Macaca's Parting Shot - Last Piece Of Legislation - Concealed Weapons In National Parks

[kpete]

Editorial
A Parting Shot From George Allen
Published: November 22, 2006

As a last little gift to America, Senator George Allen, who was narrowly defeated by James Webb this month, has introduced what may be his final piece of legislation: a bill that would allow the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks. The argument behind the bill is that national park regulations unfairly strip many Americans of a right they may enjoy outside the parks. The bill has passed to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where we hope it will die the miserable death it deserves.

America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total. An amendment that ensures a collective right to bear arms has been misread in one legislature after another — often in the face of strong public disapproval — as a law guaranteeing an individual’s right to carry a weapon in public. And, in a perversion of monumental proportions, the battle to extend that right has largely succeeded in co-opting the language of the Civil Rights movement, so that depriving an American of the right to carry a gun in public sounds, to some, as offensive as stripping him of the right to vote. Senator Allen’s bill is, of course, being cheered by the gun lobby, which sees it not as an assault on public safety but as a way of nationalizing the armed paranoia that the National Rifle Association and its cohorts stand for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/opinion/22wed4.html?ex=1321851600&en=0fe0bdcbd6ad0ed2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[BurtWorm]

1. May they chisel "Macaca" on his tombstone.

May "Macaca" follow him into the history books, if his name should ever by some odd chance be mentioned in one.

[originalpckelly]

2. OK, I'll say it, "Please don't shoot Macaca!"

:rofl:

[Red Zelda]

3. Of all the things to worry about

All the problems we face and THIS is what he does?

[aikoaiko]

4. Its a good idea even if it is from a Republican.

There really isn't a good reason to keep people who have met the criteria for carrying a concealed weapon within their states from carrying in national parks within the boundaries of those states (or states that recognize the permits from other states).

In many national parks you can be isolated and need protection from dangerous animals (human and otherwise).

[greyl]

5. How does your rationale support a Concealed weapon? nt

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Nothing wrong with carrying a concealed weapon

and it should be allowed in National Parks

[greyl]

10. Nothing wrong with good reason.

Your post is begging the question.

[Solo_in_MD]

16. QED: Self Defense and Self preservation

they are basic inalienable rights

[greyl]

23. No, that doesn't answer the question at all. nt

[aikoaiko]

17. are you asking why one should be able to carry a concealed weapon...

...in the first place?

[greyl]

22. No.

I'm asking why a non-concealed weapon wouldn't satisfy the need you are arguing.

[aikoaiko]

26. Ok, I see.

Mostly, a non-concealed weapon would be as useful as a concealed weapon.

The reasons for carrying a concealed weapon has to do with managing other people's behavior, in general.

Some people are scared of the sight of a gun. When I walk up to the ranger station, the other visitor from California or Japan may become terrified. An example. One day I was sitting in a restaurant with my friend and he said, "want to see what I just bought" and opened this box onthe table, cleared a 1911A1, and handed it to me. he did this discretely, but the other guests at a nearby table look terrfied.

For some its the element of surprise in producing a concealed weapon that can be enough to convince the attacker/threatener that he should reconsider. Of course, having an open carry weapon might prevent someone from getting aggressive in the firt place.

Because guns are often a little pricely, 400-1000+USD isn't unusual for a carried weapon, you wouldn't want people to know you have it because they may want to steal it.

Having a open carry gun might make you the target of someone hell bent on attacking you first if you were in a group. Say an armed person wanted to rob a small group of hikers, he might want to hurt/kill the person wearing a gun first.

There is a debate about whether people should carry concealed or not, in general. I like having the option.

[greyl]

27. Thanks for the education. That makes a lot of sense.

:thumbsup:

[Richard Steele]

15. Yes it is. The "National Parks" are just a red-tape confusing of the issue.

I've had a CCW permit, and legally carried a handgun
concealed upon my person as I went about my business.

But the "National Park" loophole meant that, as I was
driving home from work, there was a 10-minute period
where my legally-obtained, registered handgun
which I was fully licensed to carry....suddenly became a
FEDERAL CRIME....
Until I passed the "now leaving **** Park" sign 8 miles
further along the highway, at which point it was magically LEGAL again.

Now, no matter what OPINION you may have on the CCW issue,
that kind of thing is just foolish NONSENSE. And it damn
well needs to be clarified.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

6. If someone has a CCW permit, then that right shouldn't be taken away in a National Park.

I have no problem with this.

[yellowcanine]

11. Well I do. CCW permits are issued by states. National Parks are under

Federal jurisdiction. If someone wants to carry a weapon in a National Park they should have to get a Federal permit.

On edit: I should have said, "If someone NEEDS to carry..." And imo, that only applies to law enforcement officials.

[benEzra]

14. There's no such thing as a Federal carry license, unless you are a Senator...

and National Forests are already under state firearms regulations, and IIRC always have been--with absolutely no problems.

[Solo_in_MD]

18. or retired Federal LEO or judge

[yellowcanine]

21. Well hunting is permitted in National Forests - not permitted in National Parks.

So that is sort of apples and oranges, no? You actually made my point. I see no reason why anyone needs to carry a concealed weapon in a National Park unless they are a federal officer or a state/local officer on patrol in areas adjoining the park.

[aikoaiko]

19. Federal Concealed Carry Permit for regular folks? Got a link for that?

:shrug:

[yellowcanine]

24. Didn't say it was for "regular folks". I don't want "regular folks" carrying concealed

guns inside National Parks. I see no need for it. Local, and State, and Federal Police officers - fine. I want others to check their guns at the gate.

[benEzra]

29. So make that the policy in YOUR state...

but let my state decide differently. As with National Forest lands. Saying that someone hiking a stretch of wilderness in Alaska should have the same no-carry rule as someone visiting Nathaniel Hawthorne's house doesn't particularly make sense to me.

You already de facto allow criminals to carry guns in most National Parks, FWIW. I'd like to see that privilege extended to the law-abiding, personally--but I think allowing individual states to make that determination is, in fact, reasonable.

[yellowcanine]

30. A National Park does not belong to YOUR state. Sorry. It belongs to

all of us. So all of us have some say in what happens in it. If there are reasons why a weapon might be needed in a particular park - fine - set up some type of permitting system for it - but I believe this proposal was for ALL national parks, so that would include places like Mt. Vernon. Criminals carry guns into schools also but I still don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry being allowed to carry guns into schools.

[michreject]

25. There is no such thing

Federal permit..


I have a CCW and I never understood why National Parks were off limits.

[Nikki Stone1]

28. How does one get a concealed weapons permit?

I always wondered.

[benEzra]

31. Depends on your state. Here in North Carolina,

you must first undergo state-mandated training on NC firearms law and self-defense law. At the end of the class, you must demonstrate that you understand the law, and must also demonstrate proficiency on a shooting range. You then take your paperwork to your local law enforcement agency (county sheriff's office, for me), where you are fingerprinted by a deputy, provide proof of residency and approved ID, fill out additional forms, and pay some fairly hefty fees. The law enforcement agency sends your prints to the FBI for a fingerprint check, and also runs a state and Federal background check. They give you an additional form to take to the mental health records office, who run a mental health records check. Then you go home and wait for several weeks to a month or two. If you are approved, your license will be issued.

You are responsible to keep your current address on file with your local law enforcement agency, and your handgun carry license is indexed to your driver's license and motor vehicle registration in the state's computers. You have to inform any law enforcement officer you encounter that you are a license holder (every single one I've ever encountered has been very positive about it, presumably since holding a current CHL means I'm an FBI-certified, squeaky clean Good Guy), and you can have your license revoked at any time for even the most minor violations (e.g., carrying in a restaurant that you don't know serves alcohol, or failing to inform a police officer you encounter that you are licensed to carry and have a firearm).

IMHO, people who go through that, and pass, are NOT the type of people to do something illegal with a gun.

[michreject]

34. Apply at the local sherrif

Take approved CCW/safety class. Fill out all paper work, including references. Get fingerprinted. Pay money. The Police will run a background check at the local, state and federal level. They will check your references. Once approved, you get called down for a hearing before the gun board for a face to face. Some places omit this part. That's it.

[Nicole]

33. Driver's licenses are issued by states but recognized nationally.

Do you think I need a federal license to drive in another state? Or perhaps a license from each state I drive in?

[yellowcanine]

35. A driver's license doesn't compare to a gun permit. Sorry, I don't buy that analogy.

While a car can certainly kill people, that isn't a car's main reason for being.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Sure, then it will soooo much easier to shoot an endangered species!

What a nutcase!

[benEzra]

13. If someone has no qualms with felony discharge of a firearm...

what makes you think they'd have a problem with unlawfully carrying one?

The present rules affect only the sticklers for obeying the law--the kind of people who get fingerprinted, FBI vetted, trained, etc. to get a firearms carry license, and who don't want to disobey the rules--not the irresponsible. A criminal can already carry a gun into a national park, no questions asked; it's only the honest people who can't.

FWIW, getting a carry license here in NC involves a Federal and state criminal records check, a mental health records check, fingerprinting, state-mandated training, a written test on NC firearms law and self-defense law, a non-trivial amount of money, and a lot of time spent at your local law enforcement office. Your license is indexed to your driver's license, your motor-vehicle registration and tag number, and probably your home address--and the license can be revoked at any time for even the most trivial violations (i.e., carrying a firearm into a restaurant that you didn't know served alcohol). We're not talking about yahoos (or poachers) here.

[slackmaster]

9. I think people should be able to carry openly in national parks

Concealment is appropriate in populated areas. It's unnecessary in the great outdoors.

[benEzra]

12. Senator Webb would probably support this also...

as I believe he himself is licensed to carry a firearm.

I personally see no problem with allowing a person who has been vetted and licensed by the state to carry a firearm, to discreetly carry that firearm while traveling, camping, or hiking in a national park, so I think allowing states to make that decision is entirely rational. Most states already allow authorized persons to carry in state parks and such, with no problems.

[TheBaldyMan]

20. No clause in the constituion has precedence over another

so when you say

And, in a perversion of monumental proportions, the battle to extend that right has largely succeeded in co-opting the language of the Civil Rights movement, so that depriving an American of the right to carry a gun in public sounds, to some, as offensive as stripping him of the right to vote.

I am afraid that you haven't paid that much attention to constitutional law.

Personally I agree with you that the presentation of the right to bear a firearm (concealed or not) having equal status to the right to vote is repugnant on moral grounds and is a perversion on a monumental scale. As far as US law goes - the two are equal in law.

[Dr Fate]

32. I am for this- so long as the law allows someone to shoot that squirrel on MaKaKKa's head.

[Moloch]

36. This is absolute insanity.

Why would you even want armed people at national parks? You can't hunt there. Even if you are consumed by paranoia of crime -- Really how much crime takes place at national parks?

This is macaca trying to garner some support from the radical gun nuts for his '08 senate bid. Make no mistake about it, Warner is retiring and Allen will be the nominee for that seat.