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

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/us...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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
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.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

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?

[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?

[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.