Deal reached allowing loaded guns in Nevada state parks

[RamboLiberal]

People who can lawfully possess firearms can now take their loaded guns into Nevada's state parks under a legal agreement approved Tuesday.

Attorneys for the Nevada Attorney General's office, representing the state park system, agreed in a lawsuit stipulation that the parks will stop enforcing a law that critics said generally barred park visitors from possessing loaded firearms -- even for self defense.

The agreement is valid for one year and will give the parks system a chance to amend its regulations so they comply with the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to possess firearms, said James Manley, an attorney for the Mountain States Legal Foundation who was involved in the litigation.

The agreement came after the Colorado-based legal foundation filed suit in federal court in Nevada in July challenging a law that allowed visitors to bring guns into state parks, but only if they were unloaded and locked in vehicles.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/agreement-allows-loaded-firearms-nevada-state-park/

[mediaman007]

1. Good, now for some games of firearm tag!

[cleanhippie]

2. Huh? Do you really think that gun owners are now going to just start shooting?

I don't get it.

[DrDan]

4. and the point of a gun is . . . . .

[Pavulon]

5. poke holes in stuff when you (the owner) make it work.(nt)

[DrDan]

7. ex - - - - actly

[Pavulon]

8. Yep, whats the point of your genetals? you can use them to rape , depends on YOU(nt)

[DrDan]

9. but . . . there are uses besides rape

[Pavulon]

11. Yep. same with firearms. Competetion is one I participate in,

a perfectly legal use of my firearms and money.

[PavePusher]

20. A gun can be used as defense against a rape.

Some people have an amazing amount of trouble with that concept...

[DrDan]

26. its basis as defense is due to its singular purpose

[Euromutt]

42. Which nullifies any point to the "a gun has only one purpose" argument

The unspoken implication in the "guns have one purpose: to inflict potentially lethal trauma" is that inflicting potentially lethal trauma, or threatening to inflict it, is morally wrong. But when you acknowledge that this "singular purpose" can be applied in self-defense, you undercut that implication, unless you want to argue that self-defense is morally wrong as well.

[DrDan]

44. the only reason it works in self-defense is the implicit threat of death

[Euromutt]

46. Yes. So what?

Do you have a problem with someone using "the implicit threat of death" to protect themselves from unlawful infliction of harm to life and limb?

[DrDan]

49. so what??? You are kidding - right? Did you not read my post in the context of yours?

[Euromutt]

54. Am I then to understand...

...that you consider threatening or using lethal force to be morally wrong in any circumstance, including defending oneself or others from what may reasonably perceived to be an imminent threat of unlawful infliction of permanent injury or death? Because I see no other way that your regurgitating of the "the only purpose of a firearm is kill" shibboleth is supposed to make any point (though if I'm missing something, I'd very much appreciate it if you could explain it).

If so, the failure to communicate that we're experiencing is due to the fact that I do not consider killing, or threatening to kill, to be by definition morally wrong. One may use the threat or actual infliction of lethal force to deter the commission of a greater wrong, such as the infliction of harm on innocents, and I would actually argue that failing to intervene is a greater moral wrong than using lethal force to intervene. I spent over three years working for a United Nations criminal tribunal, and due in no small part to my experiences there, I have no time at all for pacifists; pacifism at best means submitting to an aggressor in the hopes that he'll fuck you last.

If not, then I simply don't understand what the point is that you're trying to make. Yes, the purpose of most guns is to threaten or inflict violent death; that's certainly the purpose of 80% of the items in my gun collection. And the manner in which I apply that purpose is in the protection of myself and my loved ones: I'll shoot a neighborhood dog rather than risk letting it bite my child, and if someone were to gain forcible entry to my house, I would have no compunction about inflicting nasty ragged holes in his torso, and those of his friends, rather than risk letting them harm my wife, child and myself. And, not to put too fine a point on it, if you consider the threat or infliction of lethal force on an aggressor in order to prevent potential infliction of harm to life or limb of innocents to be anything other than justified, and indeed a moral imperative, then I consider your moral code to be so depraved that I have nothing else to say to you.

[DrDan]

56. the point I was making - and that you so clearly prefer to expand upon -

is that a gun has a singular purpose. Any editorializing on your part is just that - yours.

[Bold Lib]

60. In all seriousness, do you consider the lawful use of deadly force in defense of UNlawful deadly

force a bad thing? You seem to be dancing around that notion without actually saying it. Please clarify.

[rrneck]

64. I applaud your grasp of the obvious.

Can't get anything past you.

[Euromutt]

76. Then you aren't making any point germane to the discussion

And the response once again becomes "so what?"

You can whinge about "editorializing" on my part, but what it actually is is me trying to figure out what the argument is that you're trying to make, since you seem to be unwilling to actually make it.

[PavePusher]

80. And you seem to be purposefully avoiding aknowlegding...

that the "singular purpose" does not equate to a singlar intent or outcome or application.

[SteveM]

85. You're trying to claim some one-liner moral high ground. Doesn't work...

Even if the purpose of a firearm was ONLY to inflict severe injuries/death (there are other purposes, but leave them aside), then what is your point? State it and defend it. Your approach has been tried before; the question is, are you up to the challenge of explaining the significance of your statement and defending that significance?

Don't "Walk Away, Renee." (Left Bank, '66)

[DrDan]

58. as an aside

I have lived 9 years abroad - 6 of which were in other-than-Western civilizations.

I thought about this over the past hour. During those years, my family NEVER felt the need of a gun for safety. To the contrary, there were several circumstances where possession of a gun would have put my family in grave danger.

No thanks - none are welcome in my house.

[oneshooter]

59. And I have spent over 20 years abroad

ALL of it armed. Full auto, explosives, armoured vehicles. Fun times, most of it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Bold Lib]

61. "none are welcome in my house." Would you deny others that choice?

[DrDan]

65. nope

[rrneck]

67. Thank you. nt

[Bold Lib]

70. Thank you for the concise answer. I have a follow up question from your last post.

In regard to firearm possession you said "To the contrary, there were several circumstances where possession of a gun would have put my family in grave danger." Could you please elaborate on these "several circumstances"?

[DrDan]

74. I will share one

My family adn I were in an African country just after an overthrow of the government. There were armed roadblocks every mile or so throughout the city on the hunt for those opposed to the new government.

Right after Christmas we were approaching one of these roadblocks. We had given my 2 year old son a play gun for Christmas and he brought it with him. He placed it behind the rear seat (unknown to us) - but very visible through the rear window.

Right after we were waved through the roadblock - a guard shouted and all of the other guards raised their weapons, surrounded us, and pointed them at us. They had seen that toy gun and of course feared we were the opposition.

For the two years we were in this country, there were curfews ranging from as early as 7:00 pm. Just minutes after the curfew, EVERY EVENING, shots would begin to ring out. These guards were not at all shy in using their weapons.

Once they saw the gun was a toy, they were ok. But had it been a real weapon, who knows the outcome. There were several incidents of shootings at these roadblocks. In one particular case, the bodies were left for several days to insure everyone understood their intent.

[Bold Lib]

78. Ok, I get it. Having a firearm could have labeled you as an opposition combatant and get you shot

on the spot as being the enemy. That does make some reasonable sense but it begs the question. Was possession of a firearm/ handgun illegal?

[DrDan]

84. all laws were in disarray - they were at the mercy of whomever decided to enforce them

They (the new government) had declared that public demonstrations were illegal. After several months of that, they put out word that they would be tolerated in a certain square. That weekend, when the protesters gathered, they were all arrested.

[PavePusher]

82. If you are describing the Kenyan coup attempt of the early '80's...

I was there. From personal experience, I can say that possesion and use of guns also saved many lives.

[DrDan]

83. no - it was not Kenya - but near

Ethiopia after the departure of Haile Selassie

[Taitertots]

72. When did you feel the need for a gun while in America?

[PavePusher]

81. Your portion of the bell curve...

does not represent the entire curve... or even the adjacent portions.

[SteveM]

86. Our family (and I, living elsewhere) have never "felt the need for a gun...

for safety." And I still don't. But I don't trust my feelings THAT much. So I keep a .357 revolver handy, just in case my feelings change with a kicked-in door and breaking glass, oh, 'round 3:00 a.m.

You are free to not keep guns in your house. Just don't impose that condition on me (not claiming you are).

[rrneck]

52. If you turn him

in his own logic too fast he might get dizzy and puke on you.

[PavePusher]

47. So? n/t

[proteus_lives]

13. And the point of not allowing one in a park is..........

[DrDan]

27. a safer environment for the rest of us

[rrneck]

29. Except for those of us

who get assaulted. Do you have a self defense solution for them?

[proteus_lives]

30. How is it a safer environment?

[oneshooter]

31. The truth is that it will be no safer.

It will however -feel- safer to them. :sarcasm:

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[DrDan]

32. my thought exactly

[oneshooter]

35. So you agree that banning firearms make no one safer.That they just feel safer. n/t

[DrDan]

38. not exactly what I said . . . now was it

[Euromutt]

41. It is what oneshooter said

And you agreed with him.

[DrDan]

43. we agree that there is a false sense of safety . . .

[Euromutt]

55. Do you need me to draw you a flow chart?

You claimed that legally prohibiting the carrying of firearms in Nevada state parks would result in "a safer environment for the rest of us."
Proteus_lives responded by asking "how is it a safer environment <if we prohibit firearms>?"
whereupon oneshooter responded that "it will be no safer; however it will feel safer to 'them'" ("them" being proponents of prohibiting firearms like yourself).

You then expressed agreement with oneshooter, thereby acknowledging that continuing to prohibit firearms in Nevada state parks would not actually provide a safer environment, but that it would merely create an illusion of a "safer environment."

Believe me, I understand that you thought you were being clever, but unfortunately, you weren't actually being anywhere near as clever as you thought you were.

[DrDan]

57. I just responded to that simple post . . . sorry it confused you

[Bold Lib]

63. So his flow chart is correct. You acknowledge that there is really no actual safety gained.

people will only FEEL safer.

[DrDan]

66. correct - those that carry the loaded guns into the parks will only FEEL safer

[rrneck]

68. Please

prove that all of them will ONLY FEEL safer.

[DrDan]

75. why would you carry if you did not feel safer

[Bold Lib]

79. I think you misread the flow chart. The pertinent quote is:

"You then expressed agreement with oneshooter, thereby acknowledging that continuing to prohibit firearms in Nevada state parks would not actually provide a safer environment, but that it would merely create an illusion of a "safer environment."

So my question to you was not predicate of the CCL person but on the CCL prohibitionist. Do you acknowledge that prohibiting CCL makes the prohibitionist actually safer or does the prohibitionist only FEEL safer?

[SteveM]

87. Jesus. Now we have to have flow charts for our feelings. nt

[rrneck]

36. How do you think people that get assaulted feel? nt

[DrDan]

37. probably no worse than these parents

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-03-06/bay-area/18378391_1_block-of-syracuse-circle-vacaville-girl-child-endangerment

[rrneck]

51. So,

what self defense solution do you offer? Try googling it, you seem to be good at that.

[proteus_lives]

48. Feelings over facts and rights.

Yep, that's about your speed.

[DrDan]

50. just had to make it personal - didn't you

[proteus_lives]

53. That's not really personal.

Just making a comment on an observable trend.

[cleanhippie]

62. Is it an accurate description?

[cleanhippie]

16. A gun doesnt have a point.

Guns have several parts but none of them are called the point.

[shadowrider]

39. I cleaned mine today and didn't see a part called a "point" n/t

[SteveM]

34. And your point is...........?

[Taitertots]

71. To launch pieces of metal at high speed

[shadowrider]

28. Agreed. Blood will flow in Nevada state parks just like it flows in..hmmm..nevermind n/t

[SteveM]

33. Hopefully, not with the thugs which kill/rape park-goers. nt

[DrDan]

3. whew . . . . now everyone can feel a whooooole lot safer

[Pavulon]

6. Good thing the law doesnt care about your feelings on guns I own

anymore than what color carpet I buy.

[DrDan]

10. true . . . good thing my congresswoman cares - bless her

[Pavulon]

12. Yep, you can find some that support abortion bans and some who would (privately)

prefer blacks be kept segregated. Shit some publicly oppose it, (rand paul?). Glad the law upholds my rights.

You can get a sign with a dead baby picture and protest though.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. And to a person, they all claim to do so out of "concern" n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

15. Thank you sigmund fucking freud.

your opinion is noted and dismissed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. So what? A lot of people used to think homosexuality was a mental disorder.

And some still do. Why should your opinion carry any more weight than theirs?

[cleanhippie]

19. And therein lies the problem....

I think it is something akin to a mental disease.....


The problem is that you are not actually thinking, you are parroting unsubstantiated talking points based on your own fear and ignorance.

[PavePusher]

21. Evidence, please, or you are talking out your rectum...

while keeping it wrapped firmly about your ears.

[cleanhippie]

22. I have to disagree with you, PP.

I think its around the neck, well past the ears.

[PavePusher]

23. Well, I am near-sighted... n/t

[rrneck]

24. Try this,

I don't think you can see very well through your bubble.

[Glassunion]

25. Perhaps you should consider that your perception is incorrect.

I know why you do not like firearms. But you were forced to carry one and it resulted in trauma if my understanding of your posts is correct.

But, having been in a completely different situation, where I was not in a war zone, supposedly safe at home, having been slowly and methodically beaten to within an inch of my life by three complete strangers in a wealthy, "safe" neighborhood, perhaps my perspective is different. I honestly doubt anything bad would happen to me again, but if it does I will have an alternative option other than laying down and dying.

So am I paranoid for preparing for something I hope never happens, or was I delusional for thinking that I would never be a victim of violent crime? How about my wife? What is she?

[Green_Lantern]

40. this case isn't about protecting the right to self defense..

But people wanting an unrestricted ability to use guns...even requiring ccw permits is "too much regulation

Exceptions under the code protect gun owners carrying the weapon in conformity with a state concealed weapons permit or gun owners hunting in an authorized area.

The plaintiff, Idaho outdoorsman Al Baker, didn't fall under those exceptions and said in the suit he was threatened with six months' jail time if he fired his gun in Nevada state parks -- even in self defense.

So how would his use of it for self defense not fall under these exceptions if he had a ccw permit?

It is evident this is too much govt. for him.

[Euromutt]

45. Oh, spare us the straw man

"Unrestricted ability to use guns," pfffff... I've never seen a phrase like that not be a gross exaggeration. Standing on a busy downtown intersection randomly firing a machine gun without regard to possible harm to people and property, that's "unrestricted use of firearms." Not the mere act of carrying in a state park, and only being able to legally fire it in self-defense.

The plaintiff in this suit is a resident of Idaho. Nevada doesn't honor Idaho CCW permits, and getting a Nevada non-resident CCW permit involves applying in person at a Nevada sheriff's office, and taking the required training in Nevada. The closest sheriff's office to Idaho is in Elko, NV; since there are no interstates which run from Idaho into Nevada, it takes at least three hours' drive to get to Elko from anywhere inhabited in Idaho, so six hours plus for a round trip. Moreover, Nevada is an open carry state, so you should be able to carry openly in public (and on publicly owned land, like state parks) without needing a license. Basically, what the guy wants to be able to do is openly carry a handgun for self-defense in a Nevada state park, just like he can on a public street in Nevada.

[Green_Lantern]

69. It wasn't a strawman...I was misunderstanding details...

The law had exemptions for people with ccw permits so I thought this guy must be against requiring permits if his use of the gun didn't fall under this exemption.

But now the issue becomes a state's right to enact it's own regulations regarding use of guns in a state park but it's good to see states working out a deal.

By unrestricted use of guns I meant not even requiring a permit for ccw.

[oneshooter]

77. Like say, Arizona, Alaska, Vermont? n/t

[Taitertots]

73. What stopped them before? A firm wag of the finger

Anyone who wanted to bring one in had absolutely nothing to stop them before.

[Green_Lantern]

88. how about fear of being caught and/or fined and arrested...

Nothing to stop people from murder either.

[Taitertots]

89. Except that the police will make an effort to find and convict you

No one is going to make even a remote effort to ensure that people don't have guns where they are not allowed. So there is nothing to fear from being caught and arrested for guns in parks, and a great deal of fear related to murder.

[Green_Lantern]

90. k then how about speeding...

What's to stop anyone from speeding...Yes actually there are park rangers in state parks who will check to see if you have a permit.

Some people just follow the rules too and this guy chose the right path instead of just ignoring the regulation.

[Taitertots]

91. You do realize the police can and do pull people over for speeding

And they can and do issue tickets and other penalties.

"there are park rangers in state parks who will check to see if you have a permit."
How do they know to ask for a permit if someone has a concealed weapon?

[Green_Lantern]

92. when people use the gun I'd assume...

The guy in question wanted to actually use his gun.

Secondly this regulation was not just on concealed guns.

The regulation was on any visitor carrying any gun...not just concealed handguns.

[Taitertots]

93. If he wanted to use the gun it would be illegal either way

The change in the laws has nothing to do with it.

[Green_Lantern]

94. what do you mean...hunting and target shooting are legal...

The change in law means park visitors from out of state can use a gun in the state park. Or carry for self defense.

[Taitertots]

95. If they are not breaking the law, then what are you concerned about?

What is wrong with visitors from out of state who want to follow Nevada's laws while hunting and/or protecting themselves?

[Green_Lantern]

96. I'm not defending the law...

The Nevada law banned visitors to parks to have a loaded weapon unless they have a Nevada state ccw permit.

This guy didn't have a ccw permit.