[Hoss]

+1 on inserting random amendments to bills.  "Next up, the 'I support food for war orphans and California Bail Out Bill."   In a shocking story, Senator cannon_fodder voted against food for war orphans!

Guns in the parks do not bother me much.  I generally follow the advice of a professor I had who was an undersecretary in the BLM:  If you didn't spend at least a portion of any 50 days outside last year (hiking, fishing, bird watching, boating) then keep your suggestions about how to run such places to your self.  He told a great story about getting a ticket in the middle of Colorado from a park ranger for having his dog off of the leash - which was indeed against Park Service rules for a national forest, but he was 3 days hike from the nearest road.  Yay bureaucracy!

When I camp in remote locations, I almost always have a sidearm.  Bears, cougars, or in the worst case scenario people can be a problem.  Do I expect to use a firearm when I go hiking or camping?  No, but it is nice to be able to defend myself if the need ever arises.

I understand the perspective of rangers also.  Currently firearm = bad.  It's simple and easy.  But I do not believe they will be at any greater risk as I imagine the current rule is very commonly ignored (no one ever breaks you down looking for firearms).

Things like these really make me wish for a line-item-veto....

[Gold]

I expect more out Mr. Bring Back Common Sense.

I don't really have a horse in the race, other than that I'm a bit worried my credit card company will zap my rewards points very soon.  

I don't really like guns very much, but I also see their value if you're out in nature.  I've had encounters with bears in New Mexico and a gun might be needed.  As things stand now, I'm pretty sure a lot of people have them out there anyway, and that if push came to shove and you had to use the gun, no one would prosecute you.

But back to my point: isn't this the sort of thing that Coburn ran against?

I dislike a lot of the man's social agenda, but I sort of respect him compared to Inhofe.  But the reason I respect him is that he tries to get it done right.  

[Conan71]

I expect more out Mr. Bring Back Common Sense.

I don't really have a horse in the race, other than that I'm a bit worried my credit card company will zap my rewards points very soon.  

I don't really like guns very much, but I also see their value if you're out in nature.  I've had encounters with bears in New Mexico and a gun might be needed.  As things stand now, I'm pretty sure a lot of people have them out there anyway, and that if push came to shove and you had to use the gun, no one would prosecute you.

But back to my point: isn't this the sort of thing that Coburn ran against?

I dislike a lot of the man's social agenda, but I sort of respect him compared to Inhofe.  But the reason I respect him is that he tries to get it done right.  

That did seem ironic to me since he's so against earmark cramming, but I guess, since there's no real cost to taxpayers on this one, he didn't see the harm.  Or perhaps it's his way of sticking his thumb in the eye of ear-markers.  Of course, per CF's post, it will now have the bonus effect for incumbent Democrats to be able to say: "I'm a gun guy, I voted for guns in national parks!"

[Gold]

Yeah, good call.  And I doubt Coburn cares.  His test is simply whether he thinks it is a good law or not.  He could care less about the political/game side of things.

Part of me really respects that.  But it's sort of like trying to be the one honest guy on the pirate ship.

[Wilbur]

I don't really have a stance on the gun issue, but it really ticks me off when politicians insert totally unrelated amendments into bills so they can get them passed. One of the slimiest moves in the book, in my opinion.

But, it's the place that gives the opposition ammo to say the other candidate voted against this or that, simply because this or that got inserted into some other bill they really wanted.

Dirty pool.

[Conan71]

But, it's the place that gives the opposition ammo to say the other candidate voted against this or that, simply because this or that got inserted into some other bill they really wanted.

Dirty pool.

Someone say "dirty pool?"

Hmmm, it does resemble our Congress and Senate

[swake]

I don't know that I mind this so much, but it might be a good case where long guns should be banned and pistols allowed.

I would be afraid that otherwise law abiding gun owners might make a bad decision to try and hunt on public lands and would accidentally end up shooting a camper. There's a lot of game in some of those parks and I could see the temptation to hunt, but when you mix hunting with how many people are actually in the parks at any given time, someone is going to get shot.

[Gold]

That's a good point.  There are a lot of people out there who will visit government owned land and camp this coming weekend.  Many of them will come loaded with alcohol and might get a little rowdy.  And that brings some risk when you add guns.

But, I think we're already sort of past the threshold with guns.  The same risk would exist if you went to hang out at the Riverparks or the lake this weekend.  Guns have become a pervasive part of our culture.

I don't like that.   There are a lot of people out there who have guns who probably shouldn't.  But that's our culture.

[FOTD]

Hey. It's intangible entitlements like these that make Coburn a real negotiator.

If that's what it takes to move forward with regulations to protect big spenders who can't afford their habits and if that's what it takes to move along necessary change so be it.

Besides, would not want to be camping in a National Park and be cornered by a grizzly bear without a loaded rifle.

Outlaw the drug alcohol in the parks, instead.

[Conan71]

Valid concerns you guys express but the kind of people who would think to hunt on restricted national park land are least affected by this new law.  IOW, poachers and stupid cretins are already doing it.  Most law-abiding gun owners I know don't look for unlawful ways to use their firearms.

[Gaspar]

This is an earmark, though it requires no funding.  It therefore is wrong in principal.

I can understand Coburn wanting to force democrats to cast a positive vote on what is otherwise a constitutional right, but this is not the way to go about it.

Coburn et.al. have a strategy to attempt to shore up a whole list of constitutional rights before majority powers dilute and disintegrate them, but again I don't think that using the very same abusive strategies Coburn opposes is the right way.

Because of earmarks, congress has no ability to make sensible laws, and citizens have no mechanism for support behind any piece of legislation.  If someone were to ask you if you support the "Children's Health & Welfare Bill" you would be tempted to say OF COURSE, however much of that bill may be devoted to funding for prostitute abortions in Taipei, and nasal mucus aerodynamic testing in Utah.

A bill's title should reflect the contents of that legislation.  Why don't truth in advertising laws apply to congress?   Now we can't count on Coburn either.

We are constantly, knowingly mislead.

[FOTD]

This is an earmark, though it requires no funding.  It therefore is wrong in principal.

I can understand Coburn wanting to force democrats to cast a positive vote on what is otherwise a constitutional right, but this is not the way to go about it.

Coburn et.al. have a strategy to attempt to shore up a whole list of constitutional rights before majority powers dilute and disintegrate them, but again I don't think that using the very same abusive strategies Coburn opposes is the right way.

Because of earmarks, congress has no ability to make sensible laws, and citizens have no mechanism for support behind any piece of legislation.  If someone were to ask you if you support the "Children's Health & Welfare Bill" you would be tempted to say OF COURSE, however much of that bill may be devoted to funding for prostitute abortions in Taipei, and nasal mucus aerodynamic testing in Utah.

A bill's title should reflect the contents of that legislation.  Why don't truth in advertising laws apply to congress?   Now we can't count on Coburn either.

We are constantly, knowingly mislead.

So Gassie, you are not one to adhere to the squeaky wheel theory?

Intangible earmark sounds much better than entitlement.

Misled? Sheeples misled?