Gun debate plays out at Mount Rainier National Park

The News-Tribune (WA) ^ | 3/27/08 | JEFFREY P. MAYOR

[rockrr]

Department of the Interior - Criminalizing Citizens since 1983.

I’m not positive of the Statute of Limitations, and have no interest in spending any more time in court than I have to, but I recall an incident about a dozen years back where a certain campground was set upon by several drunk and armed good~old~boys.

I also recall how two brothers got the drop on them, disarmed them, tied them up, and then called the park rangers when they were a good 50 miles down the road. I don’t recall whatever became of the “happy campers” because I was, er, long gone by the time the rangers arrived.

I am amused when I encounter people who feeeeel that, because the law says you must do (or NOT do) something, that you must do (or not do) it.

Molan Labe!

[fernwood]

The regulation prevents carry of guns in Nat parks was not a law passed by Congress but a restriction done by James Watts Sec of DOI in the Reagan period.

[Lexinom]

These fools don’t see the irony. Here we have a true non-recreational, survival use for firearms, and they want to ban it. If I or a family member are perchance attacked and killed by a wild beast in a NP wherein visitors are forbidden firearms... does that not open up the possibility of a wrongful death suit against the state inasmuch as a firearm could have prevented it?

[Robert357]

Where in the 2nd Amendment did it specify a location?

The real question for the Supreme Court and the government is if the Bill of Rights are rights confered upon the people by God and spelled out in the Constitution, then they are absolute rights.

If the RTKBA is an absolute right that shall not be infringed, there are all kinds of government policies from firearms in federal buildings, courts, airplanes, ownership of fully automatic firearms, concealed carry laws, federal instant background checks on purchase, FFL licenses, that all need to be examined.

Most people and government don't like change and the current focus on RTKBA is going to bring about change (I hope.)

[Vicki]

Remember how they have been telling us about all the meth labs that are now in the National Forests? Can you imagine accidentally walking up on such a situation unarmed.

Also there were those women killed in Yellowstone a few years ago, as well the mother and daughter killed up by Tiger Mountain here. Serial killers love forested areas. I would never go into the woods unarmed.

[rahbert]

Tiger Mt? We are almost neighbors since Anne and I
live up 208th (Kerriston Rd) in the Watershed.

King Co deputies never come up here and response is
at least an hour away. My formerly gun-hating wife
now carries and would not hesitate popping a cap
were her life in danger.

I don’t think people should use the NP as a shooting range
but carry for personal defense should always be lawful
everywhere in this free country.

[wolfcreek]

“does that not open up the possibility of a wrongful death suit against the state inasmuch as a firearm could have prevented it?”

Don't know. It hard to sue the Gov. There would have to be some sort of event or precedence.

[sergeantdave]

Thanks for the clarification and history lesson, fernwwod.

It still raises the question of how unelected bureaucrats can restrict a constitutional right via a bureaucratic decree. Only congress may pass law. There’s no exception for judges, bureaucrats, polliwogs or great hairy apes.

What’s to prevent a bureaucrat from restricting a publication critical of the federal government? What’s to prevent Marxist bureaucrats from imposing taxes?

Either we got individual rights or we ain’t got none. It’s way past time to sit the fascist bureaucrats in the peanut gallery.

[fernwood]

British means he can be Scottish or English. Term for subjects of Great Britain.