New rules ease ban on guns in national parks

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC/AP

WASHINGTON - People will now be able to carry concealed firearms in some national parks and wildlife refuges.

An Interior Department rule issued Friday allows an individual to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon, and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows loaded firearms in parks.

The rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.

The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28072607/

---

As a CCW holder in my state this ruling makes sense to me. I hope the Obama administration lets this one stand. Sorry gun-banners.

[sandnsea]

1. 2010 - Violent Crime Increases in National Parks

Officials are stumped. /sarcasm

[krispos42]

4. Unlikely

For that to happen, the following must be true:

a) People that have a concealed carry permit want to commit crimes in national parks

b) Without their guns, people that have a concealed carry permit are not willing to commit crimes.

c) People that have a concealed carry permit are not committing crimes in national parks because they're following the law and not bringing their guns into the parks illegally.


These circumstances seem unlikely.

[Lautremont]

10. On the other hand, d) seems fairly likely to me.

Namely, that dumb people interpret this to mean they can use their popguns in a park with impunity. Crime per se may not rise, but idiotic accidents may well.

[slackmaster]

15. Is there a problem with permit-holders popping off pigeons in urban parks now?

Or poisoning them?

Crime per se may not rise, but idiotic accidents may well.

Please get back to us in a couple of years and let us know if actual statistics bear that out.

[sandnsea]

18. And then other people will interpret that to mean

they have a "right" to take their gun into the park to "protect themselves" from the "dumb people" - whether they have a permit or not because that violates their rights, after all - and it goes on and on until people end up dead.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. Yes criminals will continue to ignore the law.

[katty]

116. yep-this is not a good idea-whoops...my shot obstructed by trees

sorry!! all kinds of excuses possible.

[alarimer]

61. I fear for the wildlife more than anything.

I foresee an increase in poaching and/or pieces of shit gun nuts firing them off just for the hell of it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Highly unlikely that permit holders are going to poach.

Firing a gun without cause in a National Park would definitely cause unwanted attention. Your concerns are unfounded. CCW permit holders are a very law abiding bunch.

David

[Winterblues]

105. Criminals are more likely to burglerize you if they know you could have a gun for them to steal.

Guns are a bigger draw for theft than money in this day and age. Odds are crime will most definitely rise in National Parks in the next few years. It has proved to be the case every where else guns are more abundant.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Kind of hard to "burglarize" a gun that is being carried concealed.

That DC gun ban has been very effective at reducing crime. Oh wait that's not the case. Do you have any stats to back up your assertion?

David

[Winterblues]

109. It has been reported very often that guns are a high target for theft.

It has also been reported that many gun crimes are committed with stolen guns. If one is a crook and knows there is a liklihood that a gun may be in that camper it stands to reason they would have a greater incentive to break and enter..IMO anyone that tries to deny that guns are a rich target for theft is just barking at the moon..

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. We are talking about firearms that are being carried by the owners.

How would the thieves identify the concealed carry permit holders and know when they were or weren't carrying their firearms?

David

[Winterblues]

112. This is about allowing loaded firearms into National Parks.

It doesn't matter whether they are in the Camper or on the person. They are not allowed at the moment so the odds that there is a gun in that camper are nil. That is scheduled to be changed..

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. This is about letting people with CCW permits carry concealed firearms in National Parks.

From the story

snip

Source: MSNBC/AP

WASHINGTON - People will now be able to carry concealed firearms in some national parks and wildlife refuges.

An Interior Department rule issued Friday allows an individual to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon, and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows loaded firearms in parks.

snip

This isn't about everyone bringing loaded guns into a National Park. This is about the less than 1% of the population that has concealed carry permits and actually carries a firearms, carrying them on their person into a National Park in the State that they are licensed to carry a firearm.

David

[xxqqqzme]

118. You want me to believe those concealed weapons will

ALL have carry permits?

All the yahoos will see (AND it will be the yahoos) is loaded weapons allowed in national parks. The yahoos will get drunk and start shooting off weapons. Oh yea, there will be a happy ending to this.

[slackmaster]

122. What do you suppose the situation is right now?

Do you think there aren't people carrying weapons illegally in the parks?

All the yahoos will see (AND it will be the yahoos) is loaded weapons allowed in national parks. The yahoos will get drunk and start shooting off weapons.

Thanks for sharing your bigotry.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

129. Then they'll be arrested and charged with a felony.

[slackmaster]

14. Please feel free to remind us of your prediction if that happens

:hi:

[JonQ]

24. You really think the criminally inclined

are going to be hanging out in national parks?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. U.S. Rangers, Park Police Sustain Record Levels of Violence

WASHINGTON, DC, September 1, 2004 (ENS) - Attacks, threats, harassment against National Park Service rangers and U.S. Park Police officers reached a all-time high in 2003, according to agency records released Tuesday by an association of federal employees, keeper of the country's only database documenting violence against federal resource protection employees. At the same time, "scores" of park law enforcement personnel have been reassigned to desks, rangers say.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reports that National Park Service commissioned law enforcement officers were victims of assaults 106 times in 2003. More than one-quarter of these encounters resulted in injury to the officers. This figure tops the 2002 total of 98 assaults but parallels the 2001 previous high of 104 violent incidents. "Law enforcement officers in the National Park Service are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents – a rate triple that of the next worst federal agency," said Randall Kendrick, executive director for the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

A midnight shift with only one ranger, a nuclear power plant threatened by terrorists, rangers sent out on patrol without dispatch, without backup, without even pepper spray - these are real situations that place the defenders of America's public lands in grave danger, the officers' association warns. On their 2003 "Most Dangerous National Parks" list, released in June, the Fraternal Order of Police handed the Number One spot to Arizona's Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument for the third year in a row.

After the murder of 28 year old NPS Ranger Kris Eggle on August 9, 2002, the park service bolstered its force at the monument with tactical teams, since removed, and has failed to restore staff levels to previous levels, the officers' association reports.

From Environment News Service link here: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2004/2004-09-01-02.a...


So the Rangers and the Park Police aren't safe, but us normal folks should only be worried about Grizzly Bears and Mountain Lions. Since the Rangers are having trouble protecting themselves and are hugely understaffed, is it unreasonable for people who are legally allowed to carry a firearm in the State of the Park they are visiting, to be allowed to do so in the Park? I would love to hear a rational argument against this. I hope someone steps up to do so.

David

[krispos42]

2. Consistancy.

Nice. :thumbsup:

[Kolesar]

3. Typical divisive politics by bush *

Right up there with snowmobilers buzzing through Yellowstone NP.

[Mabus]

5. After what happened to me this morning in Rock Creek Park, I hope RCP isn't included

What with the angry, pantless john yelling at and slapping a hooker about twenty feet from a bus stop that kids had just departed from a few minutes earlier. If he had had a gun, I think one of us - me, the hooker, my dog and several people (including personnel from the Maryland-National Capital Park Police)who heard the shouting and who came running to see what was happening - might be dead right now.

[slackmaster]

13. Do you really think some angry pantless park hooker-slapper john is going to give a flying fuck

whether or not it's legal for him to carry a gun?

The probability that such an individual has a valid carry permit is nil anyway.

[Mabus]

26. Well I think his chances to get a valid permit are far less likely now

Otherwise I'm not going to make assumptions about him or his life. But, fwiw, he had DC plates and the law just changed there. If he wanted one, he probably just blew his chances.

[michreject]

45. DC didn't ease the rule on carrying a gun

Just the right to own one.

[slackmaster]

88. DC residents cannot get concealed firearms permits

So that additional piece of information pretty well clears up the issue.

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. Nice, hopefully Obama wont use his executive power to remove this...

because this law make sense.

FWIW I have carried a handgun in a national park before this.

I have a carry license although at the time it wasnt valid in national parks despite the fact that the license was good for all the states I visited during a cross country roadtrip. This will no longer be an issue now, unless this is repealed.

At the time (and still today) it is technically legal to have a gun on you in a national park as long as it is unloaded and they prefer it to be dismantled as well. I was only carrying a 9mm so I doubt it would have been much use against bears, but that isnt the reason I had taken my gun, it was for any potential hostile encounters with humans along the rest of my trip.

I never mentioned my gun to any park officials, but while getting info about where to do backcountry backpacking they mentioned that any handguns "should" be locked up in our vehicle. This isnt technically the law but I guess their own policy, which I'm sure we could have been kicked out for violating. Being that we werent going to be anywhere near our vehicle for the next 3 days I didnt feel safe leaving a handgun in there. I violated park policy but complied with federal law because its what I felt was best at the time.

[Duppers]

44. same here

Years ago, hubby and I used to backpack for up to 5 days in the back country and always carried a 45 and a 25 (loaded).

Anyone not carrying in the real 'back country' is an idiot.

[customerserviceguy]

98. Something smells like setup

I mean, why didn't Chimpy issue this executive order on January 20, 2001? Why did he wait until the results of the election were clear?

I suspect he's got a committee sitting around somewhere thinking up ways to try to make President Obama look bad. If the new President reverses an order that only got issued a month and a half before, he can be painted by the Repukes as a "gun grabber", even though he's reverting to the way the law was during essentially the entirety of the Bush administration.

Expect more of the same bullshit over the next month and a half.

[Owl]

7. Blecchhh.

[Stump]

8. Good law....

Why not? Now when I go hiking on the Appalachian Trail, I'll be legal.

[Pavulon]

11. yep, I have been breaking this law for a decade

no way I go out in the middle of nowhere without a handgun. Simple survival tool.

[geomon666]

9. And the regression continues... n/t

[slackmaster]

12. Makes perfect sense

If someone has been vetted to carry a weapon in a shopping mall, on a bus, in an urban park, etc. they are certainly qualified to carry one in a national park or wildlife refuge.

[bread_and_roses]

16. oh, good. more dead people in our national parks (n/t)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Anything to back up that assertion?

[-..__...]

17. Most excellent!

Listen... I can hear the capillaries bursting at the Brady Campaign as I type this.

:smoke:

[jody]

19. What will Obama do? He will anger the gun control crowd if he doesn't sign an executive continuing

the ban or many of the 80+ million gun owners will be mad if reinstates the ban.

Obama can take gun control issues off the table by simply promising to veto any bill that comes to him that infringes upon RKBA. Let Congress do its job and override the veto,

IMO, the entire issue is just a tiny problem that results when presidents use executive orders to make law rather than letting Congress do its job.

[Lasher]

20. Promoting Interior Department policy conformance with SCOTUS Second Amendment ruling this June

Or so it would seem.

[MadHound]

21. Gun people aren't going to be happy until they've trampled over the rights of everybody else

And can carry their guns everywhere, including onto my private property, concealed or otherwise.

Hmm, guns in parks, what could go wrong with that? Poaching, accidents, all sorts of fun things.

[Lorien]

22. Not to mention robbery and rapes

I'd like to be free NOT to carry a weapon that could be used against me. Gun lovers are trying to make that impossible.

[JonQ]

31. Aren't you?

You don't have to carry a gun. Just like roe v. wade didn't declare that you have to have an abortion. Just that it's an option.

Don't get a gun if you don't want one. No problem there.

Of course most rapists are men, and most victims are women. Men are on average physically stronger than women. So universal disarmament would then overwhelmingly be to the benefit of rapists and the detriment of potential rape victims, as the rapists don't necessarily need a weapon to ply their trade but many of their victims would need one to defend themselves.

But again, it's a matter of personal choice.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. HUH?

Did you read somewhere that this rule requires you to carry a firearm? Please enlighten us.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. Still nothing to back that up, right?

[anonymous171]

28. How does that affect your rights?

[MadHound]

29. Well, first of all, the NRA trampled all over the rights of the people of Missouri

Normally the NRA shoves CCW legislation through the various state legislatures. They tried that here in the '90's but the bill was vetoed by the governor and there weren't enough votes to override. Then, in a precedent setting move, for the first time ever, the NRA and CCW supporters tried to get the CCW law onto the books via a ballot initiative, let the people vote on it. Well, the people resoundingly said NO. The NRA came back a few years later, and overriding the will of the people, rammed CCW through the legislature, and with a 'Pug in as governor, got it signed into law.

However CCW also starting to violate my rights as a property owner. Many states are forcing private businesses to allow CCW holders into their place of business, regardless of whether the owner of the business wants guns on his/her property or not. And as I said, this will probably be extended to coming into people's residences or onto the home property also. Give it time, the NRA wants all guns, all the time, everywhere.

Finally, having guns in a national park takes away from my own peace of mind. I don't want to have to worry about the drunken fool next door having a gun or not. Yes, I realize that he could have one illegally, but making guns legal only encourages more of them.

Isn't there one damn place that gunner's feel secure enough to go without their security blanket? Apparently not, to them the world is a big bad place with threats around every corner:eyes:

[Pavulon]

30. You describe a LEGAL

process. That is not a trample, so take steps to undo it if it is unpopular.

I dont see how ccw can be forced into your home.

Business is possible. You cant refuse to let blacks into your business because they are scary to you.

[MadHound]

33. Legal, yes, but certainly against the spirit of what the people in this state wanted

You could apply your same logic to what happened in California and proposition 8. Yes, it was legal, however that doesn't make it right.

And please, don't try to play the race card. A person can't choose their race, they can choose whether or not to carry a gun. I should have the right to keep that gun out of my business or home.

[Pavulon]

65. Your home sure

but a business is a legal question. Race was an example of legislation forcing business to treat people equally.

It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon.

[JonQ]

32. I don't think you have a right to peace of mind.

If there was such a right wouldn't that effectively do away with free speech, and abortions, and anything else that someone finds offensive.

"Isn't there one damn place that gunner's feel secure enough to go without their security blanket? Apparently not, to them the world is a big bad place with threats around every corner"

If you could, would you set it up so that no matter what, a cop would never be allowed to come to your aid? Why not, can't live without that security blanket in this big bad world? Every rational person takes reasonable steps to ensure their own safety. Not leaving your door unlocked for instance. That doesn't mean you expect something bad to happen, or that you're living in terror constantly, just that you acknowledge something may happen.

And you were the one assuming that legal gun owners spend all their time getting wasted near you and firing randomly in any direction. Perhaps gun owners aren't the only ones imaging threats eh?

[MadHound]

34. Oh, I think that peace of mind is covered in the Declaration of Independence

You know, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

And your attempted comparison between cops and guns is specious at best. Cops are actually trained, and have experience at what they do. Outside of a modicum of training and background checks, CCW holders are out there without the benefit of restraints.

And the vast majority of people in this country, while they do indeed lock their doors at night, don't carry guns, or frankly even own guns. Why does the minority of CCW feel so threatened? Hmm, let's look at the demographics here. CCW holders are overwhelmingly white, rural and right wing. Hmmm.

Oh, and I don't have to imagine the effects of drunks and guns, I've seen it in action too many times. Adding more guns to the mix is not a solution.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Your own paranoia is affecting your state of mind.

[JonQ]

40. You put alot of stake in the declaration

but not much in the bill of rights. I think you have your priorities reversed. The 2nd doesn't mention the right of policemen, or soldiers, or hunters, or any other specific groups to bear arms. It says ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Seems pretty cut and dried to me. *We* are the people, and *we* have the right to own firearms for self-defense.

And I haven't heard of any supreme court case upholding anyones right to "peace of mind". What if you feel intimidated by someone because you feel they may be a criminal? Does your right to peace of mind give you the right to order he be removed from your sight? Try that some time. I think you will find that their right to exist outweighs your fictitious right to "peace of mind". That's one of the more ludicrious arguments against the 2nd amendment that I've heard.

"Hmm, let's look at the demographics here. CCW holders are overwhelmingly white, rural and right wing. Hmmm"

A) do you have stats for that, and B) are you honestly suggesting race, social class or political views should be grounds for stripping individuals of their rights? Also the overwhelming majority of criminals using fire arms are in the city, and don't seem to lean to the right or any particular direction. Perhaps city folk should lose their rights since they've shown they aren't capable of being responsible, and rural folks should be allowed to continue bearing arms in light of their remarkably low murder rate. Doesn't sound so fair does it?

"Oh, and I don't have to imagine the effects of drunks and guns, I've seen it in action too many times. Adding more guns to the mix is not a solution."

I've seen the effect of mixing alcohol and automobiles, far more so than all firearm related deaths. And yet I don't demand cars be banned because of the actions of an extreme minority.

[420inTN]

128. Re: CCW holder restraints

CCW applicants must pass written and weapon proficiency exams before a permit will be issued (at least in my state).

What restraints are there on a CCW holder? How about their own conscience/morals, and knowledge of the law?

What restraints are there for those who illegally carry firearms? A CCW permit holder values their rights and is less likely to pop off a few caps without just cause.

Drunks and guns do not mix, and a CCW holder will lose their permit if caught drunk with a weapon. If you see someone drunk with a firearm, the odds are that they are NOT a CCW holder and are carrying illegally (in more ways than one).

[anonymous171]

43. Correct. I would love it if RW radio was illegal.

But unfortunately, the fucking Constitution says that can't be done.

[michreject]

46. I don't want to trample your rights

But I'll be damn if I let you trample mine.

[alarimer]

62. they can go to hell.

Jesus Christ I hate gun nuts.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. What a rational argument.

I don't hate you scared, little ninny civil rights opponents.

David

[Mtnboy]

67. Oh come on!

This argument is just not rational or intelligent. I'll never understand the "rational" of the anti-gun movement. People who break the law do not care that states gun laws are now protected. They didn't care when the weren't either. I wish you all would put as much energy into world hunger or something of the like as you do trying to make invalid points all over the internet.

[Richard Steele]

68. A lot of those "gun people" you're smearing with that silly broad-brush are DEMOCRATS.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and thus appear foolish.

[petronius]

23. Seems like a balanced and correct law to me - way to go, NPS!

National Parks are still very safe places to go, but lawlessness has risen slightly and law enforcement rangers are few and far between. I see no reason why people who have met stringent requirements to demonstrate their fitness to carry should be denied that right in the wilderness.

And of course, people who choose not to carry (like me) will continue to enjoy that right, as well...

[Owl]

25. I'd be too damned scared to watch Old Faithful if I wasn't packin' heat!

[Owl]

27. I dang near shat my pants when a squirrel-like thing jumped in the bushes in Yellowstone!

I'm still havin' nightmares! Didn't even have my slingshot!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Then it's good that you don't have a CCW permit.

You definitely sound far to fragile to carry a firearm safely.

David

[Owl]

70. Bhwrahhhhahhhhhaaaa!!!!!!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. I thought you would like that.

[Owl]

66. If only I had my 30.06 with me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. I haven't seen a 30-06 that you could carry concealed, you seem to be ignorant of the law here.

[Owl]

35. Sorry. It's pure stupidity to carry side-arms in our National Parks.

No reason other than paranoia, lack of self-confidence, or some innate swagger-nonsense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. So our National Parks are safe and visitors have nothing to fear?

[Owl]

41. Afraid of a gopher?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. Is that a yes?

To answer your question though no gophers don't bother me. The only animal I've been worried about while visiting our National Parks has been the Brown Bear.

David

[Owl]

48. "Is that a yes?"... what? Makes no sense. Try again.

So you listen to the recommendations from the park Ranger of the trails...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. You responded with a question to my question, so I asked if your question was a yes.

Implying that gophers were the only concern when visiting a National Park. Feel free to reread it.

David

[Owl]

53. Have trouble reading?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. You seem to. I'll take your non-answers as a concession of defeat.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. So I guess that means you've got nothing? I'll take that as a concession of defeat.

[Owl]

55. Nonsense. My original post stands.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. Your original post is asinine, don't let the facts get in the way of a your opinions.

[Owl]

57. Hint. Gophers aren't scary.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. More drivel, I answered your question about gophers, you weren't that courteous though.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. You are scared of squirrels, I put no irrational fear out of reach of a gun grabber.

[Owl]

71. Please seek help.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. Just quoting you.

[XemaSab]

120. You ever been bit by one?

:scared:

[Owl]

69. Is that a yes?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. I answered your questions, you don't have the courtesy to do the same.

[Owl]

77. Deleted

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. U.S. Rangers, Park Police Sustain Record Levels of Violence

WASHINGTON, DC, September 1, 2004 (ENS) - Attacks, threats, harassment against National Park Service rangers and U.S. Park Police officers reached a all-time high in 2003, according to agency records released Tuesday by an association of federal employees, keeper of the country's only database documenting violence against federal resource protection employees. At the same time, "scores" of park law enforcement personnel have been reassigned to desks, rangers say.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reports that National Park Service commissioned law enforcement officers were victims of assaults 106 times in 2003. More than one-quarter of these encounters resulted in injury to the officers. This figure tops the 2002 total of 98 assaults but parallels the 2001 previous high of 104 violent incidents. "Law enforcement officers in the National Park Service are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents – a rate triple that of the next worst federal agency," said Randall Kendrick, executive director for the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

A midnight shift with only one ranger, a nuclear power plant threatened by terrorists, rangers sent out on patrol without dispatch, without backup, without even pepper spray - these are real situations that place the defenders of America's public lands in grave danger, the officers' association warns. On their 2003 "Most Dangerous National Parks" list, released in June, the Fraternal Order of Police handed the Number One spot to Arizona's Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument for the third year in a row.

After the murder of 28 year old NPS Ranger Kris Eggle on August 9, 2002, the park service bolstered its force at the monument with tactical teams, since removed, and has failed to restore staff levels to previous levels, the officers' association reports.

From Environment News Service link here: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2004/2004-09-01-02.a...


So the Rangers and the Park Police aren't safe. Since the Rangers are having trouble protecting themselves and are hugely understaffed, is it unreasonable for people who are legally allowed to carry a firearm in the State of the Park they are visiting, to be allowed to do so in the Park? Hopefully you now realize how ridiculous your statement was.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. This little thread is a great example of the gun grabbers problem.

A demonstrably idiotic statement is made with no offer of proof. The statement is asked to be clarified. No answer is ever given. Needless drivel ensues. Direct proof of the idiocy of the statement is offered and of course never replied to. If the gun grabbers would just use a little common sense and logic they wouldn't make our work to refute them so easy. Of course if they used common sense and logic they wouldn't argue the positions that they do.

David

[alarimer]

59. No fucking way.

Sorry gun nuts. You cannot take your paranoid fantasies everywhere.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Sorry scared, little ninny civil rights opponents don't get their way on this one.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders can carry firearms in National Parks.

David

[Owl]

78. Gun grabbers? That deserves another 'Bhwrahhhhahhhhhaaaa!!!!!!!!"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Who said anything about gun grabbers?

[Owl]

80. "... I put no irrational fear out of reach of a gun grabber." FMD

I've more guns and have been hunting long before most DU'er's have been born.

I won't put up with crap.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. Then you are terribly misinformed.

[Owl]

83. Alright, here's your chance to explain.

Here's multi-gun hunter me: "No reason other than paranoia, lack of self-confidence, or some innate swagger-nonsense" (to waltz around with a gun/side-arm).

Tell me why we need be afraid of the "big bad wolf" while we are visiting a national park?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. Okay.

I see no problem allowing law abiding citizens who have gone through the process to be able to legally carry a concealed weapon, carrying those weapons inside National Parks that are located in the State which they are licensed to carry a firearm. Concealed Carry Permit holders are among the most law abiding citizens in our country. The National Parks have very little law enforcement resources and huge amounts of territory. There are violent criminals inside our National Parks. Here is a link to an article about the law enforcement entities inside our parks http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2004/2004-09-01-02.asp . As to the individual reasons why people apply for and are licensed to carry a concealed weapon and choose to do so, I have no idea. Maybe they are being stalked by a former boyfriend or estranged husband, maybe they testified against a gang after witnessing a crime, maybe they are handicapped or elderly and don't feel capable of physically defending themselves from an attack from a violent criminal or an animal, maybe they were a victim of a violent crime. If this rule was about allowing ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon inside a National Park then I could understand your concern, it is not though, and given that CCW permit holders have demonstrated for 30 years that they are an extremely law abiding bunch, I see no reason to prevent them from doing something it is legal for them to do almost everywhere else in the State.

David

[Owl]

85. Thank you for your reasoned response.

We've probably very much in common.

I'm apparently looking at the "National Park" system in a much different way....

When we travel to spend our short vacation time at a National Park (Treasure) it's to get away from all the trappings of life, including firearms and politics and who/where people are from, their richness / poorness, young/old, sickly/healthy, etc. A chance where people are people among no others. To enjoy among us the joy and brevity of life.

That's why (apart that I can see no reason to drag our guns around in these settings) I pray/prefer that we keep Parks as Hallowed grounds in this based-spirited sense.

That is all.

Peace,
- Owl

PS: Please accept my apologies for my earlier brash replies.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Thank you.

Sometimes we've got to work our way through the insults to get to a place of mutual understanding. I didn't think either one of us was taking the other too seriously in that regards. My apologies as well though. Just for clarification I don't have a CCW permit and love our National Parks. Take care of yourself and have a good hunting season.

David

[Mtnboy]

86. Great work

This thread has perfectly outlined the complete lack of intelligence of the anti-gun movement. Lots of rash, emotional, uninformed remarks. Biz as usual for you all I spose.

[fascisthunter]

90. That Could be applied to Those who Want to Carry Guns in National Parks

"Lots of rash, emotional, uninformed remarks."

Seems you won't be happy until you get to carry a gun any and everywhere.... the real question is why and is it necessary? NOPE...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. Feel free to point out any uninformed remarks that I have posted.

I'll be happy to debate them with you.

David

[pipoman]

97. It always comes back to the same paradox

Massive gun violence sited as the reason for curtailing the rights of the law abiding who are then accused of being paranoid for wanting to carry an effective defensive tool. Either there is a danger from criminal gun violence or there isn't. If there is then how can that person who wishes to protect themselves and their families be paranoid? If there isn't an issue of criminal gun violence then who cares if a demonstrated law abiding citizen chooses to unnecessarily carry a defensive weapon?

[Mtnboy]

101. Read this

But then you are not arguing against gun freedoms are you?

It boils down to one thing. Gun laws dont work, gun laws will never work. Criminals do not give two shits how many gun laws there are, they will always be able to get their hands on anything they want, anytime they want. Gun laws only hurt one demographic, and that is law abiding citizens. I got news for you folks who are most obviously walking around with your head up your ass.. The criminal element are already carrying guns in your national parks! They are cooking meth there, and they are growing pot there!

The criminals dont go down to Joe's gun store and buy their guns. They dont go to gun shows to buy them either! There is no gun show loophole, what a bunch of crap! I've bought several guns at gun shows over the years, and since background checks have become a requirement, I've submitted to one every single time I've bought something at a show. Every time.

I will never understand the completely flawed logic that gun grabbers so tenaciously hold dear. Makes no practical, real world sense whatsoever. none.

Get informed.. I mean really informed, not the bullshit that you hear on the news. Research some real statistics, talk to some real cops. If you do these things, and your IQ is above 25, you will change your ideology about guns.

By the logic that some around here possess, gun shows should be daily bloodbaths! Guns stores too! Let me tell you something, there are no two safer places in the USA to be at any given time than one of those two places.

Screw your PC rhetoric, I'm sick and tired of it!!

[jmowreader]

81. Death Valley and Yellowstone are National Parks

These things are huge pieces of rural land--perfect for things like cooking meth or growing reefer. I can see why you'd want a gun out there.

[XemaSab]

121. It would be hard to grow weed in Death Valley

Weed's more suited to Redwood, Whiskeytown, Yosemite, Sequoia, Kings Canyon, Lassen, Pinnacles, the Santa Monica Mountains, Point Reyes, and Muir Woods.

Many of which I'm guessing most of the people on this thread have never heard of.

People who want to commit crimes in the parks will do so. Putting CCW holders in the same category as criminals is silly.

As a woman biologist, I think people should be allowed to protect themselves against bears and criminals.

[Xithras]

130. A tourist was kidnapped by pot growers in Yosemite a couple of years ago.

IIRC, he was a German tourist hiking in one of the less traveled parts of the park when he stumbled onto a professional pot grow. They didn't kill him, but they did tie him up and hold him captive (with AK-47's pointed at his head) for a few days while they finished their harvesting.

The woods aren't always a friendly place to be.

[Sex Pistol]

89. Excellent news...!!! It's nice when a decision comes down on the side of freedom.

[fascisthunter]

91. Gun Sales Go Up... YAY for Gun Manufacturers

Now there is one more place where guns can be carried...

Hey guns make the environment safer, doncha know?!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Yes we do know, thanks for admitting it.

[slackmaster]

99. Please be sure to share us a cite to the actual statistics that show increased gun sales

If that does happen. I doubt very much that it will happen, since (at least in most states) in order to get a concealed weapons permit you have to already own a gun.

[lynne]

92. Criminals already carry their guns into parks, malls, buses, restaurants and everywhere else -

- it seems only fair that law abiding citizens with the appropriate permits be allowed to do the same.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. Please don't confuse the gun grabbers with the facts.

[Mtnboy]

102. bravo!

:fistbump:

[LanternWaste]

100. least my pal two counties over has a pretty large parcel of land

Small consolation, but at least my pal two counties over has a pretty large parcel of land he lets me and friends camp on- thus preempting our necessary concern for some gun-toting buckaroos to come stumbling through.

Unfortunately, I guess national parks will become just another series of places for me to avoid.

[Mtnboy]

103. It is..

...probably best that you remove yourself from society in that way. That way you cannot infect anyone else with your stupidity. Please refrain from reproducing as well

Thank you, though your decision, you've just made our National parks a better place to go.

[LanternWaste]

104. Bless your little heart...

I see-- avoiding gun owners is "stupid"?

You can of course both expound and and expand on that? That is, explain how an individual's choice to to take advantage of the second amendment by neither purchasing a firearm or choosing to consciously avoid gun-owners is "stupid", yes?

You see, my dear little friend-- I'm not after your guns-- buy as many as you want as I'm in no mind nor no mood to prevent that.

However, much as I do with Republicans, Fundamentalists, and anyone who thinks the Bay City Rollers are the world's best band, I simply avoid them. If it makes you feel better to believe I do that because I'm stupid, or if you get some self-validation to think that people who make the choice not to be around firearms are unintelligent, more power to you, guy!

Up til now, I was under the impression that you guys get pissed off when someone wants to take your guns away-- now I see some of you get pissed off simply because we don't all want to be around some buckaroo packing heat... :shrug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. I have had confrontations with hunters trespassing on private property.

Those confrontations seem to go smoother when you are armed. Your fondness of private property unfortunately will not eliminate the chances of bad people stumbling through.

David

[LanternWaste]

119. merely my fondness for being around unarmed people

"Your fondness of private property"

Actually, it's not so much "private property" as it is merely my fondness for being around unarmed people whenever possible and within the confines and limitations of today's culture.

A choice I make only for myself that does not infringe upon the choices nor the rights of anyone else.




The confrontations I've had in the past have gone rather smoothly without the involvement of firearms. Maybe the weekend coming up in Feb. will be different-- but 'd imagine that Vegas odds are probably against it...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. Kind of hard to have a confrontation with a hunter who isn't armed.

I was merely pointing out that being on private property doesn't exclude you from dealing with armed people.

DAvid

[LanternWaste]

125. I'll go with the Vegas odds and bet against it...

Nothing can *absolutely* prevent me from being around an armed person, much like nothing can *absolutely* prevent me from being around Republicans or Fundies, either-- or even getting hit on the head by a falling toilet. Yet we all have our rathers, yes?

But (and as I've already qualified the same approximate statement with) I do my best to avoid gun owners-- most of the time it works, sometimes it doesn't....

But I'll go with the Vegas odds and bet against a gaggle of gun owners showing up at the land in Feb... :eyes:

Edited: spelling

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. On that we can agree.

I have no problem with you attempting to limit your exposure to guns. Clearly staying on private property would increase your odds of that. I doubt you'll rarely run into a gaggle of gun owners anywhere except a shooting range or a gun show (obviously not places you frequent). Since CCW permits are rare in and of themselves it is unlikely you'll run into one in a National Park even after the rule change and then you wouldn't know since the gun would be concealed. Take care of yourself.

David

[qwlauren35]

106. Why Concealed?

Maybe I just don't get it. Is this a defense against criminals who would prey on helpless park-goers who wouldn't be able to cry for help?

Guns near children scare the crap out of me, so the thought of guns on a family camping trip... yipes.

[slackmaster]

107. Open carry makes a lot of people nervous, and could be taken as provocative

I think it's best to be discreet.

[Mari333]

115. park service employees not happy

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/01/nps-retirees-oppose-carrying-guns-national-parks

[slackmaster]

117. The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees does not speak for all park service employees

Most rangers I have met don't give a crap if you carry a gun for protection, as long as you don't discharge it in an irresponsible manner.

[Jack_DeLeon]

127. If they dont like it they can quit...

Its wrong for citizens to have their rights restricted in some foolish attempt to make the lives of those in government easier.

When you get law enforcement officials and the like saying "this will make our jobs harder" I think its bullshit. Why should I give up my rights to make your job easier. If you dont like your job or think it isnt worth the risk you are free to find another line of work. Police officer deal with criminals of thier own choosing, they are doing a job and they can quit if they want. On the other hand myself or any other average citizen if we have a run in with criminals its usually not our choice so we should have the means to effectively defend ourselves.