Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Introduced to Allow [Gun] Carry in National Parks
Ohioans For Concealed Carry ^ | 11/17/06 | Mike Kinsey

Posted on 11/18/2006 9:44:58 AM PST by kiriath_jearim

Senator George Allen (R-Virginia) has introduced SB 4057, the National Park Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 2006. If adopted as law, this legislation would allow legal carry of firearms into National Parks so long as the state does not prohibit carry in all parks.

The arbitrary prohibition of your right to self-defense in a National Park needs to end. Your life is not worth less while visiting one of our country’s beautiful parks than it is anywhere else you may be. Personally, I believe that lonely wilderness trails may be one of the places that I would most want to have my self-defense firearm. Armed citizens regularly argue that we may not be able to wait for 911 to save us. Imagine the additional delay that will occur when you’re hiking in the middle of nowhere! Also, any location that is known to be frequented by tourists would probably be very attractive to criminals. Tourists are generally carrying a lot of money and are unfamiliar with their surroundings. I am certainly not a criminal mastermind. If I can see that this environment makes one more vulnerable to violent attack, I am certain those with less scruples have realized it as well.

It is up to those of us that care about the safety of ourselves and our families to get this legislation enacted. Please contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to support this bill. Tell them why it is important to you. Contact Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and ask him to fast track SB 4057. Spread the word to other gun owners and concealed handgun licensees about this issue.

Senator Frist can be reached at: (202) 224-3344 or through his website. You can find contact information for your U.S. Senators here.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 11/18/2006 9:44:59 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

I bet this will be a priority with the 110th congress, hmmm are we still glad about staying home to teach Bush and the gop a lesson


2 posted on 11/18/2006 9:48:05 AM PST by italianquaker (Democrats its time to fish or cut bait, no more blaming Prez Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

One great big BTTT on this one!!!!


3 posted on 11/18/2006 9:49:07 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim
I guess they'll have to forgive me for noting this was attempted during the last six weeks and not the first six weeks of leadersip. The right of states to override is proper, but it essentially makes the legislation meaningless.
4 posted on 11/18/2006 9:51:12 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: italianquaker; Everybody
I bet this will be a priority with the 110th congress, hmmm are we still glad about staying home to teach Bush and the gop a lesson.

This type of bill seems familiar.. Two bits similar bills have been presented, ~and ignored~, by gop dominated congresses.

5 posted on 11/18/2006 9:55:36 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The right of states to override is proper,

I don't 'get' your reasoning..

Why should States have a right to override our inalienable right to carry arms?

6 posted on 11/18/2006 10:00:42 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Thats answers that then, if it couldnt pass before you can throw dirt on it now. In my state of florida they passed a law where you can carry in state parks but thats florida


7 posted on 11/18/2006 10:10:39 AM PST by italianquaker (Democrats its time to fish or cut bait, no more blaming Prez Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Not getting into the history of the US Constitution being water downed.

He means, if a state has reciprocity[or not] with another state allowing them to carry a Concealed wpn that trumps the Fed Law of allowing you to carry a gun into a National Forest in another State.
8 posted on 11/18/2006 10:10:57 AM PST by FLOutdoorsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

Too late. Had six years and blew it.


9 posted on 11/18/2006 10:14:09 AM PST by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FLOutdoorsman; cardinal4

I remember taking a coach tour of our western National Parks a few years ago, and I was astonished to see signs all over the place probibiting bringing firearms in Yellowstone National Park. Right next to those signs were other signs warning of the presence of grizzlies in the area. Didn't compute then, doesn't compute now.


10 posted on 11/18/2006 10:15:53 AM PST by Ax (Cheer, cheer, for Old Notre Dame. And the Wolverines today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Yeah, why didn't Allen introduce this bill months ago?
11 posted on 11/18/2006 10:17:30 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ax
I remember taking a coach tour of our western National Parks a few years ago, and I was astonished to see signs all over the place probibiting bringing firearms in Yellowstone National Park.

Obviously unconstitutional prohibitions.
Some main highways run through Yellowstone. I'd bet that hundreds [if not thousands] of travelers a day rightly ignore those 'laws'.

12 posted on 11/18/2006 10:24:05 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

On this one you were quite right to point out the error of my logic. While I do support state's rights in general, individual rights supercede those rights on this issue. It's embarassing to have to have someone correct me on my take, but I'd rather have someone do it and address the error than let it hang. Good call. Sorry about that.


13 posted on 11/18/2006 10:29:32 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FLOutdoorsman
DoughtyOne:
"-- The right of states to override is proper, --"


I don't 'get' your reasoning..
Why should States have a right to override our inalienable right to carry arms?

FLO:
He means, if a state has reciprocity[or not] with another state allowing them to carry a Concealed wpn that trumps the Fed Law of allowing you to carry a gun into a National Forest in another State.

Neither States nor Feds have a power to write laws "allowing" you to carry. -- Our right to bear "shall not be infringed".

14 posted on 11/18/2006 10:34:53 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FLOutdoorsman

Actually, tpaine was right to call me on that. Individual rights trump states rights on this issue. I was focused on federal vs states rights when it was a no-brainer that Seccond Ammendment guaranteed rights were at stake.


15 posted on 11/18/2006 10:34:53 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Well put.. Thanks.


16 posted on 11/18/2006 10:36:28 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I agree.


17 posted on 11/18/2006 10:36:31 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

And thanks for raising the point.


18 posted on 11/18/2006 10:38:52 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I was reasoning that we've just forgotten how much the Constitution is not followed. And we blindly follow whatever they say is legal.


19 posted on 11/18/2006 10:41:31 AM PST by FLOutdoorsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FLOutdoorsman

While I agree that the general populace has sunk to this level, I do have to be frank when addressing a comment I made that was was so wrong.

Later...


20 posted on 11/18/2006 10:47:16 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

"Yeah, why didn't Allen introduce this bill months ago?"

... ever get the feeling the GOP had a hand in defeating themselves?


21 posted on 11/18/2006 10:51:49 AM PST by mr_hammer (Pro-life, Pro-gun, Pro-military, Pro-boarders, Limited Govn't will win in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
"Yeah, why didn't Allen introduce this bill months ago?"

How about years ago?

22 posted on 11/18/2006 10:54:06 AM PST by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

Well, speaking as a former female wilderness ranger, it would also be nice to let fed employees carry guns in the backcountry.

There are bad people out there.


23 posted on 11/18/2006 11:02:46 AM PST by bordergal (There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of men bad enough for this treachery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

This whole ban on carry in parks is one law that I ignore every time I visit one. I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. I don't believe there is a jury that would convict me for defending myself and my family from criminals or a bear.


24 posted on 11/18/2006 11:16:05 AM PST by SW6906 (6 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, horsepower, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SW6906
This whole ban on carry in parks is one law that I ignore every time I visit one. I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. I don't believe there is a jury that would convict me for defending myself and my family from criminals or a bear.

I agree. About the only places I don't carry is airports, police stations, and government buildings.

25 posted on 11/18/2006 12:31:26 PM PST by Cobra64 (Why is the War on Terror being managed by the DEFENSE Department?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

>About the only places I don't carry is airports, police stations, and government buildings.<

Most criminals have the same ideas about where not to carry.


26 posted on 11/18/2006 3:48:36 PM PST by B4Ranch (Illegal immigration Control and US Border Security - The jobs George W. Bush refuses to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bordergal
...it would also be nice to let fed employees carry guns in the backcountry. There are bad people out there.

So true.

Unarmed, we are just sitting ducks in some areas, all of us - not just Federal employees. There is no reason why any law abiding citizen should be prohibited from armed carry.

I know when I go into the nearby National Forest I always carry. Although all that is permited is a .22 pistol the rules themselves admit it is a "camp gun" available for personal protection use. National Parks should be the same way. There are potential criminals in them as well.

27 posted on 11/18/2006 4:08:14 PM PST by Gritty (There is greater security in being feared than in being loved – Niccolo Machiavelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: StormEye

The bill has been around for quite a while. It takes time to get things through the process. One does not simply write a bill and get it to the floor for a vote. It was not something that they just came up with at the end. It is up there now and should be considered by all of our reps.

The election is over, folks. If you are one who thought you were teaching someone a lesson, be happy. If you are one who doesn't believe there is a real terrorist threat at all, I hope you are right. I would be very happy to be proven wrong in my beliefs.


28 posted on 11/18/2006 4:10:31 PM PST by wellarmedlamb (democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner; liberty is a well-armed lamb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wellarmedlamb
The bill has been around for quite a while. It takes time to get things through the process.

And bills don't carry over from one Senate session to another. This one will die in committee before the Senate adjourns. It's going nowhere.

29 posted on 11/18/2006 4:23:41 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: Old Hank

Oh you found a picture of the new GOP. /sarcasm


31 posted on 11/18/2006 4:32:21 PM PST by bmwcyle (The snake is loose in the garden and Eve just bit the apple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I've travelled a lot in National Parks, BLM land, National Forest, Wilderness areas, etc. etc., if one is discreet, nobody has to know, even if it is "illegal". I'm not suggesting anyone break the law, but it's better to be safe than sorry, if you catch my drift.


32 posted on 11/18/2006 4:32:39 PM PST by Freedom4US (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

Oh-oh. I've been a baaaaaaaad boy!


33 posted on 11/18/2006 5:01:44 PM PST by lawdude (The dems see Wal-Mart as a bigger threat to the US than muslim terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: everyone

While this may be solid on constitutional grounds, I fail to see its importance. It strikes me as an almost comically trivial measure. Conservatives should focus on battles of real importance, not on chickens--t, especially not on chickens--t that Leno can get big laughs from.


34 posted on 11/18/2006 5:05:16 PM PST by California Patriot ("That's not Charlie the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: italianquaker
I bet this will be a priority with the 110th congress, hmmm are we still glad about staying home to teach Bush and the gop a lesson.

I'm amazed at the number of Freepers that continue to think that it is somehow the voters fault that the Republicans lost Congress. The voters merely vote for those that most closely resemble their beliefs.
When the Republicans started acting like Democrats who were we supposed to vote for? When a Republican House and a Republican Senate spend money like drunken sailors and can't even come up with a decent illegal alien border policy...well, how can you blame the voter for choosing maybe a third party candidate or "none of the above"?
Once Bush got elected, the Republican's forgot who elected them in the first place and they rightly had their a$$es handed to them on November 7.
35 posted on 11/18/2006 5:17:35 PM PST by jbenedic2 (Nothing new for the New York Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: italianquaker
I bet this will be a priority with the 110th congress, hmmm are we still glad about staying home to teach Bush and the gop a lesson

There is no federal law that says you can't carry in a national park.

There is simply "administrative edict" that says you can't.

All it takes to change it is a policy directive issued by the head of the Interior Department or the President.

Phil Van Cleave of VCDL tried to get them to do it when Norton was running DOI.

36 posted on 11/18/2006 5:24:36 PM PST by Mulder (“The spirit of resistance is so valuable, that I wish it to be always kept alive" Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jbenedic2

thats right they got there a$$$ handed to them


37 posted on 11/18/2006 5:29:47 PM PST by italianquaker (Democrats its time to fish or cut bait, no more blaming Prez Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mr_hammer
Pro-boarders?

Does this mean you are for people that stay in boarding houses? Or do you mean pro-borders?

38 posted on 11/18/2006 11:45:34 PM PST by Mogollon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mogollon

Opps, my bad!

Pro-borders

Thanks!


39 posted on 11/19/2006 5:31:43 AM PST by mr_hammer (Pro-life, Pro-gun, Pro-military, Pro-borders, Limited Govn't will win in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson