Posted on 01/10/2008 9:01:45 PM PST by monkeycard
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, including Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, 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.
In a letter drafted by Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, the senators say current regulations, developed in the early 1980s, quote, "infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms on or across these lands."
The policies also differ from those of some other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service.
Kempthorne spokesman Chris Paolino says officials are reviewing the letter.
The current regulations were adopted in 1983 under then-Interior Secretary James Watt.
There was recently a tragic story of a hiker who was maimed by a brown bear in a National Forest, the hiker wouldn’t hike in state lands without a firearm, but didn’t bring the firearm while on a vacation trip to the National parks.
There is one huge downside to allowing firearms in National Parks, the poachers and marijuana growers and meth lab gangs could now carry firearms in with less suspicion.
Sorry. But the innocent law abiding should not have to be at the mercy of the criminal nor have their 2nd amendment rights stripped cause some may abuse the right. The DU persons are angry about this. They think all THEIR innocent animals will get killed and THEY will have to be around gun -totting knuckldragggers in the National Parks.
good
Some of the most obnoxious, haughty, lib enviro-whacko’s I’ve ever met were in National Parks.
Dont forget that the 10% federal excise tax on rifles and 11% federal excise tax on pistols goes to fund national parks.
It’s usually over $500 mil a year.
How would carrying a firearm legally reduce any suspicion that a person is committing a crime? Either a person is suspected or they are not.
The reality is that EVERYONE will be able to carry arms without BEING GUILTY OF A CRIME, unless they are committing a crime.
Ping?
So true. It's a credit to the stupidity of some of the people in Government that the use of firearms by criminals is interpreted as a need to deprive law abiding citizens of a Constitutional right to keep and bear firearms. Someone breaks the law - therefore we must punish those who don't break the law. Unbelievable still!
I don’t camp in bear country without taking along one of my big caliber weapons.
“I don’t camp in bear country without taking along one of my big caliber weapons.”
I’m with you, as a hiker and camper I usually carry my Ruger .44 mag to deal with bears. I have never had an encounter with a bear, but there are just too many stories of bears wandering into camps looking for food. The only time federal authorities would ever find out I violated their gun restriction laws is if I had to use it. In that case, I’d rather face criminal charges or fines than be dead.
I thought that all the federal excise taxes on hunting equipment/supplies as well as those on fishing and boat fuel were granted back to the states.
The 5th paragraph says ".....go back to state and local organizations........"
The 6th paragraph says "....alloted to state wildlife....."
Do you seriously believe that poachers, marijuana growers and girl snatchers/rapists/killers are NOT carrying guns into National Parks now, because of the law against it?
Better to not leave the home without one.
Some of the most obnoxious, haughty, lib enviro-whacko’s I’ve ever met were in National Parks.
On last summers trip through Jellystone, I ran into some of those while waiting at a road closure on the east side. We were bemoaning the look of the park. That is on the east side, the number of dead bug trees and burned trees was just IMHO unconscionable. The park looked uncared for and a disaster. The west side was little better after all the growth from the big fire, but the still standing ghosts of the big fire still looked bad to me.
The park should be a show place of proper forestry, and a place of beauty found no place else on earth IMHO, instead it is an example of something no one should have to pay to see. A prime example of what man’s neglect, and poor stewardship will result in. It was a sad experience listening to the chiding by those environmentalists who knew better.
I am in complete disagreement with the park service regarding how the parks should be run. Leave it to nature is the easy way out. and inconsistent with the nature of man.
...and where there are bears lions buffalo and wolves, guns are a given.
what's the downside if they are already doing it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.