Posted on 12/15/2008 5:43:08 PM PST by neverdem
In certain instances, firearms can be brought into U.S. national parks
Not everyone was ecstatic about a decision earlier this month, but count the National Rifle Association membership among the elated civil libertarians.
The cause for applause coming from the NRA and other gun-rights advocates was a decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior that loosens 25-year-old restrictions on firearms within national parks and federal wildlife refuges.
The department ruled that federal law regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms should conform to state law. Thus, concealed carry will be allowed in national parks and wildlife refuges located in states where the law permits.
Ohio is among 48 states that permit conceal carry.
The rule change, said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, "brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks. We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges."
Buckeye State citizens with Ohio-issued permits may carry, for example, at Cuyahoga Valley National Park near Cleveland and at Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge near Toledo.
However, a handgun permit issued by one state will not be valid at federal parks and refuges in another state unless a reciprocity agreement exists between the home state and the visited state.
About a year ago, 51 senators -- 44 Republicans and seven Democrats -- sent a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne urging that gun laws in federal parks and monuments conform to state laws. Signatories did not include Ohioans George V. Voinovich, a Republican, and Sherrod Brown, a Democrat. Nor was Illinois Sen. Barack Obama among the signers.
Obama, who takes office Jan. 20 as president, will be forced to sift through a number of 11th-hour decisions made by the Bush administration that could affect hunters, fishermen and wildlife lovers dramatically.
Ducks Unlimited, for example, noted that directives recently released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "on wetlands jurisdiction does not address a delayed permitting process."
Ducks Unlimited said further clarification or additional legislation is required in order to protect isolated wetlands that were ruled outside the scope of federal jurisdiction by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Raponos vs. United States. The case hinged on whether the federal government has authority under the federal Clean Water Act of 1972 to protect water and wetlands not connected to streams or lakes under U.S. authority.
The question of jurisdiction in U.S. waters potentially is decisive for the future of North American waterfowl, particularly as pressure to grow corn increases with demand for ethanol and livestock that feed on corn.
The directive, Ducks Unlimited says, "does not clarify protections for geographically isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes and playa lakes." Most ducks that breed in the United States do so on isolated wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region of the northern Great Plains.
"Without clear protections for these areas, many of North America's waterfowl populations will be at risk," said Scott Yaich, Ducks Unlimited's director of conservation operations. "This will also negatively affect the $76 billion that sportsmen contribute to the economy -- especially rural economies -- every year."
Also in recent days, the EPA has given its assent to the repeal of a stream buffer zone rule that prevented mining within 100 feet of streams. The Sierra Club said elimination of the rule means coal companies can "mine right up to and even through streams."
Whether the regulatory easing will do harm is a question that will be answered by the fish living -- or not -- in affected streams.
outdoors@dispatch.com
I have always had firepower when I camp out in a National Park or forest. I just don’t flaunt it.
Several years ago we went on a long vacation in the west. Wherever we camped we had firepower including Sequoia, Death Valley, Canyonlands and others in that area. Just don’t flaunt it!
Glad to hear that what I’ve been doing for decades will no longer be in violation of the law.......
“That is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard. You are a Kook with a capital K. You read way too much into what she was saying. “
Thank you. In Colorado - there is no leash law in most of the national forest and I love to give my dogs a good run.
The Government has no right to outlaw citizens from carrying guns onto public lands, period. It is an illegal act for them to do so.
Sure you don't want to take a wheel gun for back up?
Two years ago while camping my girlfriend and I went hiking while her husband and brother went fly-fishing. We had my two dogs and their dog and we were about 4 miles from camp when we came across a scary man who was naked doing you know what and he had a gun. He could have snuck up on us if it wasn't for our dogs and when he pointed his weapon at the dogs we both pointed out side arm at him.
I shudder to think what would have happened without being armed or with out the dogs.
Of course I might have been just sacrificing them for my ego.... sarc/off
You got that right!
Just right for griz...(8^D)
Good catch! I want one of those!!
The Liberals will be greatly saddened to learn that honest, law-abiding Americans will now be able to lawfully bring their firearms into National Forrest lands.
Bad guys could care less because they would do it anyhow.
Wait a minute!
As you’ve told the story, you three have now all drawn your weapons and a guy is standing naked while having his weapon drawn and you don’t finish the story???
C’mon, we have to hear the ending of that one!!
This may very well change now that there may be a new Interior Secretary anointed soon...
Linda and I never said a word to each other but we each drew our revolver and pointed at him and no one said a word. The dogs were circling him and my Shepard and her dog had fangs bared. My lab, she was just barking in an alarming tone pacing back and forth. No one said a word. He had a day pack leaning against the tree and after a minute or so he tossed his gun beside his pack and put his hands up. We retrieved out snarling dogs backed away. We told him if he even attempted to follow us he would never be found.
Although we both stayed very very calm, I fell apart back at the safety of our campsite. Rob and Ben then spent the afternoon looking for him but they never found him and we reported it to the Rangers.
To this day I believe Linda and I would not have made it if we were not armed or had our beloved dogs came upon him first. He was up to no good and our dogs sensed it. I have never seen them react like that before or to this day.
I agree with you and thanks for defending me. As much as I love and would defend my dogs, I would put my family/friends first.
Good story. Glad you’re here to tell it.
Thank you. You never know what you will do in a dangerous situation until it happens to you. I will never feel safe in the wilderness again though. I’m always looking over my shoulder. But... that might not be a bad thing.
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.