Replies

I think the border patrol groups should stay on private land for the time being. They're raising enough of a ruckus and drawing attention to the issue just doing that.

I'm not sure what the park service was doing watching two harmless hikers. I'm not sure what law the park service thinks these hikers broke. If I went into the Coronado National Memorial Park, like I did 1 week ago, and I happened to hike with my legal, licensed firearm on my belt, would I get arrested too? Or were these two hikers singled out because of political affiliation? Is this a new policy that the park service will now monitor pairs of hikers who they think may be carrying legal, personal sidearms, harassing them for carrying them (and not firing them), and then seizing the weapons? Knowing the amount of harrassment from illegals and drug runners some hikers, campers, and picnickers have experienced in that park, is it policy now that you are no longer allowed to carry personal firearms with which to protect yourself?

I think the border patrol groups should stay on private land for the time being. They're raising enough of a ruckus and drawing attention to the issue just doing that.

Wrong. They should go on private land if invited, but stick to public land for the most part. The park service has arrested none of the whackos that haul water tanks onto the land to aid and abet the border intruders - why should they arrest the hikers that tend to hike to those same water tank areas?

I think the border patrol groups should stay on private land for the time being. They're raising enough of a ruckus and drawing attention to the issue just doing that.

Not being illegals, they should have known better than to trespass on "public" land.