National Park Carry in Peril?

[alloy]

to me the park is a road. i drive on it, im not the hiking type and the color of the leaves doesnt make me oooh-aaah. i am trying to save gas/time by taking the direct route two to four times a day. but im not going to think that "i only worry about the places i go" is much of a reason to write laws. others go other places. the breaking laws part i dont really know what you mean. concealed weapons are now legal.

But if my sister or neices are the oooh-aaah birdwatching type, they ought to be able to avoid becoming a statistic.

 

[kayakersteve]

Blue train/...

This comes around to the "no gun zones" - They actually place people at a higher risk of crime because the criminal can be relatively certain his victim will be unarmed. Crimes happen - Crimes happen in state and federal parks - People who choose to CCW there will not influence your day there in any way. If you choose not to be armed, so be it. Dont try to take away other people's right to do so.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I say again, if the park is so dangerous, stay out, just like you stay out of D.C. or California."

That works both ways.

If you're so concerned that someone might be carrying a handgun LEGALLY concealed in a national park, stay out of it.

If you're worried about someone carrying a handgun legally in a national park, are you also concerned about someone carrying a handgun legally at the grocery store?

The movies?

The local park?

If not, why not?

What's the temporal break between those situations that makes one bad and the other OK?

 

[hammer4nc]

Interesting, kayakersteve, that you would bring up "no gun zones"!

The Association of National Park Rangers, cites that exact point in their opposition to the Bush rollback.

http://www.anpr.org/guns_in_parks.htm

ANPR believes that the Constitutional - Second Amendment justification is being applied selectively. There are currently many federal, state and local government lands that prohibit the possession of firearms, as well as private businesses that will not allow firearms on their premises. Examples include postal property, schools including school grounds/athletic events, courtrooms and buildings, U.S. Capitol grounds and buildings (including the Senate Office Buildings), the White House and grounds, portions of airports and certain airplanes, and some churches and church grounds.

AZredhawk, I agree with you, but strict enforcement of forum rules eclipses any other considerations, neh?

 

[Mike Irwin]

"U.S. Capitol grounds and buildings (including the Senate Office Buildings)"

Funny how those restrictions have prevented people intent on committing crimes from taking firearms into those locations...

For example, the two Capitol Police officers shot to death back in the late 1990s.

 

[ZeSpectre]

It is sort of like people who run red lights and ignore stop signs

I reject this entire specious argument. There is no equivalency between the right to self protection and reckless acts with a motor vehicle, careless consumption of booze, or the use of illegal pharmaceuticals.

I am not speaking of Alaska. I only worry about the places I go.

You ARE speaking of Alaska (and every other state in the Union) since you stated that you wanted guns banned from National Parks. If you refuse to see the full ramifications of your desire that is YOUR issue not mine.

People who worry about paying the Danegeld clearly aren't taking the viewpoint of the Danes.

I don't tend to get too concerned with the viewpoint of those trying to strongarm me into compliance for no reason other than an exercise of power.

Is the fact that there might be armed people tramping around in the woods a reason to ignore the law.

Is the fact that some people "feel uncomfortable" a good reason to deny self-defense/safety tools to law abiding citizens?

You must be assuming that all armed people are bad, yourself excluded.

Actually that seems to be YOUR argument since you are the one wishing to ban all armed people.

Personally, I've never met a threatening person. And I've never seen anyone driving particularly dangerously along Skyline Drive either.

And because you've been lucky so far that leads you to conclude that there is no reason for anyone to be prepared for self defense? Do you also drive without seatbelts or other commonly accepted safety precautions?

I have personally known about seven (lucky seven) people who died from gunshots, five of whom were related to me in various degrees. Undoubtedly that gets in the way of my thinking clearly; it gets in the way of reality somehow, I suppose.

Clearly, since you are concerned enough aobut the presence of firearms to want -all- armed people banned from the National Parks even though the law abiding are no threat and the criminals will ignore the bans along with any other inconvenient laws.

And by the way, I was under the impression that the two women were murdered in their sleep.

I suppose the point you are trying to make is that the women would not have been able to defend themselves? Well seatbelts and airbags don't always save car wreck victims either so I suppose we should just get rid of them as well. No thanks, I'll hang onto my safety equipment. ALL of my safety equipment.

I say again, if the park is so dangerous, stay out, just like you stay out of D.C. or California.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that I consider parks to be an especially dangerous place. This is incorrect. However I do not have some Walt Disney fantasy that the interior of a park is a SAFER place than the rest of the world. I choose to have safety equipment INSIDE a park for the same reasons I have it OUTSIDE the park. Just like my seatbelts, airbags, first aid kit, and compass, my other safety equipment (firearm) doesn't just make me "feel" safer, it has a realistic chance of actually improving my safety should (Creator forbid) an emergency actually arise.

 

[blume357]

I know this is not politically correct for this forum...

but I've been in the Whitehouse and on the grounds and that is the last place you would need to have a gun... if the need arose all you'd want to do is dig a real deep hole.... you don't want to know how many people there are there with guns... I dare to say most gun clubs during a good meet don't have as many... and most even though you can't see them are very very close.

 

[hammer4nc]

Another golden quote from the Association of National Park Rangers, which provides context for the value placed on civil rights (individual self defense) within their jurisdiction:

http://www.anpr.org/guns_in_parks.htm

ANPR echoes U.S. society and existing legislation in believing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute in all locations nor at all times. Park units are sanctuaries for human and animal alike, and in some cases may be the only viable habitat for a specific species. Unlike some other private, state, and federal property, natural resources in National Parks are protected, unless specified differently in the park's enabling legislation. Because of this, humans do not have the right to kill an animal in a National Park in order to protect life or property. Allowing firearms in National Parks would increase the risk to animals, primarily predatory species, considerably.

IOW: The "experts" believe the Endangered Species Act supersedes the Bill of Rights.

To repeat, (as many argued in the soccer mom open carry thread), if the desires of gun owners must be subjugated to the wishes of the general public, to preserve harmony and avoid the appearance of fringe lunacy; its game/set/match.

 

[Al Norris]

Re: forum procedural question) This topic seems highly political!!! Seems like the de-facto standard is that we must not discuss these issues, unless an actual bill is proposed, and even at that, unless the bill has a lot of congressional co-sponsors, and thus stands a fair chance of making it out of committee. Under that standard, shouldn't this topic be off limits, likewise the brady campaign thread stickied at the top of the page? Request for a ruling, please?

The fundamental civil right to keep and bear arms for self defense purposes (Thank you Heller) is on topic.

The Federal regulation in this discussion is the equivalnet to and has the effect of legislated law. Again on topic.

The fact that some, think this regulation may be abrogated by an EO (another form of regulation) is on topic.

As stated in the "rules," political discussion should be peripheral to the discussion of Law and Civil Rights. I will be the first to admit that some political discussion will be greater than peripheral in some topics than others. This appears to be the case here.

This thread will close if the discussion turns completely away from the core discussion of National Parks and lawful concealed carry. As yet, I don't believe that point has been reached. There are 5 other moderators that are more than capable of overruling me.

 

[gc70]

This may not be politically correct on this forum, but...

I am disappointed by the number of posts, both in this thread and on other forums, in which guns owners react to "news reports" that are misleading or, at best, poorly written. The information necessary to properly assess the news is readily available. Gun owners should be knowledgeable about the legal process if we are to protect our rights.

National Park carry was authorized by a federal regulation that became final on January 9, 2009. There is nothing pending about the regulation that the new administration can stop "by the stroke of a pen."

Final federal regulations cannot be changed by Executive Order. The process for changing federal regulations is detailed and explicit and is contained in the Administrative Procedure Act passed by Congress in 1946.

There are only four ways to change the new National Park carry regulation at this point:

1. The Congressional Review Act gives Congress 60 in-session days to review and reject any new federal regulation. Precisely one new federal regulation has been rejected since this process was enacted in 1966.

2. All federal regulations are based on underlying "enabling" legislation passed by Congress. Congress can amend the existing law to remove the basis for the regulation.

3. Federal regulations can be changed by going through the lengthly and somewhat arduous process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. If the new administration wants to change the new regulation, they can start the public and very transparent process for new rulemaking.

4. The courts can invalidate a federal regulation.

BTW, the new National Park carry regulation did not come about because the Secretary of the Interior had a deep and abiding love for gun owners. The change also did not come about because President Bush wanted to further firearms rights. Rather, a bipartisan majority of the Senate wrote a letter requesting the change - that is when the Secretary of the Interior took notice and things began happening.

 

[vranasaurus]

Isn't the new Secretary of the Interior somewhat pro-gun rights?

Whatever his stance is on the issue could help or hurt the cause.

 

[Al Norris]

I really don't know anything about the newly appointed Secretary, Ken Salazar. Hmmm, just googled him. He's no friend of gunnies, either.

I do know the outgoing Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, former Governor of Idaho and no friend of gun owners. Yet it was under his watch that this new regulation was put in place.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I am disappointed by the number of posts, both in this thread and on other forums, in which guns owners react to "news reports" that are misleading or, at best, poorly written. The information necessary to properly assess the news is readily available. Gun owners should be knowledgeable about the legal process if we are to protect our rights.

It is a saddening reality these days. Every since Obama has been elected certain groups of gun owners have been shouting "the sky is falling."

How about we start dealing with what is really going on and stop shouting about every possible "doomsday scenario" that the far righties can dream up. I am going to heed the words of Reagan and "trust but verify" as far as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary. I will be the first to scream when he veers away from his promises, but I am not going to shout out every time someone is afraid he "might" do something.

Gun owners as a community are really at risk of becoming the proverbial "boy who cried wolf" these days. How many times will we yell with no true wolf in site before society as whole just stops listening to us altogether?

 

[Al Norris]

I am going to heed the words of Reagan and "trust but verify" as far as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary.

Ya know... That was one of the reasons for making Bart's thread a sticky. So we could keep track of real stuff that comes up.

I think I should change it's name and do some pruning. Maybe folks will pay more attention... Nah, whatever am I thinking!

 

[kayakersteve]

Oh Boy..

as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary.

- That's great.

You will just ignore his historical record pertaining to guns??? That's simply foolish!! He will deal with guns as he has in Illinois: He thinks that's what gun ownership should entail. If there is ever a time to cry wolf, it's now. IMHO

 

[Playboypenguin]

You will just ignore his historical record pertaining to guns??? That's simply foolish!! He will deal with guns as he has in Illinois: He thinks that's what gun ownership should entail. If there is ever a time to cry wolf, it's now. IMHO

You can run around hysterically screaming about things that "may" happen if you choose to do so, but I am going to only deal with the things that are happening. People who do the former tend to get labeled as not being worth listening to by most people.

I love how one minute Obama has "almost no political experience" and the next he has this massive history of political gun grabbing. Which is it?

Also, getting worked up about what the Brady campaign has proposed and then acting out against Obama because of it is just unfair. Center your attacks on the Brady campaign. They are the ones "proposing" the legislation. Did you attack Bush when PETA was proposing legislation making it illegal eat beef? It is okay to prepare for these types of things and make your voices heard, but to attack Obama for something he has no hand in makes it seem like partisan rhetoric.

 

[kayakersteve]

Playboy...Once again

You seem naive to his past record - You need to do more homework is this one!

 

[Playboypenguin]

You seem naive to his past record - You need to do more homework is this one!

I have not extensively studied his record. I will admit that. I did however watch the piece on CNN about his record and when they compared it piece by piece to other conservative politicians he really had not done anything substantially more offensive as far as "gun grabbing" is concerned. A little pomp and circumstance and blustering for his base in IL, but beyond that no real offensive actions in any circumstances where his vote would have even mattered. Politicians will often vote quietly for something they do not personally believe in if they know there vote will not matter but could be later used against them if they voted against.

I am open to hearing what anti-gun legislation he has personally sponsored or pushed through in his career though.

 

[Al Norris]

Pres. Obama does have a history within the context as a State or Federal legislator. While the past may be (and often is) indicative of future actions, context is necessary. As the Chief Executive, we really have no baseline, other than what he might do.

That said, we are now getting deeply into the political and off topic. Let's bring it back around.

 

[sasquatch]

I am open to hearing what anti-gun legislation he has personally sponsored or pushed through in his career though.

I would love to get involved in this discussion, however the moderator has threatened to close the thread if it strays from the original subject, and it seems to be doing just that.