"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
National Parks Gun Ban Repealed
By Greg L | 5 December 2008 | National Politics, Patriotism | 37 Comments
In about thirty days, this new rule goes into effect:
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable federal law.
Yes, indeed. After a long battle largely lead by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, the federal government will no longer unconstitutionally bar firearm possession in National Parks. Of course the federal government isn’t admitting that it has been exceeding their constitutional powers for years now, but at least we’re moving in the right direction.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
37 Comments
Views: 1144
Loading ...
I love it. Of course I expect obama to attempt to have this turned around, given his dislike for conceal carry. Of course he also is on record as stating he supports local jurisdictions to set their own gun laws. Hmmm, I wonder which view will win out.
I would much rather carry concealed than carry openly and do so whenever I can.
Why the need to carry a weapon in a National or State Park when huntiing is usually prohibited?
Junes,
Do you think crime does not happen in the parks? This is not about hunting, this is about being able to protect you and your family when you are visiting parks that are very large with many remote areas.
We are already allowed to carry(concealed of course) in National Forests, so this just makes the law a bit more uniformed.
Ah, I see Vigilante Justice.
I’m near 60 and have spent many vacations in our national parks all across our country. To date, I have not had the need to use a handgun or rifle. Although I’ve had a few encounters with some wiley racoons.
Some of the people who comment on this forum (and others) come off as a little hot headed. Understandably, anonymous screen names do give license to present oneself as “larger” than they really are. So I do tend to take some of the comments with that grain of salt.
None the less, for those who present their true selves, this thread does give me reason to pause that the dangers in our parks may not be from the unknown but some of the people on this, and other, forums, looking for a reason to fire off their ego extension.
I was raised on a farm and was given my first rifle at age 12. We had to go through a fire arms training program before our parents put it under the Christmas tree, and we were expected practice what we learned and remember that the sole purpose of a fire arm is to kill. We also learned pointing to scare or shooting to disable places you at greater risk than if you had no weapon at all.
What is the purpose of your fire arms?
Junes,
Hunting is not prohibited in National Parks. Try taking a look at
the current Va. hunting laws and you will see. Try hiking
between a momma bear and her cubs in the Shenandoah on a
nice day of leaf contemplating. Yes, there is crime there too.
Considering most here don’t get facts first before judging, the thought of same toting guns is downright frightening and I believe would be considered domestic terrorism.
You don’t have to agree with my opinion, just have a functioning brain that kicks in and does some sort of rational assessement prior to opening mouth or pulling a trigger. Close the mouth and force oxygen up to the brain………
I believe in the right to carry a gun - wherever you want. We’ve done some hiking on the Appalachian Trail and it is a bit desolate (the purpose) and scary as there have been crimes committed in those remote areas.
Just scares the snot out of me when I see what nutcases are allowed to carry them those that are short tempered, stupid and criminals. Then again, this might be a way to elminate nutcases from all walks of life.. They are on both sides of the aisle.
Our federal and state constitutions give us the right to carry firearms just about anywhere. Some exercise that right, many do not. When something bad happens, we just hope that was one of the days we thought to carry, or that someone else who did is close by and reasonably proficient. That natural right allows us to ensure our own safety and security, rather than pray someone else will.
Some establishments, such as a number of banks, have decided that armed citizens somehow pose some sort of danger to them. As a result, they are the most frequently targeted banks, filled with law-abiding but disarmed potential victims, now made measurably less safe as a result. That “no guns” sign is an invitation to criminals.
One of the biggest “gun-free zones” has been our federal lands. The predators in our society know this, and will appropriate public land to grow drugs, prey on female hikers on the AT, or commit other crimes knowing that no one has any ability to resist their unlawful actions and that law enforcement is far away if it can be contacted at all. Simply having the right to possess the means of self-defense makes it less attractive for criminals to prey there, and in the event of a crime, perhaps a citizen exercising their right to self-defense will help reduce the population of criminally-disposed pieces of human garbage.
If I can carry in a supermarket, a hardware store, on main street, and in a government building, why wouldn’t I be able to carry a firearm in the woods? The prohibition there never made any sense, was never rationally justified, nor did it improve the safety and security of park visitors. All it did was create a smokescreen of emotional satisfaction for some who had been conditioned through years of complacent servitude to believe they are not worthy of protecting their own lives or the lives of the people they love.
Benton said on 6 Dec 2008 at 1:32 pm: Flag comment Just scares the snot out of me when I see what nutcases are allowed to carry them those that are short tempered, stupid and criminals.
Benton, the irony is that those folks you mention are ALREADY carrying guns (since they disregard the rule of law). Now the folks that care about the law can also be armed.
Junes_Reston said, “What is the purpose of your fire arms?”
In response, same as yours.
Junes, of the murders the you read about in the paper or hear about on TV…or even those that you don’t hear about that occur in the depths of Chicago, NYC or Philadelphia, how many of those murderers do you suppose had a permit to carry a weapon? How many times to you read in the newspaper that some guy with a carry permit “opened up” and shot another person?
I don’t think you have too much to worry about from those who have a permit to carry.
You cannot hunt in National Parks. You can hunt in a National Forest, two differrent Nationals here and a person commenting earlier is incorrect about hunting in a Park. As far as being able to protect yourself or family in a National Park, seems like a no brainer to me. There are far more competent people than criminals to handle bad situations if they were armed A would be criminal would have to figure out who was armed and just maybe guess incorrectly.
Criminals will just become more armed with more and bigger guns. We should also allow RPG’s after all criminals do not care about the law so law abiding citizens should have access the the maximum possible fire power.
I think that is is hilarious that so many anti gunners like to talk about how they were given their first gun as a child, love to shoot and hunt, but don’t think firearms have any practical applications.
Junes,
You clearly do not know State law, and you clearly do not pay attention to facts and details. In order to have a CHP, training is required and proof of that training is required when applying for a CHP. A criminal background check is done in the CHP process. Now, you tell me how that is hot headed.
I need not defend why I choose to exercise my rights granted to me by the Bill of Rights.
What is the purpose of your speech?
If you or another person is attacked and you had a gun would you simply not defend yourself? that is not Vigilantism, that is doing the right thing and called self defense.
These stats are a couple of years old, but it just goes to show National Parks are fact not the save places that some would want us to believe.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/28/GR2008022800363.html
Also given that illegals are committing more crime(who would have thunk that) in National Forests, I say carrying a gun in known crime areas is pretty smart.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/pot.eradication/
anon,
RPGs are already allowed per the NFA. Munitions are considered “Destructive devices” again, per the NFA.
If you’ve got the cash to buy one, then why not? Sounds expensive at $200/tax per shot but whatever makes you happy.
What was the point you were trying to make again?
Junes_Reston said that the purpose of a firearm is to kill and pointing it at someone is risky. That’s covered by Jeff Cooper’s Rule Number Two: Don’t point the muzzle of the gun at something that you do not intend to destroy. If I have pulled a gun out and aimed it at a target, I intend to shoot that target if necessary. Otherwise, my gun will be put away.
Will some beer-soaked idiots take shots at road signs and the like? Probably, but they do that anyway, as a drive on a backcountry road will show you. A carry permit is not a permission slip for bad behavior, and given the background checks that we have to go through to get a permit, I am safe in believing that we are a safe group of people on the whole. This change in the rules allows law-abiding and responsible citizens to do what lawbreakers did anyway. Knowing that I would lose my permit if I did something criminal with a firearm is a strong added incentive to act appropriately.
The purpose of carrying a concealed weapon has nothing to do with hunting. A hunter will have a hunting licence and will be carrying a weapon that could not be concealed. (Handgun hunters often have a large scope on their guns.) A concealed weapon will be there for protection against dangerous animals, be they of the two-legged or four-legged variety. This does not mean that someone who is armed is looking for trouble. Trouble–in the form of a rabid animal, for example–has a way of finding us. When that happens, a firearm is an equalizer.
Please understand that I hope that anyone who carries a weapon knows how to use it effectively. To borrow from Jeff Cooper again, having a gun does not make you armed any more than having a guitar makes you a musician. Those who intend to carry a loaded gun anywhere ought to spend time with it at a shooting range until they are familiar with the weapon’s manual of arms and are able to place shots accurately.
Now I’m not aware of any training that specifically prepares one for an attack by a mountain lion or rabid coyote, but regular practice does create some muscle memory. I also hope that practicing any skill gives one a measure of calmness and responsibility.
Anonymous said on 6 Dec 2008 at 6:36 pm: Flag comment : I think that is is hilarious that so many anti gunners like to talk about how they were given their first gun as a child, love to shoot and hunt, but don’t think firearms have any practical applications……………….
There is nothing hilarious about responsible weapons owners who understand the intent for their weapons.
There is a huge difference between “toting a gun” because you can, and toting it for the purpose it was intended.
For those who follow the statistics, more people are killed in their homes with their own weapons because they buy them, tuck them away in a drawer and never learn how to use them properly - or when they hear a noise and panic, they shoot a family member.
These people are usually upstanding and law-abiding citizens, with no criminal background.
Where I grew up, just about every household had at least 4 guns, rifles and/or shotguns. In the 20 years I lived in the area, there were two fatalities by firearms (murder/suicide when a man caught his wife with another man). Since the laws have been “loosened,” firearms injuries and fatalities are a regular in the police reports.
I have no affection for hand guns - I don’t have the wrist and arm strength to control a hand gun of any worth to achieve it’s purpose. Or perhaps I’m just more comfortable with a rifle or shotgun because that’s what I “know.”
Anyone who knows me knows that I about as far from Anti as they come. I am however a strong advocate for responsible firearms ownership - and very much opposed to letting anyone own a gun - just because they can.
The right to own a weapon comes with responsibilities. Unfortunately, way too many people who own guns don’t have a clue how to use them and that scares the day lights out of me. That and hot heads who think they have a right to brandish a firearm whenever they get a wild hair.
I would like to see laws enacted that require all fire arms owners complete a state recognized firearms training course BEFORE they can purchase a firearm.
I would like to see a requirement where all firearms owners be licensed and tested periodically - just as driving a car.
I would like to see a law requiring firearms owners be required to spend a specified amount of time at a licensed firing range to maintain their license.
And most important - I would like to see a law that requires a licensed fire arms owner know where these fire arms are - at all times. If their fire arm(s) is used to commit a crime and a theft not reported, the licensed owner be held partially accountable and charged accordingly.
Just because the Constitution says we have the right to bear arms does not mean that everyone should own a fire arm.
Anon in Dale City-
You can’t seriously believe that “Criminals will just become more armed with more and bigger guns”. Is that a studied opinion? Or just a baseless arguement against logic? You are correct that criminals do not obey the law. Why should the law abiding not be allowed to defend themselves? Do you think that criminals are better balanced psychologically and that we should just give up resisting them? Have we become such sheep and so dependent on the good will of others that we should give up our natural and inalienable right of self defense?
Wow. Go live in Canada. You’ll be safe there.
“Benton, the irony is that those folks you mention are ALREADY carrying guns (since they disregard the rule of law). Now the folks that care about the law can also be armed……”
Ha! I see them say so here. It’s the short tempers and those that react without facts that worry me. As much as the the criminal.
You mean like Jules? He reacted without knowing the facts and got his temper up with the thought of law abiding people having guns in National Parks.
Yup. That would be one. Doesn’t matter what your opinion is - it’s how you handle it. Stupid and reactive know no bounds.
PS…. Stupid and reactive know no bounds or sides. I don’t care about people’s opinions, I focus on how they got to them. That is, I know, almost impossible for some to understand. So I dismiss them. However “them” with a gun scares me.
ya they are on both sides. However, people with CHPs are not the ones to worry about.
I disagree. Completely. They are not checked for mental status. This is a good example of protecting someone based on some generalization. Cripes….. THIS is my point. How you came to that conclusion??!!
Benton,
Do you know the process of obtaining a CHP? If you do, then you would not have asked such a question. You question is right out of the anti-gun group crowd. Talk about someone who might need to have cool down. Do you always use two question marks along with two exclamation marks?
How did I come to that conclusion? Do you know how many CHP holders there are in the Commonwealth? How many have had them revoked? Not many. The vast vast majority of CHP holders are fine upstanding Citizens.
The point is of course it is not an easy process to obtain a CHP, and given the time and cost it takes to get one, that tends to weed out people. Also, the people who have them, realize the responsibility of having a CHP.
Can you provide any proof to say otherwise about CHP holders?
In fact I do know about the process - totally. You never know who you are talking to.
Couldn’t get more than two posts without name calling or labeling - anti gun crowd. Couldn’t be farther from the truth…. LOL LOL
One name, Seung-Hui Cho.
PS. ??!!
Thanks for proving my point. If you did know the process you would not have such concerns. You are the one that could not make it a post without calling folks names. I said your questions came right from the anti-gun crowd, and that is fact.
Go cool down.
Did Cho have a CHP? Or, did he just have guns? If he had a CHP, that is the first I have heard of that, and would like to see proof if in fact he had one.
Cho did NOT have a concealed carry permit.
Greg,
Thanks, I did a google search and found that same. Oh well, another Anti-gunner is exposed for trying to spread lies.
Okay, so I am wrong. I didn’t call anyone stupid or label them as pro gun or anti gun. I am just wrong. I can say it without choking. Cho followed all processes required at the time. All of them. In fact, they changed the laws after his show. Pretty sure I am right on that one.
I fully support the right to carry. I said so a few days ago. Just don’t like reactionarys, short tempers and those that don’t posses some/any facts! Realize that CANT be weeded out. Just a comment. Guess I shouldn’t bother here. Comments are not allowed?
Try exercise for increased self-esteem.
Oh, forgot. I am a liar, too. Geeshhh……
Benton,
If we were talking about gun owners in general, you would have a point, but we are talking specifically about CHP holders, a process you said you understood.
Comments are welcomed, but before you make them, you should make sure they are correct, and then not try to make people out who oppose your opinion to be the very people you are opining about(hot tempered, etc.).
Yes, the process was adjusted after Cho’s rampage.
The fact that I am familiar with CHP but did not realize that CHO did not have one are not the same. You labeled me with what is clearly considered an insult, you called me a liar and you were generally sneering at me pretty much from the get go! That does not indicate you think comments are welcome.
Your first response to me:
You question is right out of the anti-gun group crowd. Talk about someone who might need to have cool down. Do you always use two question marks along with two exclamation marks?
It doesn’t matter - it seems pointless to post here unless you are part of some club of which I am not a member.
Benton,
No, my first post was to agree with you about hot heads on both sides of the issues, and then added but we don’t have to worry about CHP holders. At that you took off and got sarcastic about how do I know that, etc. See below.
I did not call you a lier, I asked if you had proof Cho had a CHP, because that was the first time I had heard that.
This whole thread was about CHP holders now(well not just yet) being able to carry concealed in National Parks, which is why I was surprised you thought it was gun owners in general.
citizenofmanassas said on 7 Dec 2008 at 5:48 pm: Flag comment
You mean like Jules? He reacted without knowing the facts and got his temper up with the thought of law abiding people having guns in National Parks.
Benton said on 7 Dec 2008 at 5:54 pm: Flag comment
Yup. That would be one. Doesn’t matter what your opinion is - it’s how you handle it. Stupid and reactive know no bounds.
Benton said on 7 Dec 2008 at 5:58 pm: Flag comment
PS…. Stupid and reactive know no bounds or sides. I don’t care about people’s opinions, I focus on how they got to them. That is, I know, almost impossible for some to understand. So I dismiss them. However “them” with a gun scares me.
citizenofmanassas said on 7 Dec 2008 at 6:19 pm: Flag comment
ya they are on both sides. However, people with CHPs are not the ones to worry about.
Benton said on 7 Dec 2008 at 7:59 pm: Flag comment
I disagree. Completely. They are not checked for mental status. This is a good example of protecting someone based on some generalization. Cripes….. THIS is my point. How you came to that conclusion??!!
Good night, COM, good night.
Good night.