Posted on 03/05/2008 8:36:13 AM PST by XR7
How do you feel about allowing loaded guns in our national parks? Do you feel the need to pack heat while wandering the wildflower meadows of Paradise on Mount Rainier? Are you determined to protect yourself against overly aggressive squirrels at Hurricane Ridge? As you may have heard, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne has agreed to modify existing rules that prohibit people from carrying loaded weapons in the national parks. The new rules will be ready for public comment by the end of April [289K PDF].
The push comes from the U.S. Senate. Fifty senators added their signatures to a letter by Sen. Michael Crapo of Idaho to Kempthorne (the former Idaho governor of Idaho), pressing him to address the issue. Basically, the proposal seeks to ensure that national park rules match the gun laws of the state in which the park is located. So if Montana allows you to carry a loaded weapon, so should the rangers at Glacier National Park. Currently, you can bring guns into parks, but they have to be unloaded and stowed away. You can't hike the trails or gaze into the Grand Canyon with a firearm on your hip. No using Mount Rushmore for target practice.
A similar proposal in the Senate has stalled a bill that contains, among other things, designation of the Wild Sky Wilderness Area in Washington. Democrats have claimed it is a political ploy, backed by the National Rifle Association, to force Democrats to take a tough gun vote during an election year.
The NRA is happy about Kempthorne's decision to make the rules change. Proponents argue that it is an issue of basic rights and liberties: You have the right to protect yourself wherever you are, consistent with state law. That's what the editorial board of the Idaho Statesman says.
But not all westerners from gun-friendly states draw the same conclusion. Both of Montana's senators back Kempthorne's move, but two anti-guns-in-parks editorials worth reading appeared in Montana papers. One, from the Kalispell Daily Inter Lake, argues that in nearby Glacier National Park there is no crime problem and that guns are a poor defense against the main predator, grizzly bears. Pepper spray is both non-lethal and more effective, since you don't have to hit a bulls-eye to deter a charging griz.
I'm reminded of what a friend in Alaska once told me about guns and grizzlies. I asked him if he carried a .357 magnum with him in the back country, and he said well, if you take one of those as grizzly protection, you better be sure and file off the gunsight. Why? Because that way, he said, it won't hurt so much when the bear shoves it up your ass.
The government has worked for many years to both bring back Glacier's threatened grizzly population but also to establish peaceful co-existence between the park's bears and people by keeping them wary of — and away from — each other. That seems to have worked pretty well. For those who don't want peace with bears, there's always hunting season.
Another op-ed, in the Billings Gazette, by veteran chief park ranger and superintendent Pete Hart, emphasized that the national parks are unique. "They are special places of inspiration and education with a sense of tranquility, history, and beauty," he writes. Current rules, Hart says, don't infringe on gun ownership and allow the parks to be managed as special, protected places with rules that apply to all of them, from urban parks like Independence Hall to Yellowstone. He quotes a longtime National Park Service employee named Bill Brown, who wrote in a 1971 book called Islands of Hope that he sees the national parks "as sanctuaries of nature, as landmarks of history and culture, and as places of contemplation, discovery and adventure."
There seems to be a division between those who see our national parks as special places outside the norm and those who think you should be able to do in a park whatever you do at home. But the parks, by definition, are special and require care and stewardship. They cannot survive without protection, regulation, and sensitive regard. Much of this is already eroding as groups lobby for greater commercialization of the parks and as funds for care and upkeep fail to keep pace with need.
There are a number of areas where I stray from liberal orthodoxy, and one of them is on guns. I am a strong supporter of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms for protection, sport, or any other legal purpose. That said, I think guns can be regulated to a degree. It seems to me that allowing people to carry around loaded guns in our national parks creates more problems than it solves. There is no major crime or outlaw problem, and to the extent that wildlife pose a risk to visitors, well, no wilderness park should promise a risk-free visit.
I think the key word is the one Brown used: sanctuary. Our national parks should be sanctuaries from life as usual. If you can take your hat off in church, you ought to be able to keep your gun in the car when visiting such a place. If that's going to spoil your vacation, go someplace else.
>>
If you can take your hat off in church, you ought to be able to keep your gun in the car when visiting such a place.
<<
This is often said in the same tone of voice as “do we need this? I don’t think so.”, as if the person asking that question somehow has veto power over all the rest of us. Speaking of the rest of us, if you want to leave your firearm in the car, you are free to do so, but don’t stop me from bringing mine along. You may be happy I did. If I misuse it, you are free to inform law enforcement and have me arrested.
On that point, you demonstrate a failed logic: a person who is not restrained by the law against armed robbery, assault, rape or murder (all felonies) will certainly will not be restrained by any laws requiring him to be unarmed.
To assert otherwise is to assert your lack of clear thinking.
Here in Oklahoma all state parks allow weapons. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a camper without a gun in their tent, RV, car or pickup. No massacres so far.
Leftist liberal elitism.
Effete snobbery.
Aren't you sick of it?
Nice straw-man. Do you build them often?
People with a violent (actually any) felony conviction are already prohibited from owning guns, let alone carrying them.
Nice straw man argument. He deliberately chooses a caliber that would be ineffective against bears to imply that NO gun would be effective against bears. A .44 Mag or better (like the S&W .500) would approach being adequate bear protection.
It's not often that I do this because I try to maintain some decorum when discussing the shortcomings of anti-gunners' arguments, but...
What sheltered corner of suburban utopia did this idiot crawl out of? What an absolute flaming ignoramus. This may come as a surprise, but there are people who go to parks for more than a quick guided tour and a few photos. Plus, I don't think your larger variety of wild animal - you know, like those black furry ones that weigh about 600 lbs and can snap your bones like toothpicks - has any regard for marked trails and designated viewing areas.
And do any of these candy-ass "journalists" have an original thought in their heads? They run with the same kind of deprecating sh*t in every single "guns are bad" article.
"Overly aggressive squirrels". Jeez. Grow the F up, princess.
As opposed to the Democraps not taking any votes on anything substaintial at all this year.
Perhaps you should take my comment within the context in which is was written before accusing someone of building a straw-man.
Your revealed history just gets richer by the day!
Carrying one on Earth, however, is an entirely different matter. I plan to pack whenever I visit a national park whether it's legal or not. "Better to be judged by twelve..."
As for our parks being safe havens from crime (is the author really that stupid?), Berger should try a Google search for "national parks crystal meth." This brings up the USDOJ: Meth Awareness Homepage and a National Park Service page on Mohave National Preserve.
According to the Department of Justice "Small Toxic Labs produce smaller quantities of meth. These labs can be set up in homes, motel rooms, inside automobiles, and in PARKS or rural areas -- really almost anywhere."
The National Park Service tells us that "One of the most dangerous consequences of Mojave's nearness to urban areas is the use of the park by illegal narcotics manufacturers and drug dealers. Manufacture of illegal methamphetamine, often referred to as 'crystal meth,' has posed a considerable problem to the park."
If Berger and his Alaskan friend want to smooth their gun barrels, or other cylindrical objects, to facilitate their own rectal violation, that is their choice.
As for myself, I plan to keep my front site in working order so as to increase my hit probability when I am threatened by a Hell's Angel or other meth-producing outlaw.
USDOJ Page: http://www.usdoj.gov/methawareness/
NPS Page: http://www.nps.gov/archive/moja/adminhist/adhi7.htm
***Pepper spray is both non-lethal and more effective, since you don’t have to hit a bulls-eye to deter a charging griz.***
Reminds me of a joke in my area....
Tourist: How do I protect myself from bears in the woods?
Park Ranger: You wear bells on your shoes cause bears hate the sounds and you take pepper spray.
Tourist: How do I know bears are nearby?
Ranger: You will find feces full of bells and smelling like pepper.
If MORONS would quit feeding the bears, they would be quite a bit more shy of people instead of associating them with dinner. I worry more about cats.
How about here:
"...Kempthorne (the former Idaho governor of Idaho)."
As opposed to the Idaho governor of New Jersey?
“That sounds like an admission that gun grabbing is a losing issue. So they know that the majority opposes gun control, yet still try to force it on us by any means possible.”
Great point! I hadn’t looked at it that way. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Below are the Level I crime statistics for National Parks (these are the most serious reported crimes):
PART I OFFENSES........2006...2005...2004...2003
Homicide/Manslaughter.......11.....17.....13......8
Rape - Forced/Attempted....35.....49.....64.....48
Robbery...........................61.....68.....68.....65
Kidnapping........................16......5......6......8
Aggravated Assault.........261....225....288....246
Burglary...........................411....436....448....468
Larceny/Theft...................3465...3696...3488...3192
Motor Vehicle Theft...........146....174....171....135
Arson...............................79.....83....110.....89
TOTALS....................4485...4753...4656...4259
Below is a partial listing of Level II offenses (less serious)...
PART II OFFENSES.......2006...2005...2004...2003
Other Assaults-no weapon...320....311....322....355
Stolen Property...............447....536....458....476
Vandalism....................3064...2641...2825...3094
Weapons......................1950...1674...1926...1703
Sex Offenses..................362....487....529....393
Offenses Against Children.142....187.....22....192
Drug Abuse...................6348...5744...5469...5419
Disorderly Conduct...........2770...3034...4959...2971
*(sorry for the unprofessional formatting)
We need to be able to carry guns in our parks. In my state of Washington, besides all the meth lab operations in our national forests we recently had a mother and daughter killed in the forest. Case remains unsolved.
Why the hell should anyone care how I feel when considering legislation?
Ask me what do I THINK about a subject.
I THINK that guns are a great idea in the wilderness in case of bear, wolf or cougar attacks.
That self defense is a natural right is an important distinction to make, however, in this world we infringe on God’s territory with statutes all the time.
I don't see anything in the context that makes your statement anything less than a straw-man argument. Since convicted felons are already prohibited from simply owning firearms (yet many of them somehow seem to have them anyway), any concern about those convicted felons carrying concealed is ludicrous.
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.