Rule Change Would Permit Weapons in National Parks

[Von Tonner]

I don't know, but for the life of me I cannot think why anyone would want to carry around a concealed weapon in a game park. Or why the ban on them needs to be revisted.

Here in SA when you visit our game parks, such as the Kruger National Park, any firearms have to be declared at the entrance to the park, are then sealed and kept in custody until your departure from the park. The temptation for some delinquent, far from the maddening crowd, to take a pot shot at, or near a sleeping lion for example, to get its reaction is a risk that will always be there if guns are allowed in.

Why must guns be allowed in?

According to the N.R.A.'s chief lobbyist C. Cox:

“You read stories about people attacked by animals or who stumble upon meth labs or women who are raped in a national park. We don’t believe law-abiding citizens should be kept from protecting themselves and their families in national wildlife refuges or in national parks.”

But:

Seven former National Park Service directors have written a letter saying the new rule addresses a nonexistent problem. “There is no evidence,” the letter states, “that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”

Not a good idea:down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/us/30guns.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[Yahoshua]

Meth labs have become a national problem across the united states and generally isolated areas of national parks have become a favorit playground for these people to build their labs, make the drug and then abandon the toxic waste at the site.

There have been instances where people come across these labs and are either killed or mugged because of it. Not only that, criminals also have the assurance that there's a reduced possibility that they may come across anyone in the park who will be armed and ready to defend themselves.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to concealed carry in a national park? As long as I obey the law there's no need to worry about me, it's the criminals, the one's who DON'T obey the laws that one needs to worry about.

[Von Tonner]

Meth labs have become a national problem across the united states and generally isolated areas of national parks have become a favorit playground for these people to build their labs, make the drug and then abandon the toxic waste at the site.

There have been instances where people come across these labs and are either killed or mugged because of it. Not only that, criminals also have the assurance that there's a reduced possibility that they may come across anyone in the park who will be armed and ready to defend themselves.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to concealed carry in a national park? As long as I obey the law there's no need to worry about me, it's the criminals, the one's who DON'T obey the laws that one needs to worry about.
It looks as if the problem is funding - the parks are deteriorating. Allowing guns helps solve the problem law abiding citizens might have in visiting parks but will not help the cause of parks decaying over America one iota. Next it will be squatters moving in.


Posted on 23 May 2008 10:35:13 PM by tobyhill (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etobyhill/)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - America's wildlife refuges are so short of money that one-third have no staff, boardwalks and buildings are in disrepair, and drug dealers are using them to grow marijuana and make methamphetamine, a group pushing for more funding says.
"Without adequate funding, we are jeopardizing some of the world's most spectacular wildlife and wild lands," said Evan Hirsche, president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association and chairman of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement.
The cooperative said in a report released Thursday to Congress that the nation's 548 refuges and the 100 million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System — about the size of California — is underfunded by 43 percent. The refuge system needs at least $765 million a year but is receiving only $434 million, the report says.
A decrease in law enforcement has left the refuges vulnerable to criminal activity, including prostitution, torched cars and illegal immigrant camps along the Potomac River in suburban Washington, D.C.; gay sex hookups in South Carolina and Alabama; methamphetamine labs in Nevada; and pot growing operations in Washington state.

[August]

I never go into the woods without being armed. A bunch of politicians in Washington might say this is a non existant problem but they aren't the ones who are going to have to face that bear, or cougar or human animal alone either.

[TteFAboB]

A bunch of politicians in Washington might say this is a non existant problem(...)

That's what politicians do when they believe that they can get away with it. How many people go to national parks? 1/1000 of the population? If the 99% can't see the problem for themselves, and you, the politician, say that there's no problem, and you're the guy in the public office, speaking in the prestigious and credible media (they wouldn't let you speak if you were a liar, or at least they'd denounce your lie, or have you ever seen a newspaper publish or ignore a politician's lie?), who can say that there is a problem? The guy with no media, no public office and no voice?

I mean, if the entrance with weapons is banned, then there is no problem. How would anyone enter a national park with weapons if they're banned? Jump the fence?

[August]

I mean, if the entrance with weapons is banned, then there is no problem. How would anyone enter a national park with weapons if they're banned? Jump the fence?
Denali National Park alone has over 6 million square acres. What fence? :D

[Letum]

Those who know my stance on firearms to some degree may be surprised, but I don't
think they should be banned in national parks. Not because any member of the public
needs a firearm in a national park, but just because I don't see what a ban in some
wide open areas, but not other wide open areas, controlled only by a line on the map,
archives.

It is a law that could only possibly effect the law abiding.

*edit*
Actually, I can see the advantage if law enforcement is finding it hard to make poaching
charges stick, but I have no idea if this is the case or not.

[Platapus]

If the government can guarantee that no criminals will be illegally carrying weapons in the park, and the government can guarantee that I will be safe from attack while in the park, only then could I accept that people would not need weapons for protection.

What is the difference between a law abiding certified and licensed citizen carrying a weapon in a city and a law abiding certified and licensed citizen carrying a weapon in a park.

Does the government feel that the smell of heather will suddenly make a previously law abiding citizen go criminal.

"Why must guns be allowed in?"

In the United States, this argument is spurious.

A citizen does not need to justify why they should be allowed to carry a weapon into a park,

It is up to the government to justify why the citizen should not be allowed to carry a weapon in to the park

The carry laws in the United States are exclusionary in nature. Meaning that the laws tell you where you can't carry.

This is opposed to laws which would be inclusionary in nature. Meaning that the laws tell you where you can carry.

A subtle but important legal distinction.

Criminals LOVE areas in public where weapons are not allowed. Any idea why?

[Letum]

^ agreed in part, but can anyoneone confirm of deny that there are poaching/illegal hunting issues?

[FIREWALL]

I didn't have to read down two papagraphs to see the word CONSIDERING.

This is just getting FECKING OLD.

This is just BAITING.

I don't know about some of these 3rd world countries.

But in the USofA the Parks System does'nt make LAW.

Again this is getting old.

[SUBMAN1]

You can bring a gun into National Parks, just that it must be unloaded and stored. Some major grey area here. Not sure your average bear knows he can't bring claws into National Parks - its a weapon ya know! :D

Anyway, National Parks are becoming pretty scary. Thief, rapists, meth addicts, killers, etc. all seem to gravitate towards them. Many places to hide, and no one is supposed to be armed. The crime rate inside national parks is quite alarming vs just outside them too.

But as Washington says, of course there is no problem! Can't imagine why the NRA would want it changed! :p

-S

PS. August - you might give the Europeans a bit of a break. They don't understand the 'open' areas over here. Everything is crammed in and populated over there so they have a hard time relating. And they are afraid of each other. Can't imagine why!? :D

[August]

^ agreed in part, but can anyoneone confirm of deny that there are poaching/illegal hunting issues?

There are illegal hunting issues anywhere there are game animals. The posession of a firearm alone should not constitute proof of poaching though. That'd be like arresting someone for attempted murder just because they have a baseball bat in the backseat of their car.

[Letum]

The problem I can see is thus:

1) Endangered animals are illegally poached by men with hunting rifles.

2) Park ranger finds group of men with hunting rifles.

3) Men with hunting rifles aren't doing anything illegal now, so they sit and laugh at
park warden and wait till he leaves.

4) GOTO: 1

It makes it impossible to stop poaching. You will never catch someone in the act in such
a vast area, and even if you do you have to wait until after they fire to prove it.
There are species that can't afford to wait until after they are shot.


If this is the case, I'm changing my mind on this one...it will render the authorities toothless.

[August]

PS. August - you might give the Europeans a bit of a break. They don't understand the 'open' areas over here. Everything is crammed in an populated over there so they have a hard time relating. And they are afraid of each other. Can't imagine why!? :D

Afraid of each other? Obviously sir you have never been to a euro soccer game! :D

But yeah the sheer size of our wilderness areas is often hard for the average Euro to fully comprehend, more and more Americans too unfortunately...

[Letum]

more and more Americans too unfortunately...

PS. August - you might give the Americans a bit of a break.
I hear that America is so big that it is difficult too see outside. Everything seams so far
away over there so they have a hard time relating to other countries. And so they
patronise them. Can't imagine why!? :shifty:

[August]

more and more Americans too unfortunately...

PS. August - you might give the Americans a bit of a break.
I hear that America is so big that it is difficult too see outside. Everything seams so far
away over there so they have a hard time relating to other countries. And so they
patronise them. Can't imagine why!? :shifty:

I have been to your country. I have lived in Europe. I have literally hundreds of European relatives. I am not being patronizing, i am just speaking from personal experience.

[Letum]

more and more Americans too unfortunately...

PS. August - you might give the Americans a bit of a break.
I hear that America is so big that it is difficult too see outside. Everything seams so far
away over there so they have a hard time relating to other countries. And so they
patronise them. Can't imagine why!? :shifty:
I have been to your country. I have lived in Europe. I have literally hundreds of European relatives. I am not being patronizing, i am just speaking from personal experience.

No, no, I was implying that Subman was being patroniseing, not you.

"They don't understand the 'open' areas over here." and all that. :shifty:

[August]

No, no, I was implying that Subman was being patroniseing, not you.

"They don't understand the 'open' areas over here." and all that. :shifty:

Ah, i see, the thing is though in this case he is right. Most Europeans, at least the ones i have met, DON'T fully fathom the size of the wilderness areas we have over here. IMO it's completely understandable and nothing to be ashamed about. There are aspects of your cultures that we don't comprehend either.

Viva la difference I say...

[Letum]

No, no, I was implying that Subman was being patroniseing, not you.

"They don't understand the 'open' areas over here." and all that. :shifty:
Ah, i see, the thing is though in this case he is right. Most Europeans, at least the ones i have met, DON'T fully fathom the size of the wilderness areas we have over here. IMO it's completely understandable and nothing to be ashamed about. There are aspects of your cultures that we don't comprehend either.

Viva la difference I say...

you do your countrymen a dis-service. There are plenty of Americans that understand
my culture just as there are plenty of Europeans that understand what a wilderness is.

Even if many do not, it is still not justified to say "They don't understand the 'open' areas over here."
in such a broad, sweeping generalization.

[SUBMAN1]

you do your countrymen a dis-service. There are plenty of Americans that understand
my culture just as there are plenty of Europeans that understand what a wilderness is.

Even if many do not, it is still not justified to say "They don't understand the 'open' areas over here."
in such a broad, sweeping generalization.None of this is true exept for Europeans that have been here. Deal with people coming from Europe all the time, and I have yet to meet one that fully understands the openess and that no one actually owns some large areas of land over here.

I'm sure many have a bit of a clue, but most really don't.

-S

PS. And August is right by the way.

[August]

To give an example I recently gave a couple acres of my property up in Maine to my favorite German cousin. She now owns more land than any other member of that side of the family have EVER owned. It kind of freaks her out.

[Platapus]

It makes it impossible to stop poaching. You will never catch someone in the act in such
a vast area, and even if you do you have to wait until after they fire to prove it.


Yes, this is called presumption of innocence and it used to be quite the trendy thing in the "old" USA. Over here a citizen is presumed innocent until there is evidence that he or she is guilty of committing a crime.

Ya see, back in the old days, a person actually had to commit (or actively attempt to commit) a crime first before law enforcement could take action.

This was way before the concept of preemptive strikes on citizens became in vogue.

[Letum]

It makes it impossible to stop poaching. You will never catch someone in the act in such
a vast area, and even if you do you have to wait until after they fire to prove it.

Yes, this is called presumption of innocence and it used to be quite the trendy thing in the "old" USA. Over here a citizen is presumed innocent until there is evidence that he or she is guilty of committing a crime.

Ya see, back in the old days, a person actually had to commit (or actively attempt to commit) a crime first before law enforcement could take action.

This was way before the concept of preemptive strikes on citizens became in vogue.

Well, exactly.

That's why it is useful to have a law against guns in the park.

Then you can prevent poaching with out making preemptive strikes because
everyone who has a gun knows they are breaking the law.

If there is a law against guns, then only criminals have guns, if you will excuse the
tautology. Then you can arrest the criminals.

If there is no law against guns, it is impossible to arrest the criminals unless you
stand by and watch them shoot a black rhino, etc. (assuming you can find
and follow with out them seeing you!)

[Yahoshua]

The problem I can see is thus:

1) Endangered animals are illegally poached by men with hunting rifles.

2) Park ranger finds group of men with hunting rifles.

3) Men with hunting rifles aren't doing anything illegal now, so they sit and laugh at
park warden and wait till he leaves.

4) GOTO: 1

It makes it impossible to stop poaching. You will never catch someone in the act in such
a vast area, and even if you do you have to wait until after they fire to prove it.
There are species that can't afford to wait until after they are shot.


If this is the case, I'm changing my mind on this one...it will render the authorities toothless.



We have hunting seasons (vary by state) for big game, small game and fowl-hunting. If the game warden catches you with a rifle out of season, you're screwed. The warden has more power than a county sheriff and can seize your house, vehicle, and your rifle for poaching. Hell, he doesn't even need a carcass to "prove" that you're a poacher! It's your word against his so what are you gonna do?

[Letum]

Same here, all be it with smaller game. ;)

They have a harder time in many parts of Africa tho.

[Yahoshua]

That's why it is useful to have a law against guns in the park.

Then you can prevent poaching with out making preemptive strikes because
everyone who has a gun knows they are breaking the law.

If there is a law against guns, then only criminals have guns, if you will excuse the
tautology. Then you can arrest the criminals.

If there is no law against guns, it is impossible to arrest the criminals unless you
stand by and watch them shoot a black rhino, etc. (assuming you can find
and follow with out them seeing you!)


Aside from the fact that there are no indigenous rhino to North America, let me get this straight:

Law-abiding citizens should be banned from having guns in the national parks because criminals might mix in with the law-abiding citizens. Therefore, disarming the law-abiding citizen so LEOs' can arrest the criminals in the national parks is the logical conclusion you have come to?

Stop and think for a minute.

Law-abiding = Obeys the law, not a danger to the animals. These people must be disarmed so we can better hunt down the criminals.

Criminals = Does NOT obey the law, IS a danger to the animals. We pass a law that is meaningless to these people because they break the law anyway.


How does disarming me (the law-abiding citizen) help underfunded, understaffed, and undertrained park officials hunt down criminals better?

[August]

That's why it is useful to have a law against guns in the park.

Then you can prevent poaching with out making preemptive strikes because
everyone who has a gun knows they are breaking the law.

If there is a law against guns, then only criminals have guns, if you will excuse the
tautology. Then you can arrest the criminals.

If there is no law against guns, it is impossible to arrest the criminals unless you
stand by and watch them shoot a black rhino, etc. (assuming you can find
and follow with out them seeing you!)

Well by that reasoning they could totally ban unsupervised visits to national parks, that way a persons mere presence in the park, outside of a guarded, er i mean supervised tour, could be considered evidence of poaching. :roll:

[Letum]

Good points Yahos!
I'm switching back to my first stance!

Those who know my stance on firearms to some degree may be surprised, but I don't
think they should be banned in national parks. Not because any member of the public
needs a firearm in a national park, but just because I don't see what a ban in some
wide open areas, but not other wide open areas, controlled only by a line on the map,
archives.


Unless there is a serious environmental issue at steak then the parks should be open
to guns.

I still think the law would be very useful for gamekeepers trying to stop people
shooting things, but I don't think the game keepers need such a law in America.

I could be wrong, if someone gives me a convincing argument for the need for strict
conservation laws I will change my position again.

Excuse the flip-flopping. I'm still doing thinking and decision making and staying open
minded on this one.
Let no one say I am stubborn. ;)

[Von Tonner]

I see I am thinking like a South African. When I read 'National Parks' I immediately thought of what we call national parks which are more akin to game reserves and for very obvious reasons one is not allowed to carry firemarms in them. Hell, in Kruger National, you are not even allowed to wind down the windows of your car let alone get out of it. Our game parks are the last place on earth you would want to have a meth plant unless you were suicidal. That is why I at first could not understand why anyone would want to carry a firearm.

But to compare apples with apples, here in SA we have what we call nature reserves more on flora and fauna than wild life per se. Here of course there are no restrictions on the carrying of firearms.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/wildlife.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

A National Park Ranger seem to be a dangerous job. Too bad he can't rely on the help of nearby civilians.

..."National Park Service officers are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents," the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility reported....

-S

[sunvalleyslim]

I have hiked throughout the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and am about to embark on a 290 mile backpack trip in the Sierras. I have a concealed weapons permit for life, but never take a weapon with me into the wilderness. Yet everyday day I walk and ride the streets of L.A. armed. The reason for not taking a weapon is simply about weight. I don't want to carry the extra weight on a long and arduous trip. And haven't encountered the thugs or extreme wild animals that some countries have. I feel safer in the wild then I do on the streets of L.A.
I have never shot an animal in self defense, but I have killed in self defense of myself and others........

[Platapus]

I have a concealed weapons permit for life, but never take a weapon with me into the wilderness.

Are you under Public Law No: 108-277?