Concealed carry in National Parks?

They don't have to, they just steal the ones that the "good guys" carry in (Atlanta, 2005). Of course, once the gun belonging to the one allowable good guy is stolen by the bag guy, only the bad guy has a gun.
Click to expand...
That is the same flawed logic that says "since one person couldn't be trusted with a gun, all people with guns can't be trusted."

FYI: There were other armed officers there also. The badguy had a human shield.
 
No, it's the logic that shows restricting the carry by everyone but those in uniform is a flawed policy. The bad guys will get the guns one way or another, and if they're the only ones with them, they get free run of the place. The courthouse didn't let anyone but the sheriff(s) carry, so everyone else was dependent on that individual for safety. He failed in his duty, leaving everyone else largely defenseless.
 
I'm sure he doesn't either. The no guns policy in national parks is nothing new either
Click to expand...

No, He hasen't addressed that yet, But he will, you can bet on that! Obama is a word that every freedom loving American should loath and fear.
 
No, it's the logic that shows restricting the carry by everyone but those in uniform is a flawed policy. The bad guys will get the guns one way or another, and if they're the only ones with them, they get free run of the place.
Click to expand...
You really need to examine your logic here. It has more holes than a salad strainer.
 
Aren't you the one arguing that we SHOULDN'T be allowed to carry in certain places because the guys in uniform there will protect us. Well Atlanta proves they don't always, and others pay the price. Please point out my logic flaws.
 
Aren't you the one arguing that we SHOULDN'T be allowed to carry in certain places because the guys in uniform there will protect us. Well Atlanta proves they don't always, and others pay the price. Please point out my logic flaws.
Click to expand...
You seem to be missing the true point. Ask yourself this..."Is it a good idea to wear a seatbelt in a car? Why is that so?

Then use that same logic to look at your own hypothesis again and see if you can find the glaring shortcomings of your argument.
 
I'm missing the "glaring" mistake, so please skip the condescending tone and just point it out already.
Click to expand...
A tone is only condescending when it is not justified or meant to demean. I am just trying to get you to think through your own argument. You need simply read my post right before your assertion to see your error in thinking.
 
It is called "analogy." You still unable to see your mistake? And carrying in a public hearing has never been a "constitutional right." Not even in the days of the founders.
 
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it's a ****-poor analogy, and you're beating around the bush, unable to truly point out my flawed logic.
 
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it's a ****-poor analogy, and you're beating around the bush, unable to truly point out my flawed logic.
Click to expand...
I guess if I must spell t out for you, the problem with your argument is you are trying to use a rare and isolated incident to validate your own opinion while ignoring the multitudes of examples where the policy has prevented tragedy. Here in Multnomah county alone, 1000's of weapons are seized at the courthouse each year and dozens of arrests are made of people trying to enter with weapons intending to do harm to judges during sentencing, ex-spouses during divorce hearings, neighbors during civil trials, etc.

The exception proves the rule...it does not invalidate it.
 
Analogies

Analogies, while very popular, are sometimes the worst excuse for "logic" that have ever been used. The danger exists that the listener accepts the relational comparison as rational when, often, the comparison is ludicrous.

However, I would agree that the courtroom is no place for concealed carry. The sometimes idiotic decisions rendered by judges could stir most any man into rage.
 
I still wholeheartedly disagree. Your argument tries to justify taking away firearms from an entire populace by citing fancy (unsourced) numbers. The Brady Bunch does the same thing in arguing that we should not have firearms in our vehicles, schools, homes, or on our hips. I'm through arguing. If that's taken as a concession, ok. Have a great weekend.
 
Playboypenguin is right IMO, I would add prisons and jails (not even many of the guards have guns) to the mix as well as some restricted military areas.

The rule I believe should be in place is that if anyone denies me the right to carry my CCW then they must assume responsibility for my safety. That means as a minimum metal detectors/screening, secured area and/or armed guards.
 
Please...

My question was not meant to be a launching point for a discussion on concealed carry in courthouses. You guys are going to end up getting this post closed, for no good reason.

So, it appears that Yellowstone would be open for concealed carry with a permit, assuming your state is recognized by whichever state you are in while in the park.

Todd

PS - I agree with Playboypenguine in that no guns should be allowed in courthouses, aside from those carried by law enforcement, but lets get back to the original discussion please.
 
Constitutionally-protected right
Click to expand...
tell the law enforcement officers that when they cart you off to jail for violating federal park policy, and have fun explaining that to the judge and prosecutor in court
 
Let's get this back on topic... :rolleyes:
No, Obama did not overturn the NP rule change - he doesn't have the authority to make such a change.
Click to expand...
+1. Except in certain situations, the President cannot summarily overturn federal regulations without going through a public comment and legal review process. He can overturn pending regulations, but not ones that have already been enacted.
No idea what garryc is referring to.
Click to expand...
There has been a rumor circulating that the CCW rule was put on hold by the Obama administration. I've heard it repeated firsthand at a gun store. Obama did, in fact, issue an executive order putting a "temporary" hold on all executive orders and pending regulations issued during the last 90 days of the Bush administration so his team can do a "thorough legal review" (whatever that means).

However, the National Park CCW rule has already taken effect, so Obama can't summarily overturn it without going through the review process again.

Here it is, from a source that I trust to give us the straight dope:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4331
The new parks rule does not fall into any of these categories. The rule was published in December 2008, and took effect on January 9, 2009.
Click to expand...
I'd say you can go ahead and carry. :D
 
I am so right, I will quote myself:
Being a fan of Ockham's razor, my guess is they simply have not updated the website yet.
Click to expand...

Following is the page of information that I clicked through to from the Yellowstone NP website that outlines that "no concealed carry" policy. Look for the "Weapons" section a fair way down the page:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/yoursafety.htm

At the bottom of the page, in light gray print, is the following:

"Last Updated: April 29, 2008 at 16:27 EST"

There you have it.
 
Carrying concealed in Nat. Parks

As of this date it is now legal to carry in Calif. Nat. Parks and parks within states that recognise Calif. permits, assuming one has a valid CCW Permit.
The wording for the regulation is in the process of being hashed out and should be avaliable soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top