Posted on 12/12/2008 1:16:50 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
Editorials
Executive order reverses 25-year-old ban to let park visitors carrying loaded guns
National parks are supposed to be sanctuaries, not only for people, but for wildlife as well. But the possibility that the peace and tranquility of federal parklands will be violated has increased with the latest executive order by President Bush that will allow concealed loaded weapons in federal parks and wildlife refuges.
The new rule reverses the ban on loaded weapons in federal parks that was signed by President Ronald Reagan more than 25 years ago. If this is the legacy that Bush wants to leave the nation, it is a dismal one.
The new rule will go into effect before the month is out and before Bush leaves office. The new rule is one of more than 100 executive orders expected to be signed by the outgoing president in his waning days in office, many of them gutting environmental regulations or are simply gifts to favored industries. Though every living national park superintendent and the association of park rangers opposed the rule as well as thousands of private citizens, the order is nothing more than a gift to the National Rifle Association which heavily supported the rule change.
The rule allows visitors to virtually all federal parks to carry concealed loaded firearms if the state in which the parkland resides allows concealed weapons. Because 48 states now allow concealed weapons, only three of the nation's 391 federal parks are excluded from the rule.
Allowing concealed loaded firearms is a travesty and a violation of the spirit of national parks best expressed by President Theodore Roosevelt who, after spending a night in what would become Yellowstone National Park, said, ""It was like lying in a great solemn cathedral, far vaster and more beautiful than any built by the hand of man." But visitors to the nation's park treasures will now have to risk having a campground neighbor pull a loaded pistol over a disagreement or a park motorist take a shot only because the opportunity presents itself and a loaded weapon is handy.
The executive order also circumvents the democratic process because it was not subjected to approval by Congress and overrides state laws. In Texas, as in many states, so-called concealed-carry laws passed by the state Legislature prohibit loaded firearms from state parks, as well as other places. The federal rule, however, will allow visitors who have conceal-carry permits to carry those guns onto federal parks, even though their own state parks ban such weapons.
Supporters of the rule will argue that the vast majority of concealed-carry permit-holders are law-abiding citizens. But the Association of National Park Rangers noted that even law-abiding citizens, with readily accessible firearms, have been arrested because "they saw a trophy animal, a unique animal, or an animal that in their world view was . . . 'bad'" and couldn't resist firing a shot to kill a snake or a coyote. So much for national parks being sanctuaries for wildlife.
The danger to park rangers, who already have the dubious distinction of being the most-assaulted federal officers, is likely to increase. Federal park rangers, often dealing with situations involving traffic laws, or campground regulations, or wildlife protection, now have a higher probability of being attacked than FBI agents. Allowing every visitor to be a potential pistol-packer makes their job that much harder and riskier.
This rule is not about hunting in federal parks, which is allowed under strict regulations, or about protection from wild animals since parks are sanctuaries for animals too. This is about visitors packing loaded pistols onto the Padre Island National Seashore or onto the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. These are supposed to be places of respite and sanctuaries for natural beauty. Allowing loaded weapons onto these parks trespass on that mission.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Liberals Hate the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, they are UNAMERICAN and NOT PATRIOTIC.
This guy is probably ok if our new president doesn’t meet 1 of 3 constitutional requirements to be President.
This is about visitors packing loaded pistols onto the Padre Island National Seashore or onto the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. These are supposed to be places of respite and sanctuaries for natural beauty. Allowing loaded weapons onto these parks trespass on that mission.
What? A concealed firearm spoils the view?
I can only offer one suggestion to the author, in the future, buy bunch-proof undies.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Useless. Where was this rule 8 years ago. It’s lifespan is measured in months until it’s repealed by B.O.
I wonder if this liberal nimrod would feel the same if he happened to come across one of the many two-legged-south-of-the-border-type dope crop protectors.
I got this from a dimwitted friend who was sending it around to protest the decision - it came from the Sierra Group. I honestly do NOT understand how someone can grow to adulthood being so stupid:
“As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments’ notice. I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?”
They will now feel unsafe because someone might misinterpret a move they might make? What do they do, charge at people brandishing swords? WTF?
To say “I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world.” is GALACTICALLY naive. They think that because they are in a “pretend safety zone” because they “create the illusion” that they are safe!
Honest to Pete, sometimes I dispair that there are such simple minded adults (so-called) that just don’t think...they “feel” something, therefore it must be true...
I got this from a dimwitted friend who was sending it around to protest the decision - it came from the Sierra Group. I honestly do NOT understand how someone can grow to adulthood being so stupid:
“As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments’ notice. I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?”
They will now feel unsafe because someone might misinterpret a move they might make? What do they do, charge at people brandishing swords? WTF?
To say “I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world.” is GALACTICALLY naive. They think that because they are in a “pretend safety zone” because they “create the illusion” that they are safe!
Honest to Pete, sometimes I dispair that there are such simple minded adults (so-called) that just don’t think...they “feel” something, therefore it must be true...
Yosemite is just full of bears—they are all over the place, and used to humans, like pigeons!
It would be nice to have a weapon while backpacking up there.
I got this from a dimwitted friend who was sending it around to protest the decision - it came from the Sierra Group. I honestly do NOT understand how someone can grow to adulthood being so stupid:
“As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments’ notice. I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?”
They will now feel unsafe because someone might misinterpret a move they might make? What do they do, charge at people brandishing swords? WTF?
To say “I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world.” is GALACTICALLY naive. They think that because they are in a “pretend safety zone” because they “create the illusion” that they are safe!
Honest to Pete, sometimes I dispair that there are such simple minded adults (so-called) that just don’t think...they “feel” something, therefore it must be true...
Just yesterday, I was discussing this with a liberal acquaintance.
I asked her if she REALLY believed that wackos who would use a gun on someone in a National Park would care whether or not there is a law against carrying a loaded firearm?
How naive are these people??
“I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt threatened by me in some way.”
Well, think a minute, jenyus, this could still happen if the guy coming down the trail intends to rob you and kill you and defile your body. The maggot who would do this, though, now has to fear that you may resist with deadly force.
“How naive are these people??”
Barack H. Obama.
“The maggot who would do this, though, now has to fear that you may resist with deadly force.”
This dupe and his ilk think that guns are not a deterrent, yet there is proof like this:
Simi Valley remained the safest large city in the U.S. in 1999, nudging rival Thousand Oaks for the top spot, new crime statistics show. The two east Ventura County commuter communities edged a college community in suburban Buffalo, Amherst Town, N.Y., according to FBI and U.S. census figures.
What the story doesn’t go into is that TO and Simi are also known in So Cal as coptown. Every other house has an LA cop living there (they don’t make as much as Sierra club “activists” so they have to drive an hour each way into the city) and what bad guy in his right mind would crash into one of those houses?
They don’t even have to lock their doors out there...
So does the 2nd Amendment
“It would be nice to have a weapon while backpacking up there.”
A little snake gun in your belt is never a bad idea...for any kind of snake you come across...
I guess there were just OUTRAGEOUS things happening in our precious parks between Teddy and 1983!
http://www.aldha.org/murders.htm
Two women hikers were found slain June 1st, just off the Appalachian Trail near Skyland Lodge in Shenandoah National Park. The bodies were found on National Trails Day by park authorities who had been alerted a day or so before that the women were overdue from a backpacking trip.......
...They were the eighth and ninth people killed in the past two decades along the Appalachian Trail. "In three of those cases, they were double-murders: six incidents, nine murders," the ATC's Brian King was quoted as saying by the Associated Press....
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.