Senators Push for Guns in National Parks

Source: New York Times

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 10, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nearly half the Senate is pushing the Bush administration to let gun owners carry handguns and other firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges. Forty-seven lawmakers have signed a letter asking Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to lift Reagan-era restrictions that prevent citizens from carrying readily accessible firearms onto lands managed by the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Current regulations, developed in the early 1980s, ''infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms on or across these lands,'' the senators wrote. The policies also differ from those of some other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. ''These inconsistencies in firearms regulations for public lands are confusing, burdensome and unnecessary,'' said the letter, drafted by Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.

Thirty-nine Republicans and eight Democrats signed the letter, including both senators from 17 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming....

The current regulations, adopted in 1983 under then-Interior Secretary James Watt, say visitors to national parks must render their weapons inaccessible. Guns do not have to be disassembled, but they must be put somewhere that is not easily reached, such as in a car trunk, said Jerry Case, the National Park Service's chief of regulations and special park uses.

The rules were developed to ensure public safety and provide maximum protection for wildlife, Case said, noting that before the rules were adopted, ''people would go out and shoot wildlife in national parks.'' Snakes, bears, wolves and coyotes were among animals shot by park visitors. National parks have a lower crime rate than many similarly sized communities, Case said, adding that many national parks have large campsites. ''If you have people start plinking around with weapons, then you have accidents,'' he said....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Guns-National-Parks.html

:argh:

Nobody would suddenly decide to buy a gun, or an additional one, just because it became legal to carry one in an NP.

all about gun sales.

Their population automatically expands to fill up all available space.

Right.

This reasoning makes me feel like I am back in a South Park episode.

Then they will want a hunting season on the wildlife.

Against bears or other dangerous animals.

It works, trust me.

I mean, surely nobody can be attacked and murdered when they are out hiking, especially if they have a dog to protect them.......

fear people all the time, then you need to carry a gun to protect yourself everywhere you go.

Everyone who practices martial arts is a paranoid loser. Anybody who has mace or even carries their keys in their hands is a terrified timid little house mouse. Anyone with a gun is obviously far more scared and hopeless because we all know criminals always make appointments, and that violence can never happen when you don't expect it.

I hope and suspect I will never have to fire a gun at anything but a practice target, but that doesn't mean I am silly enough to assume that this is guaranteed, arrogant enough to think I can fight off any attacker bare handed, or stupid enough not to have some form of protection. What's the most effective form out there? Well I'm a big chap but doubtless there are bigger and tougher. Mace just makes some people, especially psychos, even more mad. I'm not allowed to carry a usable knife (knife laws are almost always stricter than gun laws although states vary) and they require up close and personal violence anyway with significant risk of injury to me too. Tasers? Not always effective and non-LEO models are barely capable at the best of times. Guess that pretty much leaves guns really - which in 98% of defensive uses are never even fired.

Admit it! You are paranoid and feel the need to carry a gun in a PARK because you are afraid of someone attacking you. " Does it work on people?" Your words regarding PARKS.

Now you need to equate guns with seat belts and insurance....LOL!

The funny part of this is you are more in danger of dying in a car accident than you are from being attacked in a Park by a person. Whacko.... or just dishonest and don't want to lose this argument. You are trying too hard already.

Fatal auto accidents are very rare. So are housefires. So are attacks by loonies regardless of where they occur, even in parks,

Why is it paranoia to take protective or restorative steps against one but not against another? What more effective step agisnt attack is there than being armed?

Again - your point is futile as long as attacks occur, and nothing stops them occuring in national parks - we have a very timely reminder of that surely? Since it can happen, and does happen, what is paranoid about taking an easy and relatively inexpensive step to prevent it? Why is it not paranoid, presumably, to take such steps in other cases like wearing a seatbelt?

It's easy to do the sophomoric ad hominem bit, but explain the difference - the real difference - in protecting against unlikely but possible scenarios when that protection entails being armed, and when it doesn't. You are forced to defend such cognitive dissonance simply because you don't liek guns, as there is absolutely no difference in the logic.

A is a horrible outcome of very low probability.

B is an affordable, practical and effective way of protecting against A

therefore either B is paranoid if you are blasé towards horrible outcomes which are not all that probable, or B is not paranoid if you care about them regardless of probability.

The answer has to be the same whatever words you put in for A and B, or it's simply emotional and irrational.

carrying a gun?

Because accidents happen regardless of whether the weapon is being held legally or otherwise...?

That's why I avoid gun enthusiasts when possible-- reduces my chances of getting accidentally shot.

Do you avoid those as well???

Oh and even if I'm stupid enough to accidentally drop it almost all guns now won't fire. You have a better chance of getting hit by a bus or lightning than being shot by someone legally carrying.

If you live somewhere where concealed carry is legal you've been around people with guns and never knew it.

(oh yeah) I know, no one can do me no harm, Oh yeah,

because happiness, is a warm gun (shoot shoot bang bang)"

I don't own a gun, never have, have never felt the need to. I do know how to shoot, how to clean a gun, and I'm a good shot. But I don't live in fear a criminal is going to get me.

I do use seat belts, but I don't live in fear that other drivers are going to intentionally ram me with their automobile. In fact, the far greater odds of course it that an accident, either by myself or another driver would be the cause of injury or death. Just as with guns. Far and away many many more people are injured and killed in accidents with guns than by malice. In fact more people are killed in accidents with guns than are murdered by criminals every year. So the odds are against the gun owners.
Add to that the people killed with their own gun through malice, gun owner or family member suicides with guns, and it's strikingly clear that your life and heath is statistically in much great jeopardy if you keep a gun in your house than if you don't.

I need a car, I live in a rural area and town is 20 miles away. I don't need a gun, and I don't want to incur the extra risk that gun ownership entails, since I don't need one. I could care less whether you own a gun or not, but just the same, I think people who refuse to acknowledge the odds are just fooling themselves.

Of course, for some, the illusion of security they get by owning a gun is far more important than the reality. And those who live in an illusionary reality seem to be the likeliest to run out and get a gun. That's a little scary in itself.

There are situations that I could see that would cause me to re-evaluate my desicion not to own a gun. If I lived in a civil war zone, if someone were tying to kill me, etc. But other than an extremely specialized situation, I prefer to play the odds.

If it were so, like auto insurance it would be mandatory and the police dept would be eliminated.. It is plain out and out cowardice....I sure as hell don't feel the need nor do I feel the slightest bit worried about it.. You are scared admit it... It isn't just precaution as you claim. Most Americans are not carrying guns, only the tiny majority which are frightened little creatures, mostly Republicans that live and breathe fear. I feel sorry for you and the world you live in..

and it's brought to you by the NRA and every gun manufacturer imaginable.

http://kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=7600515

This guy is suspected of also killing an elderly couple in a national forest in N.C., AND a woman in a national forest in FL.

And there's this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Stayner

And there are many more examples of murder in National Parks and forests, where human predators have all the privacy they need to do their work.

I don't live in your world of fear or your world of NEED to carry. I'd say I'm much more comfortable with people than you are. Nice try though.

because I carry a gun where ever I go. No need to be.

:eyes:

especially for paranoids afraid of constant danger of others?

Wish I'd thought of that. I mean all those crime stats are all fake right? No tens of thousands of murders and hundreds of thousands of assaults, rapes, robberies, muggings that the FBI keeps fooling us with when they report stats? They all go away just because you decided not to be paranoid? Or is there some mystical superpower that means it will never happen to you as long as you're not paranoid? I'm curious how that works.

where there is more crime and more people. Try living WITH people and not being so damned suspicious and scared. Yes... it's called paranoia... and in a State PARK?????? WOW! :crazy:

Again respond to the difference - why should improbable but possible horrible outcomes not be defended against? If some should and some shouldn't why is there a difference? Why is that difference only when guns are the defense? You just keep telling me I'm paranoid - you have not tried to explain why. Surely you are not stupid enough to say people are not attacked at random times and locations. Surely you're not stupid enough to say guns are not rather effective at defending against attacks. So you either must think there is some level of improbabilty that does not warrant protection - in which case to be intellectually honest you must think seat belt wearers and those who carry flood or fire insurance are paranoid, let alone people who wear lifejackets in boats and the concept of following airline safety regulations where harm is far less likely - or you must be making the distinction based on an emotional distaste for the tool applied to protect against this specific outcome simply because you don't like guns.

Either give me a third option or tell me which it is. I'd guess the latter obviously but I seemingly alone sometimes on DU it seems, try not to pretend to be a combination of psychic and psychiatrist.

the hand wringers and paranoid loons that have an irrational fear and mistrust of guns and gun owners.

in a national park anyway?

Get smart, use the repellent and you won't need the gun.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Or a gun.

espeially when dealing with human predators like Cary Stayner.

That's true everywhere.

Get smart, use the repellent and you won't need the gun.

If you find yourself in a situation where you need bear repellant, you've probably already screwed up.

an opportunity to shoot at animals who likely won't run away. "Yessir Mr. Ranger, that thar bear was fixin' to eats me, then I'z killed 'im first"!

A 4" S&W 500.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Man

Admittedly he was flirting with disaster, but if he at least had the itelligence to carry a proper means of defense with him, he might be alive today...

Bears generally leave people alone. At least black bears do. I'm not so sure about grizzlies.

explore the "developed" areas of our national parks. Guns are not needed nor are they welcomed by anyone with any commonsense.

Which is really a way of saying that anyone who has a different opinion than you is not a sensible person.

I've been camping for 50 years and have never found the need for a gun. The worst things I've run into were rattle snakes, which I walked around, and a couple of bears who took off as soon as I started banging two pans together. If people are that scared of wildlife, maybe they shouldn't leave the city.

What do you want to bet that poaching goes up 1000% if they allow guns. Too many gun owners think they gotta kill somethin' in order to justify owning the damned things.

Btu I am not willing to make that decision for others.

What do you want to bet that poaching goes up 1000% if they allow guns. Too many gun owners think they gotta kill somethin' in order to justify owning the damned things.

This is the old "guns turn people into criminals" theory.

Consider that anyone who is willing to poach is already a criminal, and is not likely to be in compliance with the current proscription on guns in national parks.

why exactly does someone need their gun in Rock Creek Park in DC, you figure?

IMO if a government or corporation or individual bars people from carrying licensed weapons for self-defense in some place, the entity that imposed the ban has assumed moral responsibility for peoples' safety in that area.

why exactly does someone need their gun in Rock Creek Park in DC, you figure?

I wouldn't feel a need to carry one there, but I would not impose my decision on someone else.

But that is DC. When I travel in the Otay Mountain wilderness area along the Mexican border, I carry a weapon.

and in backcountry in most parks. but wouldn't it be nice to think that, somewhere in this country, there was a place without guns?

The problem is criminals with guns.

or accidents. or children who get access to guns.

saying guns aren't the problem per se is like saying gas guzzlers aren't the problem, per se it's the people who drive them. and nuclear weapons aren't the problem, per se it's the people who use them. Sure, technically true, but misleading, no?

Guns do.

pickup trucks are vital in many industrial or agricultural applications. if you need to haul a ton of bricks to a jobsite, your Prius is going to need quite a few loads.

and nuclear weapons have the exact same moral use as guns, potential self defense. After all, as we are always told, it is the potential deterrent effect of CCW laws that make them effective, not the actual guns themselves.

There goes that theory......

come to think of it, I don't think I have ever seen a park ranger carrying a gun in all but the most exceptional circumstances (like tracking a rogue animal) security in parks is provided by the Park Police, a completely different organization.

There are enough dangerous critters, plus the occasional bandit.

Want to see dangerous critters? Come to Australia. Especially North Queesnland or the top end.

Yet, people in those parts aren't obsessed with toting around guns. Wonder why that is?

You could have stopped the murder of Steve Irwin, how bout that?

Like a forgotten dinosaur, the massive and primitive bird called the Cassowary stalks its hidden paths through the rainforest. Is far less dangerous than it is portrayed to be, but can definitely kill a man with its sharp kicking claws. Kills dogs, too.

Is almost solely responsible for seed dispersal and even germination of an estimated 70-100 species of plant. If the Cassowary became extinct, it would also destroy much of the rainforest ecology.

ps: Not to imply that rural Australians don't have certain types of licensed firearms, just that people aren't obsessed with them and by law they're not allowed in national parks.

bring out the charismatic fauna. But let's see you use that glock on a funnel spider on Fraser Island then we'll talk.

Their job includes law enforcement, depakid.

BTW, have you ever heard of Felis concolor?

The place is still not "gun free".

:P

Chandra Ann Levy (April 14, 1977 – circa May 1, 2001) was an intern who worked at the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C., who disappeared in the spring of 2001 and was subsequently found murdered in Rock Creek Park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Levy

I've read a number of stories of women being attacked in urban parks. IMHO those who ban legal CCW in urban parks are doing a disservice to women.

As a woman I'm sick of having to decide if it is safe for me to take my dog for a walk in a park or on a bike trail to enjoy a bit of nature and deciding if I should carry my firearm even though the park/trail rules ban firearms.

:scared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Stayner

The weapons ban was instituted to protect the 'dangerous animals' from the men with the guns .....

If one is afraid of 'dangerous animals', maybe one should entertain the notion of a sea cruise, or maybe Vegas .....

Put guns in the hands of more people and more people will get shot. Too damn many crazies out there as it is. At least a few of them still don't have guns.

I've carried a pistol with me on some of my solo hikes through our National Parks, including:

- My solo trek from Lake Quinalt to Lake Cushman via Six Ridge Pass in the Olympic NP. I didn't see another person for three days and at one point, the only trail I could find was one that had recently been blazed by a very large bear (judging by the size of it's footprints). I actually followed that bear trail for a good three miles with my pistol drawn and ready to fire.

- My solo traverse of Glacier NP. I had my pistol concealed but within easy access that entire trip.

- My solo fishing expedition angling in the backcountry creeks and rivers in the North Cascades NP. At one point, I found myself standing in the middle of a river, reeking of trout, when a black bear crossed 30 yards upstream of me. I was downwind and froze as soon as I saw it, but it more than likely knew that I was there and was, in fact, attempting to figure out what the hell I was.

And, as for hunting wildlife in our NPs, I encourage you to visit places like Big Meadows in the Shenandoah NP. The deer population, having a nearly predator-free area, has grown to nuisance size and is actually damaging the park (and it's visitors). Hunting, when properly managed, is a valuable wildlife management tool.

Especially after reading the case of the female hiker who was murdered this week. I think people ought to be able to carry a gun in the wilderness for self-protection from 2-legged and 4-legged predators.

Make it a huge penalty of jail time and/or fines for shooting wildlife unless you were being attacked.

And no target shooting - only allowable use for self-defense!

Especially near the Mexican border where crime is common.

Bears and bob cats are nothing to wrestle with, I did kick a black bear in the head once (very lucky).

Now that I have a daughter that camps with us I never leave my gun home. I expect to never have to use it but I want it there all the same. I believe self defense is a human right wether government grants it to us or not.

"Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

:crazy:

Mountain lions, OTOH.... :scared:

And I've seen house cats put people in the hospital more than once.

with a gun if she had one. NOT

with a gun? I can't say either way and neither can you.

their re-election? If so, would someone post it. This is just plain barbaric and perhaps even pre-historic.

platform supports it.

Of course I'm not a one-issue voter but I'd encourage my Dem reps to support this.

This is what I as a female and a CCW holder consider barbaric.

Outdoor recreation experts have been inundated with questions about trail safety ever since hiker Meredith Emerson was abducted and subsequently murdered in the Northeast Georgia mountains last week.

"Everyone’s afraid now. Even myself," said David Foot, superintendent of Vogel State Park, where authorities and volunteers spent several days searching for Emerson. "This experience has been so intense for us here."

-----

Foot said there’s no particular item a hiker can bring along that will necessarily keep them safe.

"Guns are not allowed in state parks," he said. "Some women carry mace, but that’s not a cure-all. And a dog is not protection either."

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/article/2551/

IMHO national, state and local parks (with wilderness) should allow CCW holders to carry a firearm for self-defense!

self defense in parks. Parks are a breeding ground for wack jobs and criminals looking for helpless victims.

Otherwise you'd realize that they're full of families, middle class hikers and backpackers- along with the occasional horse party.

Yep- scary places, national parks.

many of those families and old folks who spend a lot of time camping in the parks are the ones who used to be able to keep a firearm whether a shotgun small caliber rifle or pistol in their tent or camper for self protection. The laws which changed that back in the 1980's were not because these people were a threat or because they were misusing their guns, it was because people irrationally feared they might some day combined with vandalism and poaching which was taking place with firearms. Last week I drove through Quivera and guess what there were bullet holes in signs. A few months ago some idiot was arrested there poaching. The same criminals who were vandalizing and poaching before still are and now we have put up a sign that says, "If you are looking for unarmed victims come here to the national park". The rule change was stupid in the 1980's and it is time for it to change back.

It sure doesn't sound like the parks I've visited in the rest of the states.

from state to state and park to park. The parks in DC including many .gov buildings are different and need different consideration than remote wilderness parks. Much of the national parks are remote, camping and hiking, not heavily populated in off season especially. If you believe that many of the dear retired couples spending their golden years traveling around in their RV are not carrying a gun in that RV you are kidding yourself, same with die hard hikers and experienced campers who have been threatened by either animals of the wild kind or the drunken kind or both. Many states with CCW have reciprocation agreements and many more are brokering them all the time, it will not be long before all states with unrestricted or shall issue CCW will have reciprocation agreements. There is no reason, trend, or cause to keep those law abiding, trained, mentally competent people from being able to legally protect themselves while enjoying the National Park System. At the same tie it sends a fairly loud message to people who might prey on campers and hikers in remote areas that their chosen sport just became a little more dangerous.

(probably more than you think) are carrying a firearm now subject to criminal charges but, would as they say, "rather be judged by 12...". Why make those otherwise law abiding citizens criminals simply for their desire to protect themselves or their family?

parks, then they can go somewhere else. Most of us do NOT want a bunch of gun-toting NRAers tooling around in our very sacred parks. Do not shoot any of my wildlife!!!!!!!!!

What better noisemaker is there than a handgun?

If it's actually surly and upset, there isn't a noise you can make that will scare it away.

Keep a clean camp, hang your food- and you'll have no trouble with black bears. In griz country, strap a bell to your pack and keep this stuff handy, and maybe spray a bit around the camp:

unless you are carrying a huge fucking gun (I personally recommend a .45 at the minimum in bear country) or are a remarkable shot under pressure, you're just going to piss it off.

I've carried a gun plenty. I've never shot at anything that wasn't made out of paper, wood or plastic. I hope I never have to. A gun is just in case. There are hundreds of thousands of CCW permittees. Where was that massive crime wave? How many permit holders have turned into Gary Cooper wannabes, playing pistols at dawn? Why would it be any different if they carried in national parks?

and why should I not be able to enjoy the parks equally, I believe litter and disrespectful people do more harm.

I've done it myself on occasion when hiking alone. It's small and well concealed, but when it comes down to it I'd rather take my chances with a jury than consign myself to becoming cougar scat. And I say this as someone who has more than once had to fend off large wildlife in the back-country.

My suggestion is this. Allow them to be legally brought in and carried, but impose a 5 year minimum prison sentence (first offense) on anyone caught discharging their firearms in a national park without an actual life saving need to do so. If they CAN show a life saving need to do so, hit them with a $1,000 mandatory fine for not adequately attempting to avoid wildlife.

That should allow people to protect themselves while still imposing steep penalties for their use.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/08/national/main765404.shtml

Assholes are setting up meth labs in parks, not to mention they are favorite haunts of serial killers.

This has nothing to do with hunting.

Because you know, you have to have that gun with you everywhere or your rights are being trampled!

This is nuts.

I carry a gun with me everywhere I go.Its either on me or in my truck.A small 22 magnum 5 shot revolver that when in the hand can't be seen.I've been National parks and forest and never been searched by park or forest rangers.There has been an occasion where a retired officer was hunting an a person who he arrested recognized him and shot him.I was camping with my sons in a National forest and while we were asleep someone fired shots outside our tent.They left before I could get out of the tent.I believe you have a right to protect yourself anywhere you go and be responsible.I just wonder4 how many people have been killed in a National park? Maybe like the National park in D.C..I had rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 any day.

On how much you weigh. Being an ex-cop eating all those donuts you may need at least 8 people to carry you, but it would only take 2 or 3 to carry Paris Hilton, unless of course she was shot in the head and all the air escaped, then a 2 year old could carry her in a back-pack!!!

:D

She might have had a chance against that murderer

Of course, the manpower probably has been drastically reduced since 2001.

There has never been enough manpower at national parks to search every vehicle that comes in.

re unlawful search and seizure

Amazing. The topic turns to guns and off comes the "Progressive" or "Liberal" disguise revealing just another bunch of flaming gun nuts. You people ever heard of Mace? Oh sure you have, now here come all the horror stories about how Mace won't stop a violent psycho, and I'll tell all the tragic stories about gun nuts shooting their kids or their wives or their dogs. Yadda yadda yadda. Read the damn article: "National parks have a lower crime rate than many similarly sized communities." Why would you want to fuck with that? To protect yourself from a bear? Do you think John Muir was packing heat? You go hiking in the deep forest, you got to figure bears live there. Wear a goddam referee whistle around your neck at all times, and if you're still scared, go to the fucking mall. That's where you should be really frightened, because some whacked out kid got ahold of his stepfather's AK47, and he's gonna shoot up the goddam place. Keep the guns out of the national parks. And the wildlife refuge; what don't you understand?!! It's a place where the wildlife are supposed to feel "safe or sheltered from pursuit, danger, or trouble." That's you, bubba. You're who the animals are supposed to feel "sheltered from." And don't tell me you're not going to shoot anything, because that's just bullshit. Talk to the Rangers who find the dead carcasses. Hell, talk to farmers who find their livestock shot up by gun happy knuckledraggers.

The problem with gun owners is there is no compromise with you people. If I say, "OK, you want a gun for self-defense, so you can have a nice pump action shot gun at home, but no hand guns, because they are too easy to hide and are responsible for most of the gun crime." Holy Shit! No way! I've got to have my handguns too!! And the AK47 that I've illegally modified to fire a thirty round magazine!

So reasonable people say, have your lands where you can hunt legally with permits in season and blast away to your macho hearts content. But is that good enough? No. Now you want to have your fucking guns on public parklands that are supposed to belong to all the people, where they can enjoy nature without the sound of gunfire. And if they get eaten by a bear, so be it. That's the chance you take when you are in the bear's house. That's called nature, people. It's not supposed to be completely safe from all dangers. And as for me, and a lot of other people, I'd rather take my chances with a bear biting my ass rather than worrying about gun toting dickheads playing Rambo in the woods.

Hey, but that's just me. Fire when ready.

If there's some need for weapons in parks, perhaps they aren't safe enough for the general public.

and maybe they should registering everyone that enters and doing a spot check on them.

"maybe they should registering everyone that enters and doing a spot check on them."

And maybe they should build a Berlin Wall around every park to keep people from avoiding the checkpoints.

and have never been called macho. There are plenty of dems who are gun owners and I am one.

A "Progressive" or "Liberal" value?

"The problem with gay rights activists,pro-choice people, environmentalistsgun owners is there is no compromise with you people".

As well there should be no compromise... not now... not ever.
We've had the upper hand in both the legislature (state and federal), and courts for quite sometime.

Why should we be willing to hand the ball over to the losing team
and let thme score a few points just to make thme feel good?

...and here's a belated welcome to DU! :hi:

Are they fucking crazy???? We already have so many goddamned guns all over. . .

I want some places without them. In the RARE case of crime in a park, it's always best not to go alone. It's usually the lone hikers that get killed. Some common sense is in order but not guns.

It will only encourage more crime in the parks...and accidents. :(

are the ones this law is aimed at.

Given all the BS in the parks in the last few years, I think it is a good idea.

Why in holy hell do these gun nuts insist on carrying guns in a National Park? There's no hunting there. There is on some federal land but not in parks generally. Let's make life even more difficult for park rangers.

one is needed the most......the whitehouse.

Did you forget about the Secret Service? Oh and I hear Cheney has quite an impressive collection including full autos and I bet those are stored at the VP's residence.

:evilgrin:

Can't we have one place in this damn country that's free from guns?

No.

:hi:

if you can't control every possible way of entry, which would be totally absurd in a National Park.

guns are perfectly legal in national parks, as long as they are in a place that is not readily accesible (like your trunk)

While an NP may be federal land, state law generally still applies. California law explicitly allows concealed carry in one's place of business and one's home, which includes campsites.

by statute, no more than state law is applicable on military bases. I don't understand why this is so complicated. crimes committed on national park land are investigated by the Park Police and the FBI, not the local sheriff. shooting someone in a national park is a federal crime, not a state crime. hell, even speeding in a national park is technically a federal crime.

California has no jurisdiction over Yosemite. none. the laws are the exact same in every National PArk, no matter what state it happens to be in.

The NPS, realizing the effectiveness in using firearms in defense of self, have allowed firearms in a number of National Parks.

as we cut back on smoking in public places, guns are expanding to fill the gap.

can legally carry in parks, personally.

(And yes, I am one.)

states can make their own decisions about state land, but the Feds control the National Park system, and so it is a Federal responsiblity to decide.

if the state allows it, which is what this bill would do. Federal National Forest lands and BLM lands are already set up that way, and it works fine.

My point is, the landscape and social norms are a lot different between visiting a National Park in the Boston metro area, and going hiking/camping with your SO in the wilderness in Wyoming or Texas.

:argh:

are they just trying to speed this timetable up?

Or do they want shootouts over "could you please turn down your stereo" at the campsites?

this 1980's law did not change that. There were poachers then and there are poachers now. They were prosecuted then and they are prosecuted now.

As for the shoot out, road rage, wild west, vigilante, crossfire scenarios warned about by the Brady Bunch and others who detest the 2nd Amendment, who rail against concealed carry for personal defense, none of those things have played out in the 46 states which allow CCW by law abiding, mentally sound citizens...it just don't happen. There are millions of Americans carrying firearms concealed every day in these 46 states, find me one of these illusive shoot out scenarios involving CCW permit holders...I'll give you a clue, there aren't any...none...zip...in spite of the proclamations by the anti-2nd amendment crowd. :rant:

for anything the law enforcement rangers have them.

I love the national parks, and don't think we need any yahoo who wants to carrying their gun around!

Just frikkin' great. Now I have to stay away from National Parks too in order to avoid gun enthusiasts?

This will undoubtedly results in many "accidental" wildlife shootings.

You really have no control over other people.

This will undoubtedly results in many "accidental" wildlife shootings.

The old "guns turn people into criminals" theory.

:eyes:

I avoid republicans, but I don't fear them.

I avoid evangelicals, but I don't fear them.

I avoid gun enthusiasts, but I don't fear them.

I avoid lima beans, and (wait for it...) I don't fear them either

Lesson #1: Avoidance does not necessarily mean fear. Sometimes it simply has to do with individual taste, and a wish to avoid being around accidental discharges (of which I've been around too9 many times in the past...)




"he old "guns turn people into criminals" theory."

I have no theories about gun enthusiasts. I simply don't like to be around someone in possession of a firearm-- much as I don't like to be around a person in possession of republican ideals, get it? It's just my preference... Just like it's your preference to own one (or two, or how ever many).

I don't eat lima beans either.

...of their fellow citizens are the gun activists who don't feel they can function without quick access to a firearm, 24/7. Christ, what a miserable way to live.....

You'll be bending down and kissing the ammo casings littered all over the ground the day a few flag waving, heat packing national park tourists all simultaneously whip out their gats and gun down the terrorists, or possibly the wild pumas, who are about to kill your children while you're out hugging the trees in our national parks.

and that its being handled sanely.

that said i think it makes sense to have a spectrum of gun ownership laws depending on the situation.

i think its a good idea to be able to have a gun in a national park if one is qualified and meets the requirements. what makes sense in a national park doesnt apply to a subway in an urban center. i think that's what gets the pro vs. anti argument so firey. people failing to see the difference in settings - they immediately apply their own perspective rather than think it thru situationally.