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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
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!)
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
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)
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.)
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?)
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.)
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)
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)
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.")
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.)
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.
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)
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)
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$$es handed to them on November 7.
35
posted on
11/18/2006 5:17:35 PM PST
by
jbenedic2
(Nothing new for the New York Times)
To: italianquaker
I bet this will be a priority with the 110th congress, hmmm are we still glad about staying home to teach Bush and the gop a lesson There is no federal law that says you can't carry in a national park.
There is simply "administrative edict" that says you can't.
All it takes to change it is a policy directive issued by the head of the Interior Department or the President.
Phil Van Cleave of VCDL tried to get them to do it when Norton was running DOI.
36
posted on
11/18/2006 5:24:36 PM PST
by
Mulder
(“The spirit of resistance is so valuable, that I wish it to be always kept alive" Thomas Jefferson)
To: jbenedic2
thats right they got there a$$$ 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.)
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
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!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson