GROUP SAYS RULE VIOLATES SEVERAL FEDERAL LAWS
Brady Campaign Sues to Stop National Park Gun Rule
The new rule applies to rural and urban national parks. If it goes into effect on January 9, it would allow concealed firearms on the National Mall just eleven days before the Obama Inaugural Celebration.
By Bill Schneider, 12-30-08
Updated January 7. See addition at end of article.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, America’s largest anti-gun organization, sued the Department of the Interior today to prevent the implementation of the controversial administrative rule allowing loaded and concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.
“The Bush Administration’s last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, in a press release. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”
In a phone interview with NewWest.Net, Daniel Vice, Senior Attorney for the Brady’s Legal Action Project, said his group “is looking at all options,” but thought it was vital to file the lawsuit as soon as possible instead of waiting to let the rule go into effect and work through the long political process of trying to get the Obama administration to overturn it.
Many other groups also oppose the rule, he noted, but at this point the Brady Campaign is going it alone with this lawsuit with no co-plaintiffs.
“The rule would allow concealed guns on the National Mall,” Vice pointed out,” and it takes effect only 11 days before the inauguration.”
The Washington Post had estimated that as many as five million people will be in Washington D.C. to celebrate the Obama inauguration, predicting that the celebration might be “the single biggest gathering of people America has ever seen.”
“This rule affects both rural and urban parks like the Liberty Bell,” Vice said. “Some of our members are now afraid to take their kids to Ellis Island.”
This is why the lawsuit asks for a temporary injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect on January 9, he added. “But we’re concerned about all the parks, not just the urban parks.”
The fundamental legal issue, Vice explained, is that the rule violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
“They (Interior Department) did no environmental analysis or review at all,” he explained. “When you have so many people with strong opinions on both sides of an issue, it’s important to follow the law and do a review process.”
Asked if defendants might consider this rule “non-environmental” and not covered by NEPA, Vice answered, “Even Reagan did this.”
He refers to the NEPA analysis and review President Ronald Reagan’s administration conducted when the current rule, which requires guns to be unloaded and inaccessible when taken into national parks, was implemented in early 1980s. “This rule should at least require the same review,” Vice insisted.
According to the Brady Campaign press release, the new rule also violates the National Park Service Organic Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which created the parks and wildlife refuges as protected lands for safe enjoyment of all visitors.
You can read the entire legal complaint here.
Update: Following the lead set December 30 by a lawsuit by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, two park advocacy groups, the National Parks and Conservation and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, announced that they have filed a similar lawsuit to stop the Bush administration rule to allow loaded, concealed guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. Like the Brady Campaign, the two groups base their legal objection on failure of the Department of the Interior to prepare a environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Here is the total text of the press release sent out by the two groups:
WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 7, 2009) - The nation’s leading voice for America’s national parks, the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees late yesterday filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that seeks an injunction against enforcement of the Bush Administration’s new regulation allowing loaded, concealed firearms in national parks, which increases the risk to visitors, park staff, and wildlife, and to have the new rule declared unlawful. The rule is scheduled to take effect this Friday, January 9.
“In a rush to judgment, as a result of political pressure, the outgoing Administration failed to comply with the law, and did not offer adequate reasons for doing so,” said NPCA President Tom Kiernan.
The Bush Administration last month finalized a National Rifle Association-driven rule change to allow loaded, concealed firearms in all national parks except those located in two states: Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not permit concealed weapons. The former rule, put in place by the Reagan Administration, required that firearms transported through national parks be safely stowed and unloaded.
“Our members, with over 20,000 years accumulated experience managing national parks can see absolutely no good coming from the implementation of this rule. More guns equal more risk,” said Bill Wade, Chair of the Executive Council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. “Apparently, the Bush Administration chose to ignore the outpouring of concern voiced during the public comment period,” added Wade.
According to the lawsuit, the Department of the Interior “adopted the Gun Rule with unwarranted haste, without following procedures required by law and without the consideration of its consequences that they are required to observe under law… The new regulation is an affront to the National Parks’ missions and purposes and a threat to the National Parks’ resources and values, which must be held unlawful and set aside.”
The groups are arguing that the rule is unlawful because the Department of the Interior did not conduct an analysis of the rule’s environmental effects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, including the effects of the rule on threatened and endangered species. The suit also argues that the Department of the Interior ignored the National Park Service Organic Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
“Any reasonable person would have to conclude that changing these rules to allow more firearms in the national parks could have an environmental impact on park wildlife and resources,” Kiernan added.
In a letter sent to Interior Secretary Kempthorne on April 3, seven former directors of the National Park Service stated that there is no need to change the regulations. “In all our years with the National Park Service, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance,” the letter stated. “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”
The rule also was opposed by the current career leadership of the National Park Service and other park management professionals, including the Association of National Park Rangers and the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.
The public agrees: of the 140,000 people who voiced their opinion on this issue during the public comment period, 73 percent opposed allowing loaded, concealed firearms in the national parks.
[End of article]“The rule would allow concealed guns on the National Mall,” Vice pointed out,” and it takes effect only 11 days before the inauguration.”
He's either uninformed or deliberately deceptive.
The "National Park Gun Rule" simply aligns the statutes in national parks, monuments, etc., with the statutes of the jurisdictions in which they are located. (Unless I am uninformed.)
For example, if you're in Glacier National Park, you are subject to Montana's gun laws. If you're at Craters of the Moon, Idaho's gun laws are in force. And if you're at the National Mall, you follow D.C.'s extremely restrictive gun laws.
(If I am uninformed or am somehow distoring the facts, please correct me. The Brady Campaign has no qualms about twisting things to their benefit, and hopefully everybody knows that.)
Asinine.
If I understand the rule correctly, the parks must comply with the statutes of the state in which the park is located. And since the Mall is not in a "state," but in a federal district, concealed carry is not legal unless you have a, guess what, DC concealed carry permit, which I suppose only Mayor Fenty and his cronies possess. So the Mall "threat" is a flat-fannied lie. Period.
As for the Lib Bell, or Gettysburg for that matter, Pennsylvania is a must-issue state, so even in commie Philly under preemption, a PA CCW holder is, and should be, legal in Independence Hall.
As for the NEPA angle, that's asinine. Yet, if NPS and DOI didn't say, under NEPA we find no significant impact, then they blew procedure and the judge sayeth so. But if the rule does have a FONSI regarding NEPA, then Brady is just blowing smoke. As usual.
Wow -- the number of scare mongering untruths in this article sets a new standard.
1. Concealed Carry only becomes legal in states where it is already legal. It is not legal in DC at all, therefore will not be legal on the washington mall.
2. Liberty Bell park is mostly a building. CCW would not be legal within any Federal Structure, including those in National Parks. (and the area around is park of Pennsylvania, where CCW is legal anyway).
3. Same for Ellis Island -- couldn't enter any stucture carrying.
I've got news for these idiots. The people who we need to worry about carrying guns in national parks are already crrying them! Allowing law abiding people to carry isn't going to cause any problems at all. I don't cause any problems when I carry everywhere else. Will being in a park cause me to become a violent criminal? Nope. I also think it's funny how the article specifies concealed "semiautomatic" weapons, in an attempt to make them sound more evil. Morons.
Comment By Dan, 12-30-08In response to the NEPA question, the Department rushed to get the rule out and so it completely failed to undertake any environmental review (no EA, EIS, FONSI). When President Reagan issued the rule restricting concealed carry his Administration conducted environmental analysis, and at least as much is required to make a major rule change after decades on the books. Whatever you think about the merits of the rule, Interior clearly violated federal law by failing to undertake any environmental review before issuing the rule.
As to DC, the federal rule allows carrying wherever the state (defined in the federal regulations to include DC) allows concealed carrying. DC law allows concealed carrying with a license to carry. DC Code section 22-4506.
Well, this just underscores my main disappointment with the Bush administration...the inept empty suits unable to do the right thing correctly.
Doesn't matter if common sense would determine no environmental impact, the law, written by those slags in Congress, mandates dotting the I and crossing the T.
Sure, I wasted my vote, but on balance I think I'm better off than if the last eight years had been under control of clever Goreons.
By the way, I got some spam from Sarah, the fifth in at least five days calling on me to "Please give a tax-deductible gift now to help us stop this unnecessary and dangerous ruling. It will allow guns in rural and urban national park areas around the country ..."
And here's the pitch to the gullible:
The Brady Center filed the suit on behalf of our Brady Campaign members, including school teachers in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas who are canceling or curtailing school trips to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and the National Mall in Washington, D.C. now that the Bush Administration will allow guns in these national parks.
Oh, give me a break. The sick part is that without a FONSI, and you would think SOME bureaucrat in the agency would have mentioned it, IF they didn't already know and simply decide to STFU because they're bureaucrats with an agenda, whatever judge has this thing on the docket pretty much has to rule for the stupid way.
More insightful analysis:
Being a "glass half full" kinda guy, I'm encouraged that the Brady Discipleship say they are now afraid to go to our National Parks and Monuments, on account of the proliferation of concealed semiautomatic weapons. (Some of our parks are uncomfortably overcrowded. Maybe this means I can get a coveted camping spot that would otherwise go to some Brady hand-wringers.)
But on the other hand... if the parks are populated only by the [heavily-armed] knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing sloped-forehead rednecks that the Brady people are so afraid of... perhaps that public campground won't be so attractive after all!
(-;
This is simply the Brady Equivalent of falling on the floor and having a tantrum since they can't get their way. Kinda funny.
Comment By Terry Knapp, 12-30-08Yawn. Read the rule and associated description of the process. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29249.pdf The government DID follow the NEPA process to the letter and decided the rule obviously fit the Categorical Exclusion. All of the Brady whiners' "concerns" have already been considered and shot completely out of the water by the documentation with the ruling.
Comment By Steve W, 12-30-08"As to DC, the federal rule allows carrying wherever the state (defined in the federal regulations to include DC) allows concealed carrying. DC law allows concealed carrying with a license to carry. DC Code section 22-4506."
DC gives no concealed carry licenses to anyone except retired police officers. They don't recognize concealed carry licenses from any state. So while retired police officers will be able to carry under the new law, isn't that a good thing even to an anti-gun guy?
Hard to believe they would have to waste money on an environmental study. Nothing new is being allowed into the park (guns/ammunition already legal) and no actional not already legal is being allowed, except that before the gun had to be in the car and now it can be on the person. No environmental impact as long as the rest of the laws are followed -- but that's always been the case.
http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/12/brady-campaign-sues-to-stop-ccw-in.html
what we need is a law that makes it illegal to attack the bill of rights, which the Elitists seam to think only applies to them. j/k but i'm fed up with my rights being taken away one iota at a time! what happened to being able to let your kid walk to the local drugstore ALONE to get a soda, walk to friends house on his/her own? not having to lock the doors and windows at at night or when you leave? or lock your car? what happened to civility? gun laws, thats what, the more of them government makes the more violent crime we have.
Fact #1: criminals don't follow the law, hence they are criminals
Fact #2: criminals will always have guns, refer to fact #1
Fact #3: guns don't kill people any more than cars or pianos do, people kill people, a loaded gun sitting by itself is harmless, just as a piano hanging above your head is harmless. it takes a person to point the gun and pull the trigger. it takes a person to cut the ropes and drop the piano.
Fact #4: guns don't turn regular people into criminals, quite the opposite; we gun owners are some of the most caring and responsible people this country has ever, and will ever see because we know that guns are a responsibility, a responsibility to ourselves, our family, our neighbors, our state and our country.
Fact #5: the military fights wars, the police prosecute criminals. neither can protect you from terrorists at home, burglers or rapist. you must be ready to protect yourself and those around you.
Fact #6: anyplace you are not allowed to have guns becomes a soft target for criminals who will feel more comfortable committing crimes with no fear of defense or reprisal. (the only exception are areas that have restricted access with armed guards, like court rooms, but even then how many times have you heard of bailiffs being shot by their own guns? i've heard that 3 times in the last 2 years.)
I have thought long and hard about how 9/11 may have been different if concealed carry was legal on us airlines. Statistically 1% of the population is carrying a concealed weapon LEGALY. each of those aircraft had roughly 300-400 people which means that they also would have had 3-4 people with concealed guns. it is impossible to know if that would have helped, but one is left to wonder if congress and federal law were responsible for 9/11 bye not allowing the people to defend themselves. air marshals are useless. they have to lock their guns up on take off and landing, so when do you think the terrorist will strike? at 40,000 feet when the marshals are armed? I don't think so.
The Brady Campaign needs to go away and stay away!! The people that have the CCW permits are lawful and just want to protect themselves as God gave us that right to do so. We are not going to commet crimes in fact we will prevent them, oh and make it a safer place to be. May be we (the USA) sould pass extreamly strict laws for any criminals convicted with any association to wepons crimes, and not be eligable for parole ever!!! Change the ways of thinking: guns dont cause crime, the criminals that use the guns do!
Comment By Dale Parker, 12-31-08It is nice to know I am considered by the Brady Bunch as dangerous for having the audacity to excercise my 2nd Ammendment rights. Note I said rights and not priviledge.
Comment By Steve, 12-31-08Dale Parker,
Amen brother and pass the ammo. Keep up the audacity and fight for our God given Rights!
So, the Brady Bunch thinks people that hold concealed carry permits are dangerous people, huh? Are they not aware that those of use that hold state issued concealed carry permits (CCP) or Handgun Carry Permits (HCP) have had to undergo background checks before we get them? They know full well that we do! Either they think that the states are issuing permits to criminals, or they are lieing through their teeth.
My bet is on the latter.
Allowing law abiding citizens to carry handguns for self defense to National Parks will make it harder for dangerous people to carry out criminal activities. Might make such activities down right hazardous to their health.
There are areas in this country that have the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, like Chicago and DC, and they have the worst crime rates in the nation. The states that have the least restictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates. Those are some inconvenient truths that Sarah Brady doesn't want anyone to know about.
BTW, open carry of holstered handguns is legal in 44 states.
Yes keep them out. We just had the horrible "accident" in upstate New York where some gun-head was shooting at a deer (which was already wounded and down) and his bullet went right into a nearby house and killed a 5 year old girl. And he was "obeying the law".
Comment By Scott, 12-31-08One other thing, the National Parks (and State Parks) belong to ALL Americans, not the .gov. That being said, I will arm myself whenever I feel it neccessary. That includes hiking, walking, or traveling through any Park. Period. It is my Right to be able to provide protection for myself and my family and I personally do not care what the brady's or any other group says or does. On someones private property I abide by their wishes. But the Parks are my Property (Taxes,Taxes,Taxes) and I carry when I need to.
Comment By C L Hiatt, 12-31-08OK let us stop reacting & start Acting!
Sue them for harrassment & file charges for violating the 1968 Civil rights act.
Be interesting to see who really has civil rights in this country.
No - no more guns and definitely no more gun-heads feeling the need to "exercise my right to shoot a gun." If that gun-nut had not felt as such, that little 5-year-old girl in upstate NY would still be alive. We gave you people the chance to act responsibly, and you blew it. You've proven yourselves a danger even when you are "observing the law." Forget it: no more guns!
Comment By Scott, 1-01-09Huh? Any death is regrettable and sad, but you are looking for extremes and using them to drive a rationale. Does not work....Come up with a better argument.
Comment By Mehmnet, 1-01-09"Regrettable and sad" - yes - but also "preventable" if we keep guns out. So there: no more guns. It's absurd to think the principles of democracy rest on someone being able to "carry a gun". I'm sick of all the accidents that are irreversible but for the fact that a gun was involved. From that gun-nut in NY insisting that he pump "one more bullet" into that deer to the father who heard noises in his closet and shot a gun into it only to find out it was his own teenage daughter trying to play a joke on him. You people are "trigger-happy" no matter what you say. I don't want to be traipsing through the woods enjoying a hike only to have you shoot me because you felt "threatened". Sorry - YOU have to come up with a better excuse.
Comment By scott, 1-01-09BS argument---I could make the same about cars, drunks, liberals, dogs, pools, etc... as being equally if not more dangerous... NO one in this world has ANY thing to fear from me when I am carrying unless they wish to do my family or myself harm. Period. Whether in a park or not. I bet you have felt completely safe up until this point when you visit or hike in any of said parks, Huh? Did you stop to think that at least half of the people that you met during your visits were probably already armed? Bet not. But you still seem to be walking upright....
Comment By Al Norris, 1-01-09Mehmnet: It's absurd to think the principles of democracy rest on someone being able to "carry a gun".
Do you fully understand what you just wrote? Allow me to rephrase:
"It's absurd to think the principles of democracy rest on someone being able to exercise their rights."
Do you honestly think that you, and those like you, can dictate what rights others may exercise? Simply because you find them distasteful? That a majority vote can overturn civil rights?
Apparently so. That's the danger of a democracy. Thankfully, we live in a republic, governed by a constitution. Not the mob mentality you espouse.
Wow, good catch Al.
And thank you Terry for the link to the FR document. That was interesting, motivated me to look at the complaint. Colleen Kolar Kotelly, the Microsoft monopoly judge, has the case. The plaintiffs all seem to be Million Mom March HCI activists who are reduced to shuddering goo by the IDEA that someone might have a gun...park or not. So for HCI's bent logic, this is a perfectly logical extension of their "reasoning."
Now, back to reasoning in terms of Mehmet. "It's absurd to think the principles of democracy rest on someone being able to "carry a gun"."
Okay, without debating the difference between a republic and democracy, let's play "Fill in the Bill Blank." All you have to do, Mehment, is answer yes or no:
Could democracy exist if people were not able to "speak freely?"
"Own Property."
"Enjoy Privacy from Random Warrantless Search And Seizure."
"Face their accusers before a jury of peers"
"Refuse to keep government soldiers in their home and feed them too"
"choose one's own religion"
"enjoy any civil liberties not specifically laid out in government documents"
and so on and so forth?
You people really like to whine: "waah-waah-waah...poor little me...I can't carry my gun!" Stop twisting my words and logic. I never said "rights" - I said "carry a gun". Yeah - can claim anything is a "right" and then weep and moan when the greater public says you can't do it, and claim that your "rights" have been violated. Yeah - I have the right to free speech but that still doesn't give me the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. No - sorry - you people are trigger-happy: you think the first line of defense for any situation is a gun. And you're paranoid: you think you will constantly find yourself in a situation where a gun affords total protection. And you're deluded: do you really think that a dangerous situation is going to give you the time necessary to accurately aim and fire? Wild animals will attack you when you least expect it. A bear pulled that kid from his tent without the father ever seeing it - and a mountain lion will quietly stalk you and then pounce and grab you around the throat before you have time to "exercise your right to fire a gun." Meanwhile, the first broken twig you hear will give you cause to cock your gun and ask "Who goes there? Friend or Foe?". Sadly, if you don't get an answer within 10 seconds, you are all too-ready to fire - only to realize it was a hiker or such who had peanut butter in their mouths and couldn't answer right away. No - we don't want guns in the parks! Keep 'em out! Nobody's rights are being trampled on - only adolescent fantasies of bravery and fortitude. Depressed about that? Oh - well - put that gun of yours to good use and shoot yourself!
Comment By Mehmnet, 1-01-09"BS argument [laundry list of other "dangers"]" - hah! All those you mention may incur danger but are unlike guns for two very good reasons.
1) Death may occur but that happens when something gets out of whack, misused or there is a dearth of experience; guns, on the other hand, kill even when "used properly" (like that horrible tragedy in upstate NY).
2) With everything else, even a car accident, there is usually some time factor involved that at least affords a chance to save someone; with guns, it's all over in the flash of an instant, no time lags, no possibility of attending to the injured.
No - no guns in the parks. "Rights"? Hah! That little 5 year-old in upstate NY had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that gun-happy hunter had to shoot his weapon "one more time" and that was the end of her. He now speaks of all the remorse - I say give him the death penalty. Maybe if we did that more often, you gun-heads would start taking more accountability for your weapons.
Ah Mehmnet ... you have fallen so completely into the cult of fear and paranoia that the anti-gun groups have woven that you have given up all rational thought processes.
Yes, it is true, you cannot always deploy a firearm in time to stop something bad from happening. Just like you can't always deploy a fire extinguisher in time to stop a fire from growing. But that doesn't mean we don't keep fire extinguishers around, because sometimes people DO use a fire extinguisher effectively and having an option to deal with a situation is better than no option.
As for that sad case in NY you speak of ... the hunter was NOT exercising any right. He was hunting, and apparently fired his weapon in an irresponsible manner. That doesn't mean it wasn't an accident, anymore than the lady who ran over a child in her car because she was reaching down to retrieve the chapstick she dropped hadn't committed an accident; both are tragic and have civil liability, but the former doesn't prove that gun ownership can't be done responsibly any more than the latter means that chapstick and cars can't be owned resonsibly.
I spend a lot of time in the woods and always with a firearm handy. I've never once drawn that weapon to shoot at a "snapping" twig or whatever . Given the number of people armed in non-National Park woods and campgrounds (probably 1/3 in Colorado) if we gun owners did that the death toll would be just about 100% and no one would survive a walk in the woods.
Concealed carry has been the widely exercised law of the land in 40 states for better than 20 years with several million Americans being licensed to carry firearms. It has caused no problem outside of National Parks, it will cause no problem inside National Parks.
Let go of your fears, and look at the situation rationally. Concealed carry will only make you more safe, not less.
Look here for more info:
http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/12/brady-campaign-sues-to-stop-ccw-in.html
or here:
http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/08/ban-on-firearms-in-american-national.html
I never said "rights" - I said "carry a gun". Yeah - can claim anything is a "right" and then weep and moan when the greater public says you can't do it, and claim that your "rights" have been violated.
Read the constitution, moron.
Read the Constitution? Morons? Tom, or Mehmet, you're losing this argument.
Are you not aware of checks and balances to ensure that the rights of electoral minorities are not to be infringed? Maybe you aren't.
Bearing arms, or in less-sophisticated English, "carrying a gun," is guess what, a Constitutional right. Specifically enumerated.
Furthermore, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments made sure that those rights and powers not specifically enumerated (or "spelled out") were reserved respectively to the states or to the people (that's "individual citizens"). Now, do I need to translate "reserved respectively" or do you need help there as well?
Perhaps you should take your own suggestion to heart. Happy reading.
“We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”
Paul Helmke, acting in an official capacity for a "non-profit" organisation, just called me a violent criminal. I shall sue him for slander. It should be fun owning all rights to the Brady Campaign and having all of Paul's money.
Project - project - project!
Mehmnet can't answer questions very well. People like him/her can only project their own shortcomings.
Mehmnet:"You people really like to whine: "waah-waah-waah...poor little me..."
Yeah, liberals really do like to whine allot. They are always running to government whining that they need to be protected from their own shadow.
Mehmnet:"Yeah - can claim anything is a "right" and then weep and moan when the greater public says you can't do it, and claim that your "rights" have been violated."
There is a difference between unalienable rights that are protected by the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and imaginary rights. Mehmnet doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference. And since those unalienable rights ARE protected we have a right to raise hell about it when they are infringed upon.
Mehmnet: "Yeah - I have the right to free speech but that still doesn't give me the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. No - sorry - you people are trigger-happy: you think the first line of defense for any situation is a gun. "
Your right, the rights we have come with responsibilities. Mehmnet isn't able to grasp that concept. Mehmnet is projecting his/her own lack of responsibility on the rest of us. Saying anything that will cause harm to others is irresponsible, like saying that anyone that carries a gun is dangerous. Those of us that have chosen to carry a gun for self defense have taken on the responsibilities that go with it. That includes knowing the legalities of useing deadly force to stop a threat with a firearm. Mehmnet doesn't seem to want to be responsible for anything, not even for his/her own safety.
Mehmnet: "And you're paranoid: you think you will constantly find yourself in a situation where a gun affords total protection."
Actually, I haven't run into a situation in which I needed a gun, yet. I might not ever. But I'd rather have a gun on me and not need it than to find myself someday needing one and not having it. No one expects to find themselves in harms way, but that is often when it happens. Those students and faculty at VT didn't expect to be killed and wounded on campus either. Law abiding gun carriers are not paranoid, just prepared. Mehmnet is projecting his/her own paranoia. Folks like him/her are always hearing "monsters in the closet" and crying for the nanny government to protect them. NO, carrying a gun is never going to be a 100% defense against a threat, but it's better than no defense at all.
Memnet: "And you're deluded: do you really think that a dangerous situation is going to give you the time necessary to accurately aim and fire? Wild animals will attack you when you least expect it. A bear pulled that kid from his tent without the father ever seeing it - and a mountain lion will quietly stalk you and then pounce and grab you around the throat before you have time to 'exercise your right to fire a gun'."
We're deluded? Do you think that a dangerous situation is going to give you time to call 911, for the cops to get there and protect save your butt? When seconds count the cops are only MINUTES away. Apparently Mehmnet hasn't heard of "situational awareness". Mehmnet is also projecting his/her total lack of it. People that venture into the habitat of preditory animals and fall victem do not exercise it either. Carrying a gun may not prevent an attack by a wild animal, but it can improve the odds of surviving such an attack. Law abiding gun carriers are more concerned with the two legged preditors though. And there have been plenty of them in our National Parks.
Mehmnet: "Meanwhile, the first broken twig you hear will give you cause to cock your gun and ask "Who goes there? Friend or Foe?". Sadly, if you don't get an answer within 10 seconds, you are all too-ready to fire - only to realize it was a hiker or such who had peanut butter in their mouths and couldn't answer right away."
Again Mehmnet is projecting how he/she is more likely to react to hearing a twig snap. Law Abiding gun carriers go by the rule of "Know your target" before we draw a weapon and pull the trigger. My gun isn't coming out of the holster unless I have positively identified a real threat.
Mehmnet: "Nobody's rights are being trampled on...."
Denying people the right to defend themselves isn't trampling on anyones rights? Where does the Brady Bunch get off trying to doing this. What right do they have dictating to the rest of us whether or not we can practice our 2nd Amendment right? 2A clearly states that we have the right to keep and BEAR arms, (BEAR means to carry) and that right "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Get over it!
Mehmnet: ".....only adolescent fantasies of bravery and fortitude."
Here, Mehmnet is projecting his/her own ignorance of "bravery and fortitude", or, the disdain for such charactoristics that he/she lacks. Bravery constitutes the overcoming of fear, something mehmnet clearly can't do. Fortitude, is defined as "strength of mind that enables one to meet danger or bear pain or adversity with courage". It appears that Mehmnet is projecting his/her own condemnation of charactoristics that he/she does not posess. Do we detect a hint of envy? Jealousy?LOL
Mehmnet: "Depressed about that? "
Projecting you own psychological weaknesses, heh, Mehmnet?
Mehmnet: "Oh - well - put that gun of yours to good use and shoot yourself!"
For someone that is suppose to be against violence Mehmnet sure is projecting a strong advocation of violence against those that don't agree with him/her. If folks like him want me to be shot, they're going to have to buy a gun and do it themselves. OH! But wouldnt that make folks like Mehmnet "Dangerous people with guns"? Mehmnet, if you want to shoot me I'll be easy to find, because I DON'T hide my gun. I wear it right out in the open for you to see. And I have a permit from the State of Tn that says I can do it legally, too.
You want something else to pee on yourself over? 44 states have made it legal to carry handguns holstered in plain view (open carry) and some of them don't require a permit to do so. Sounds like the return of the old "Wild , wild West, don't it? A time when our society ws made up of people who had "Bravery and fortitude" to deal with lifes ups and downs on their own and didn't need or want a nanny government to wipe there noses for them. Spirit of the Old West? Hell yes, bring it on!
Skinner,
I think you misinterpreted my post.
I probably shouldn't have called Mehmnet a moron, but he really is .
I was trying to make the point that the constitution does guarantee us the right to keep and bear arms.
I should have clarified that the first part was a quote from Mehnet's post.
Comment By jedediah Redman, 1-01-09I love the way D. C. is enabling the second Amendment. Perhaps the new administration may encourage other large cities to follow their lead--and then the middle-sized cities. Perhaps by the third decade of the 21st century the Sagebrush revolution will have petered out a tad..?
Comment By Jerry, 1-01-09jedediah Redman,
Don't count on it. Our second Amendment right must be protected, else the entire Constitution will be lost. This is why the Bill of Rights started off with the 1st and 2nd Articles; Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
There's over 80 million gun owners in this country, and we aren't going to put up with any dictatorship here.
Nahh jerry; but you rightwingnutjobs will stand behind the rule of law, eh?
Comment By Ed, 1-02-09I agree that this ruling will have a profound effect on the safety of our National Parks. It will be a relief now to visit a National Park while able to protect myself and my family. Since the Parks in states which allow CC will no longer be gun-free zones the safety level has improved drastically.
Addititionally, I expect shorter lines and a generally better class of people in the parks as well.
Thank you to the Department of the Interior and those who have helped reverse the infringement of the Second Amendment.
Well said Ed.....
Comment By Nevada Mike, 1-02-09I understand requiring NEPA to take away a freedom guaranteed by the consitution. Do we need NEPA to restor a freedom?
Comment By Mehmnet, 1-03-09Wow - u people are really something! So much more I wanted to say but now I guess I don't have to.
No less than 5 Gun OWNERS have died in the past 10 days, most of them from self-inflicted wounds.
We had Santa-gun-nut ("Merry Xmas little girl - now I will shoot u in the face!"), New Year's gun-nut, Aspen gun-nut, and one other down South. Go back in time and the list only grows.
The latest is Washington gun-nut college student who was wantonly shooting off his antique rifles using blanks, but the police didn't know that so they offed him.
No - sorry - no dangerous toys in our public sandboxes. You people keep reassuring me that you are all responsible with your guns. Well, I'm sure you posters are - but what about all the others???
You keep telling me that guns are a means of defense, but all I read is that they are being used as weapons of revenge by depressed men - who then off themselves when they can't face life (why is it always the guys, huh??? gee - what is it about GUNS that men get so crazy over??? Rarely does a woman shoot herself in the head - much less over a bitter divorce???)
You're right: guns empower the powerless. But all I read about is how these guys use guns on the defenseless - and then themselves.
"You keep telling me that guns are a means of defense, but all I read is that they are being used as weapons of revenge by depressed men - who then off themselves when they can't face life (why is it always the guys, huh??? gee - what is it about GUNS that men get so crazy over??? Rarely does a woman shoot herself in the head - much less over a bitter divorce???)"
Read More.
Education is the most powerful tool available to the ignorant.
What do you mean "Read More"? I read plenty - what do you read? "Gunheads Illustrated"? Funny how you choose to conveniently ignore these gun-owner deaths.
Yes - read more. More history - and you will find that the 2nd Amendment is rooted in 18th century thought, colored by notions of kings suppressing rebellions and colonists having to band together because there was no other means of defense save for their muskets.
Well if your head is so stuck in the 18th century, I would think your time would get more support asking for a repeal of the "Stamp Act" - or that nasty tax on tea.
You should have read a few more pages. Those issues, Stamp and Tea taxation, were settled a couple of hundred years ago.
Hundreds of gun owners have died in the last 10 days. Read up on the ones who didn't commit suicide, before or after they killed someone. Then consider how many people were killed while operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Now go focus yourself on something more meaningful tp the safety of society, like making it illegal to own a car.
Better yet, pass another law making it illegal to drive under the influence - the several thousand we have don't do the job.
Likewise, putting restrictions on the miniscule number of LEGAL gun owners and carriers will have no effect on stopping people who are already breaking other laws from doing so.
By the way, Santa was in California, whose already incredibly restrictive gun laws did nothing to stop him. Eerily, he didn't seem too worried about the laws concerning murder, arson or assault. You should probably pass a couple more laws since he didn't get the word on those.
Many are certain however that if someone at the party had been carrying a weapon and stopped him, there would have been no thank yous, no congratulations, no sighs of relief from those at the Brady HQ. Only a weary sigh of resignation and a renewed search for someone, somewhere with a concealed permit who wantonly kills a group of people so we can continue our mindless vendetta.
Oh, read up on something factual:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/5731-police-fatalities-08-prove-ccw-laws-no-threat-cops-says-ccrkba.html
It's from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms but the data is from the statistics of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and published by USA Today.
Here's the important part if you get tired of reading:
The number of officer fatalities due to gunfire is the lowest in 50 years, noted Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A report out Monday said that this year, 41 officers have died from gunshot wounds, down 40 percent from the 68 who died by gunfire in 2007. Yet the number of concealed carry permits issued by the states has risen, dramatically in some areas, in the past 12 months.
I know, I know, inconvenient facts getting in the way of your agenda. Don't worry, you'll find something to try to stir up mass hysteria in a bit.
My aologies to other readers for taking up a little more space but I need to clarify two errors in the above statement:
1. "Likewise, putting restrictions on the miniscule number of LEGAL gun owners and carriers will have no effect on stopping people who are already breaking other laws from doing so."
should read "..gun owners and carriers who break the law will have no..."
2. "Many are certain however that if someone at the party had been carrying a weapon and stopped him, there would have been no thank yous, no congratulations, no sighs of relief from those at the Brady HQ. Only a weary sigh of resignation and a renewed search for someone, somewhere with a concealed permit who wantonly kills a group of people so we can continue our mindless vendetta."
Should read ".....so they can continue their mindless..."
And yes, there were a couple of typos spread in there, sorry about that.
"By the way, Santa was in California, whose already incredibly restrictive gun laws did nothing to stop him. Eerily, he didn't seem too worried about the laws concerning murder, arson or assault. You should probably pass a couple more laws since he didn't get the word on those."
Well apparently it didn't matter: he offed himself with his own gun. So yes - a gun killed him (finally). That's the part you people have to explain in-depth: why do these gun-owners end up shooting themselves - and why is it always despondent men???
Forget it, kidz, if gun deaths are at the lowest they've been in a long time - and we're still hearing about all these gun-nuts killing themselves - then obviously there's real problem.
(Oh - but I guess if you people keep offing yourselves eventually they'll be none of you - hmmm....)
"Then consider how many people were killed while operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Now go focus yourself on something more meaningful tp the safety of society, like making it illegal to own a car.
Better yet, pass another law making it illegal to drive under the influence - the several thousand we have don't do the job. "
And stop convoluting the logic here. Cars - when operated properly - do not kill.
Even drugs - when taken in the correct doses and prescriptions - do their job.
But shooting a gun is a deliberate act. It's no "accident" that Santa shot that little girl in the face - he wanted to. It's no "accident" that Aspen-gun-nut shot himself in the head.
These guns never "misfired" - they were deliberately pointed at people and then the trigger pulled. When that kind of "power" can reside with nutzolas who crack but cannot be stopped until after it's too late, then it's time to put away the firearms and make them harder to obtain.
And one more thing: drunk driving is not a good analogy either.
When you're looped, obviously you are not capable of handling/driving the car properly.
Compare that to Santa-gun-nut: he WASN'T DRUNK.
He was sober - and everybody still ended up shot by his gun, including himself.
There is convoluted logic here but to find the source you need only to glance in the mirror.
My guns, like my car and the prescriptions from my doctor have managed not to murder anyone for their entire existence. So, yes they should all be left alone.
Those guns by the way have been operated very deliberately, thousands of times. Oddly, no one is dead as a result of that.
Anytime your own arguments are shown to be faulty, as with Santa Claus, you drift away on same lame tack that it doesn't matter.
Your comment about the use of guns to result in the elimination of gun owners speaks volumes for your basic humanity and maturity.
It actually is a perfect analogy. Drunks should not operate cars, but they do. Just like "nutzolas" should not get guns, but they do.
Comment By Mehmnet, 1-03-09Look kiddo - members of your group have this odd way off going nutz at the drop of a hat. You may have acted very responsibly with your gun in the past. What assurances do I have that you will not crack and decide to take revenge with your gun? "Gee - I never would have thought someone like that..." Famous last words. Forget it - several rotten apples have spoiled the barrel of you.
Interesting how Santa-gun-nut grouped the issue of his gun with assault and arson. Funny how that works, eh?
"It actually is a perfect analogy. Drunks should not operate cars, but they do. Just like "nutzolas" should not get guns, but they do."
WHAT???!!!!
Are you high?
If I can visibly tell if a person is a drunk and prevent that person from driving a car. There are even tools - breathalizers - which can quantitatively determine your blood-alcohol content for legal purposes.
How the he11 am I - or anyone for that matter - even YOU - supposed to determine if someone is "sane" enough to maintain and operate a gun??? A quiz? A Rorschauer test??? Gun demo???
And seriously - do you think with your mentality you would ever deny ANYONE ownership of gun? I bet you would be oh-so-ready to arm a nutzola because you would be more concerned with supporting gun rights than really be discerning of the mental health of someone - besides which said "nutzola" may really appear to be sane at the time of issuance of the gun..
Yeesh!
Ah, now we come to the real issue!
"...members of your group have this odd way off going nutz at the drop of a hat. You may have acted very responsibly with your gun in the past. What assurances do I have that you will not crack and decide to take revenge with your gun?...."
You're afraid.
Now you are much easier to understand.
Next time you see a Santa Claus, just take a deep breath then exhale slowly.
Oh, and seek professional help before next holiday season.
By the way, I know you aren't much on that whole education thing and reading is challenging but the plural form of nut is spelled with an "s" not a "z".
Comment By Mehmnet, 1-03-09"Ah, now we come to the real issue!"
Actually - the way things have been going, it seems the only people who really have cause to fear are the people who know gun-heads.
Santa-gun-nut took out his ex-inlaws and his ex-wife.
Southern gun-nut was using his gun to hold his children hostage.
I guess you could say that gun restrictions are really more about keeping you and your relatives safe from yourselves.
What? Me worry???
Mehmnet, I don't like the American gun culture either, but repeating anecdotal evidence and insults won't convince anyone. Come up with some convincing statistics, or show that the statistics of gun advocates are wrong or something. In a country of 300 million people you can find anecdotes to support nearly every theory. (Famous examples of similar faulty logic include the theories about the dangers of heavy metal music, or rock'n'roll music in general.)
Comment By Ed, 1-03-09Hi Lukas:
It would be grand to sit and discuss "solutions" to gun violence with someone rational. Presently my home is in West Tennessee but I'll be moving to Southwestern Idaho before the end of the year - let me know if you're ever in the area for a coffee or a beer to go with the chat.
Mehmnut,
From your posts, you seem like the type that would probably kill someone very easily if you got your hands on a gun.
Is that what terrifies you so much about guns?
You don't fear us as much as you fear yourself, do you.
You're not worried about us killing you, you're worried about guns being available to you at the wrong time and having to pay the price for you lack of self control.
What our founding fathers and others, had to say about gun control and freedom...
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
"The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
"If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live." -Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963. Speech in Detroit.
Statements of The Enemies of Liberty:
"Government begins at the end of the gun barrel." - Chairman Mao
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." --V.I. Lenin.
"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." --Joseph Stalin.
"We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns." - Jose Cerada, (White House official who specializes in gun control policy), The Los Angeles Times
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)
"Gun registration is not enough. Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno
Which of you geniuses out there can tell me what part of, "Shall Not Be Infringed" you don't understand? Is it too many words together in a string? WTF!!!!!!
Well said!
Comment By Swampdweller, 1-04-09Dear moron,
The liberal press won't print stories about people protecting themselves or others with guns. Why? Because it doesn't fit in their agenda. They promote the nanny state, where cradle-to-grave care awaits the unarmed. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.The average American's authority is being taken incrementally, one millimeter at a time. A frog does'nt know it is being boiled, if the heat is applied ever so gradually. Look for the united nations action on small arms and the "treaty" that will be eagerly signed by the B. Hussein Obama regime. This would authorize foreign troops to disarm Americans. They'll get my guns alright. Hot lead first!
http://www.nra.org/
The truth lies therein.
OMG - it turns out you people are living in the 1950s! You are spoiled post-WWII children, living out here in the backwoods, still afraid the Commies will take over - completely ignorant of how major metropolitan and urban areas have grown!!!
So it's not "American gun culture" - it's more correctly "rural White American Male culture" that you're adhering to (there may be women among you but not a single Jew or Negro, right? That's why you're so afraid Obama will "take your guns away").
Hey wake up! If a national crisis occurs in the same way the writers of the Bill of Rights imagined it would - a gun is not going to protect you. Foreign Troops - even National ones - will simply take you out with missiles and tanks. And they'll be wearing bullet-proof vests!
Heck - there are terrorists in the world these days: when they kill use car-bombs and germ warfare - they don't care if they go down with you.
Ask anybody in the Middle East - be they Jew or A-rab - a handgun - even a rifle - is worthless when a modern siege erupts. Ask any Palestinian how effective a gun is when you're under assault with missiles and tanks.
You people have this curious double-standard: presumably you all support the war in Iraq and the notion that there are "weapons of mass destruction" - yet you cling to this notion that a gun will protect you if they come over here. "Mass destruction" - get it? You won't even have time to say the word "gun" before you go out in a blaze of Muslim glory.
Yeesh!
Yeesh is right. At least here in Michigan, we still are allowed to carry concealed. Just because you don't think you're going to get into an accident does'nt mean you don't need insurance. Me, I'll go with insurance. IMHO, fortune favors the well prepared.
Comment By Ed, 1-04-09You know Mehmnet, you should go over there and run this by the Palestinians you seem to have such rapport with (or the Israeli's, take your pick, makes no real difference). Just explain your realization to them, applaud their common sense...and then take that weapon out of their hands as you croon to them that they understand now that they don't need it anymore.
You might want to practice a bit in LA, Chicago, DC or New York a bit before you go. Just ask the nice young men (and women) to hand over their guns since it IS against the law you know. Should be easy since those bad old guns are illegal there and surely they just don't understand that they are breaking the law. We are certain that after the proper reverent consideration, they will seek to deliver you to their heightened level of consciousness and understanding.
Drop us a line with how that works out for you.
Mehmnet,
Folks like you never cease to amaze me as to how low you are willing to stoop to defend your narcisism. When you can't come up with any facts or reasonable argument to support your stance you pull the racism card. How pathetic.
Are you sure your not just projecting your own hidden racism and bigotry? Just as you have been projecting your own insecurities, lack of self-discpline, lack of tolerance, inability to except reality, disdain for personal responsibility, curious double standards,etc.
I see the girly-men are trying to take the high ground. Try to grow a pair and grow up while at it. Psychobabble isn't working for me, dude.
Comment By Mehmnet, 1-04-09No guns in the parks - sorry.
That's what this thread started out as.
The turning point for me came when my co-worker came to me on a weekday and said "Yuk-yuk-yuk. My buddies and I had a great time last night - we got drunk and went out and shot out all the street lamps."
Backwoods children - that's what you are and that's how you must be disciplined.
Mehmnet,
America is the only country in the world that GUARANTEES it's citizens the "RIGHT to keep and bear arms". There are so many countries you could move to if you have such disdain for the the American way of life. I'm sure Fidell will welcome you with open arms.
There ya go again, Mehmnet, making stuff up.
Had your co-worker actually went around shooting out streetlights (and even telling you about it) they most likely would have been arrested before they could have shot them all out. Discharge of a firearm within city limits (where street lights are normally found) is unlawful and surely would have drawn the attention of law enforement. Unless they were using pellet guns.
I suppose you didn't report these people to the authorities either, huh? You are aware, that if this event did happen and they told you about it, and you didn't report it, that makes you an "accessory after the fact"? Whcih means you are not a law abiding citizen.
Hey Tom, maybe we can start taking a collection to help pay for Mehmnet's relocation. What do ya think?
Solve 2 problems at once. Then everyone gets to be happy. yeeeeaaaa!
Why should I leave?
January 21st - day after Inauguration - it's all over for you: the Head Negro will be confiscating your guns.
But hey - don't go without a fight.
And when the missiles start flying and the bombs start falling, here's some handy advice you may or may not have heard before:
"Duck & Cover."
HEAD NEGRO?
Have you considered profesional help?
That hate is gonna burn you up inside.
Mehmnet wrote:
"January 21st - day after Inauguration - it's all over for you: the Head Negro will be confiscating your guns.
My, have you been sold a bill of goods. And you baught it hook, line, and sinker. The "Anointed One" may think he can pull that off with a Dem controled congress, but I don't think it will be so easy.
First of all, there are too many Democrats in congress that know that they would be committing political suicide if they were to go along with any confiscation Obama may want to execute. They'll fight him on it.
Secondly, Obama will not be able to count on the US Armed Forces to carry out such a confiscation. Memebers of teh US Mil are sworned to defend the Flag and the US Constitution, not their Commander and Chief. The vast majority of the Military personal will not go against US citizens for exercising their rights.
Thirdly, a majority of law enforcement will not go against law abiding citizens for standing up for their Constitutional Rights, either.
There are over 80 million gun owners in this country. Even if only half of them take an armed stand against an order of confiscation, they will out number the number of Military and Law Enforcement that may be loyal to Obama. Now, given the number of gun owners + the Military and law enforcement that would side with us, I think Obama and his cohorts might want to have their bags packed when they try to take our guns.
Oh yeah, and there's also all the non-gun owners that would support defending our constitutional rights, too, because unlike you they know that if the 2A falls the rest of the Bill of Rights will tumble with it, like dominoes.
You keep posting, Mehmnet. The more you post the more you disclose about your own charactor. So far we've learned that you are a sexist, a bigot, an enemy of the Constitution, and now a racist. Everything you try to project onto gun owners.
Maybe you would like to take a shot at explaining why extremely restrictive gun control laws haven't lived up to their promised intent.
Mehnmet does bring up one worthy point which we are forgetting, this thread is on Park carry not the overall 2A.
The 2A is the basis for the change back to the ORIGINAL situation and now provides those who use Park facilities with the means to protect themselves, their families and others as appropriate. The danger of personal assaults and animal attacks has been rising and at least we now have an option for protection.
The only concern I have remaining is the practicality of limiting the practice to prohibit bathroom buildings and that we are apparently going to be forced to lock weapons in the trunk of the car while staying in hotels or entering into ranger stations/offices, visitor's centers, convenience stores and museum buildings. Hopefully, trailside toilet buildings and enclosed shelters are excluded from this coverage. That part appears to not be well thoughtout or consistent.
Hmmmm....
A very "toilet-centric" post.
You go on at-length on gun matters - but the frequency of your bathroom-related issues makes me wonder how old u r...
Ed,
I realize that this thread started over the new NP rule, but the Brady Bunch and their followers have been doing their darnedest to put a stop to are ability to carry our tools of self-defense all together. If they had their way we wouldn't be able to keep guns at home, either. They are totally against 2A.
AS you can see, they aren't able or flat refuse to explain why the strict gun control laws they favor don't work as they claim they were suppose to. But yet they want more regulation. Their arguments are based on lies and misinformation. True facts and statistics destroy their arguments easily. Why they have any credibility with anyone is beyond me.
Try the below site for much more general discussions on 2A, although it is not really a dialogue. While anti's are allowed there, most grow tired and eventually leave. For dialogues, you are mostly going to have more specific situations - shootings, rulings, court cases, etc. TV stations and news sites often see the level of heated debate, both rational and personal, that we were approaching here.
http://www.usacarry.com/ is a good Pro 2A site where you can enjoy some camaraderie and discuss both politics and your hobby if desired.
You know Mehnmet, you actually do more to help our poiint of view than hurt it.
Keep at it.
Ed,
I'll give that site a look see.
I tend to hang out at this one. They'd have Mehmnet for breakfast over there. LOL
http://www.opencarry.org
Unfortunately, gun threads always seem to deteriorate like this one. Aren't there more important issues?
Ed, I won't be in Idaho any time soon, but if you ever come to Bozeman, MT, shoot me an email, I appreciate the offer for a chat. (My contact address should be easy to find with Google.) Now I don't think guns in National Parks will help much against animal attacks. Against people maybe, but where do you get the idea that crime or animal attacks in National Parks are rising? Most statistics show that National Parks are pretty safe places.
I lived in Colorado for 10 years (1990-1999) and increasingly, the growing population pressure has added to pressure on cougars, coyotes and bears in their foraging efforts. During my time there at the one State Park (Chatfield Reservoir), south of town there were multiple attacks by cougars/lions on individuals. The last one I remember the hiker pulled a .38 and put three rounds into the cougar attacking him. another guy had to fight a cougar off his dog with a stick. Numerous people lost dogs while running or walking and at least one biker was killed. Occasional heart attacks resulted from attempts to flee. In Idaho Springs, on I-70 a young HS athlete was attacked and killed by full grown mountain lion while doing his morning exercise run. While this is admittedly anecdotal evidence from one park situation, the population isn't shrinking. Obviously those parks closer to towns and cities are going to experience more incidents but, again, it provides the option for defense where needed.
After leaving Colorado I lived in California where it has become a joke about coyotes taking cats and small dogs from backyards at night. I will search around for exact statistics but I am confident they will bear out the increase since these were mainstream news rather than special interest group hysteria-inducing announcements.
The Colorado Fish and Game was repeatedly advising people to make more noise and avoid certain areas. California was doing the same and advising to secure garbage cans at night due to bears. What is the point of a park if you have to avoid parts of it due to danger? How does someone protect themselves, their spouse or their children from a bear in the backyard or campground?
Regarding two-legged predators you can scan for the current headlines concerning the one year anniversary of the death of a Georgia hiker killed by a stalker in December, 2008. In the NW you had the young female athlete (skier) attacked by the father and son team who wanted themselves a woman.
Still it makes no difference whether it involves one death a year or fifty; the point is having the option to increase your chances. Simply, the intent of the 2A was to provide citizens with the means of self-protection. It was also for political reasons but while those are extremely important they are secondary to the purpose of this thread.
Also, don't forget that despite the claims of carnage and bloodshed which are always predicted when carrying laws are restored, there has been no blood running in the streets, no crazed concealed weapons carriers opening fire on police, drivers, shoppers or neighbors. This is merely returning the National Parks back to the way they were some 25 years or so ago.
Ooops, re the Georgia hiker (female) that should have said killed in December, 2007. My apologies.
Comment By Lukas Geyer, 1-05-09Honestly, people who would pull a handgun on a bear in a campground scare me more than the bears themselves. Actually, the thought of this happening is a good argument for the gun ban in Parks. Seriously, ask people who know about bears, and follow their advice. You can check out any statistics to see for yourself that bear spray is more effective than guns in repelling bears. And sure, you have to secure garbage cans and make noise while hiking in bear country, nothing wrong with that.
Of course, there might be situations where a gun might help, and I understand your argument about having the additional option. I'd just advise you to go without a gun from time to time, it isn't as dangerous as some people would make you believe.
Overall, I don't think this new rule will change much in real terms, so I am not very passionate about it. I'd rather see both sides of the debate chill out a bit. The world is not going to end with this rule change, and it won't end if Obama reinstates the rule either. You (both pro- and anti-gun voices) could at least admit that this is a largely symbolic battle about the larger issue of the second amendment in general.
OMG - look at how this thread has degenerated!
Toilet traumas and scary tales of "When Animals Attack!"
A forum for the fears and phobias of backwoods children!
Sorry - kiddiez - but we can't arm you just because you imagine the first snapped twig or strange footstep to be an assault on your life. Contrary to what you've seen Davy Crockett do on the Disney TV show, guns are NOT toys. We live in a real wilderness, not Frontierland.
Enough of this foolishness!
Grownups have work to do!
Boyoboyoboy! The nuts don't fall far from the tree, thank God. You should attend a gun and knife show sometime, guy. These people are salt of the earth folks who would most likely give you the shirt off their back to help. I believe deeply in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. So does almost every American, native-born or not. It doesn't matter what color or by which accent an American speaks. It's the contents of the heart and the quality of character that matters in the final analysis. Some people like model railroading. If that's what floats your boat, I say "have at it." Some like fishing (here, here!), Hunting, or birdwatching. Why should I disarm just because I crossed an invisible boundary? Shouldn't I be able to carry my gun by virtue of my concealed carry permit? Criminals aren't going to disarm because some rule tells them to. They live by a "catch me if you can" rule.
This was not a last minute, lame duck move by the interior department. They had months for a public comment period and it was extended by the antigun people because they thought they could get more anti comments than pro comments. They were wrong and now, shortly, we will have concealed-carry in OUR parks, again. We The People have prevailed and I feel at one with the universe. Now, if only we could get stupid law-makers out of office. Last election proved that there are more idiots than you can shake a stick at. Scary.
Hi Lukas - please note that the context of the bear in the campground was that wild animals are coming into increasing contact with humans and the exact quote was "How does someone protect" not hunting game in a campground. Certainly if a bear wanders quietly into a campground only a fool would immediately pull a handgun and shoot it unless it was actively engaged in an attack. That said and in response to your suggestion that going without a gun isn't as dangerous as some believe look below.
If one of them has hold of one of my children and is mauling my wife and other child (see story below) I would like something other than my fists and a piece of firewood (see other story below) to try to get it off.
Aggregate statistics from credible sources are difficult to come by so I had to sort through a few news stories to get you some comments but here are three notables:
Samuel Evan Ives, 11, male - June 17, 2007
Taken from a tent in American Fork Canyon in the Uinta National Forest in Utah County, Utah where he was sleeping with his stepfather, mother and 6-year-old brother. The bear was later killed by state Wildlife officials.
Jim Hamm, 70, male - Jan. 25, 2007
Wildlife officials credited a woman with saving her husband's life by clubbing a mountain lion that attacked him while the couple were hiking in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, a California state park.
Elora Petrasek, 6, female - April 13, 2006
She was killed and her mother and 2 year-old brother seriously injured in an attack in the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee.
The fatal attacks are easier to find than simpler attacks unless they resolve in some sort of spectacular fashion. While some dismiss these as insignificant, children and elderly people seem to be targeted more due to their speed, size and ability to avoid panic.
From your perspective it may not seem like much, although many of the anti crowd are agonizing and predicting the same shootouts, mayhem and carnage they predicted in Florida and other states (erroneously), but to those who believe in the Constitution this is a restoration of an illegally infringed right. We keep coming back to the essential larger point though that in no instance has there been shown to be a correlation between carrying guns and increased gun fatalities. In fact, those locations with stringent restrictions on guns have higher incidents. This holds true whether they are malls, schools or cities.
Google National Park crime rates and you will see why the Rangers complaints that they were being increasingly drawn into crimnal situations and gun encounters were a significant factor in the Interior Department's investigating lifting the ban due to their inability to secure the Parks.
Crime rates tick up across national parks
Christian Science Monitor
Crime in National Parks
Washington Post
Crime slowly creeps into parks, forests
Seattle Times
Mexican cartels running pot farms in U.S. national forest
CNN
The bear carried that kid off without the father ever seeing it in the dark.
That woman beat the mountain lion off by clubbing it.
So why do you need guns?
If you look at the picture of her husband and the description of his injuries you might have a clue. The mother in TN rescued the 2 year old, despite both suffering severe injuries but lost the 6 year old. The man's wife tried to fight the mountai lion with a fountain pen and large tree branch before getting it to let go of her husband. The rangers were amazed she succeeded.
They may be insignificant to you but they meant the world to their families.
You really exhibit an incredible lack of sensitivity and humanity, not to mention basic intelligence. My sincere hope is that you get some serious therapy before you come apart.
You're off my radar now, good luck.
Ed, I am not a constitutional legal expert, so I can't say whether restrictions in National Parks violate the Constitution. You say that this rule is illegal, but do you have any court decision to back this up? There was enough time to challenge the rule, did the NRA or any similar organization file a lawsuit?
You say: "Certainly if a bear wanders quietly into a campground only a fool would immediately pull a handgun and shoot it unless it was actively engaged in an attack." Does that mean you would shoot it if you thought it was engaged in an attack? If so, please think twice, and check out this link: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/03/studies-show-bear-spray-more-effective-guns-against-grizzlies
Quote (from a USFWS report): "The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality -- based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries."
Sure, there are cases where guns have saved lives, there are also cases where guns have done harm. Altogether, the number of those incidents in National Parks is very small, so it is hard to tell whether you increase or diminish your chances of survival with a gun. Somehow you gun advocates think that having a gun is always an advantage, but this is just not true, definitely not with bears.
Remember the old saying, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Re animal attacks - in your own words: "Accidents will happen regardless."
Comment By gun-nut, 1-05-09Yo, Mehmet. If you don't like guns then why don't you move to Australia where they have already been banned? Leave this country for the "Land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE". Stupid broad!!!
Comment By Mehmnet, 1-05-09"Yo, Mehmet. If you don't like guns then why don't you move to Australia where they have already been banned? "
They got over it.
You will, too.
If you weren't sooo uneducated you would know that they haven't gotten over it and their crime rate went up by 95% over night! Why? Because the criminals did not turn in their guns and they knew they had the control. Hello!!!!!!!!!!!! Why don't you EDUCATE yourself about GUNS!!!! Instead of looking like an idiot in your comments!!
Comment By Ed, 1-05-09Lukas - I have fully read the linked report and promise that the next time I am at SW or Cabelas or a similar place, I will ask for a can of their best bear spray. Promise. Then, after the 9th, when I go into a Park I will have two options at my disposal. Three if we count big sticks. I absolutely swear I will buy it and place it in my car's emergency box.
On the other hand, if it is actively attacking someone across a space, I am probably not going to maneuver in front of it and be closing towards swipe range to spray it. If it is upwind of me, I am not spraying it either. If it about to attack someone I feel responsible for defending I am probably going to shoot it to draw it away if it is more than a few feet distant. Finally, if it is chasing someone I am probably going to shoot it since I doubt I can chase it down and get in front of it to spray it in the face.
I used to go to Parks quite a bit and expect to start going more in the next year. Not because of the rule, just had to do with where I lived. During that time when I did go regularly, I saw bears twice, mountain goats dozens of times and no mountain lions but none ever attacked (thankfully). That said, I was at Yellowstone about 40-odd years ago and within 50 yards of 3 buffalo, one of which killed a man 24 hours later. I walked that same path at Chatfield Reservoir where cougar attacks occurred three times during the period I lived less than 3 miles away.
In the stories about the bear and cougar attacks I also can't help but notice that the Rangers who went after the animals apparently used guns on it, not spray, although they probably carried it on their belts.
And yes, I do believe that having a gun is an advantage. How is it "just not true"? You may be trying to say that it is not a greater advantage with bears "than the spray option" and that is a possibility, but animals are just one item and we come back to the 2A.
Hey Jerry:
You're in TN? I'll be home (Memphis) in a week and visiting Nashville at least one long weekend for some shooting. You in the vicinity?
WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE???
I have only to wait for a day or two before I am confronted with yet another GUN-NUT who sheds his despondency by going LOONY TUNES!!!
MADISON, Ga. – A 13-hour hostage standoff at a Georgia motel ended peacefully Monday when a former South Carolina police officer and a teenage girl surrendered, freeing his estranged wife and infant son.
FBI spokesman Steve Lazarus said 25-year-old David Dietz surrendered around 9:15 a.m. at the Red Roof Inn off Interstate 20 about 60 miles east of Atlanta. Jamie Lynn Burgess, 17, was also taken into custody at the time.
The two had been holed up in a second floor room with the infant, Allim David Dietz, and Dietz's estranged wife, 29-year-old Eva Arce-Perez. Two shots were fired at law enforcement agents from the room Sunday night.
The next morning, Dietz stepped onto the walkway outside the motel room holding the baby in his arms as he surrendered. Burgess exited the room with her hands in the air.
Burgess helped Dietz in the kidnapping, West Columbia, S.C., Police Major Jackie Brothers said.
"It's our understanding they arrived together, they waited together and when the family and friends arrived home, she actively participated in the abduction," Brothers said.
Police said Burgess and Dietz were acquaintances but wouldn't elaborate on their relationship.
Burgess was set to return to South Carolina Monday night, where she would be charged with kidnapping, carjacking and assault with intent to kill, Brothers said. She won't face federal charges because she's a minor, Lazarus said.
Dietz, who wore a black uniform emblazoned with the word "police" during the abduction, was being held in federal custody in Macon and would face federal charges of kidnapping in South Carolina and federal charges of assaulting a federal officer in Georgia since shots were fired at FBI agents, Lazarus said. He said they hoped to bring Dietz before a federal magistrate on Tuesday.
He also faces state charges including kidnapping, assault with intent to kill and carjacking in South Carolina and five counts of aggravated assault in Georgia, authorities said.
Police said Arce-Perez and the baby were abducted from their home in Columbia, S.C., Saturday evening. A missing child alert was issued, and authorities learned Dietz might be headed toward Atlanta.
The standoff started Sunday night after Georgia State Patrol officers spotted the car mentioned in the alert in the motel parking lot.
It wasn't the former police officer's first run-in with the law. South Carolina police reports showed authorities were called twice last year to domestic disturbances between Dietz and Arce-Perez.
Police in West Columbia were called to the home where Arce-Perez lived in December after the woman claimed Dietz threatened her.
"She stated that he called her wanting to see the baby even if he had to kick the door in," West Columbia chief Dennis Tyndall said.
An incident report filed in May by the Richland County, S.C. Sheriff's Department says Dietz was arrested for criminal domestic violence after he tried to force then-pregnant Arce-Perez to leave her apartment with him and pointed a gun at her brother, threatening to shoot if he tried to intervene. A judge dismissed charges in that case when Arce-Perez didn't show up for a hearing, said department spokesman Chris Cowan.
Columbia police spokesman Brick Lewis said Dietz was hired by the department in June 2006 but resigned in October 2006 without giving a reason and on good terms.
Dietz also worked as a probation officer until August 2007, said Pete O'Boyle, a spokesman for the state's probation department.
Ed, I don't really have a problem with you (or people like you) carrying a gun in Parks, and I am glad that you'll have bear spray, too. However, I can't help but notice that you paint some wild scenarios which are very unlikely to happen and where a gun most likely won't help either. (E.g., buffalo accidents usually happen to stupid irresponsible people like those parents who tried to get a photo of their kid with a buffalo recently. They were warned by other visitors, did it anyway, and the buffalo gored the kid, of course. Maybe punching the parents in the face would have helped, but surely no gun.) Do you also wear a helmet on a hike in the woods because something could fall down and hit you on the head? People really do die from falling things:
http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070506/070531-5.htm
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20060109&slug=dige09m
Outlawing helmets would be silly, of course, but wearing helmets on hikes would be silly as well (and you couldn't really conceal them). The most dangerous part of a Park visit will always be the drive to and from the Park anyway, and you can never protect yourself against all eventual dangers. Try to be prepared against the most likely problems (getting lost, hypothermia, drowning, falling, getting hit by a car) and enjoy your visit. Carry a gun if you like, but don't think that it is what makes you safe. Paranoia isn't fun...
By the way, I just realized that I am always thinking about big scenic parks like Yellowstone or Yosemite, not urban Parks like the Mall in Washington.
Absolutely, that was why I qualified that in 50 years of visiting various Parks I had not encountered a situation needing bear spray either. You just seemed focused on the bears and worried about engaging them with handguns, I was trying to stay with you. That said, I haven't been robbed at gunpoint either, nor carjacked nor raped, yet it happens often enough and the police are obviously powerless to prevent it. So, I am dead serious with regard to the bear spray. I keep a medium-sized tub in my car with essentials - matches, food bars, first-aid kit, etc along with blankets, batteries, ammo and a locked gun case. And, now, bear spray. Planning ahead to give more options is good and I may even keep it in my pocket in urban areas. It could come in handy, although many jurisdictions have legislated against carrying certain mixtures of spray and it is now counted as a controlled substance on airplanes.
Amazing how this whole infringement mentality begins to encroach into unexpected areas of our lives. Imagine being denied travel despite your purchased ticket just for forgetting that 150ml canister of bear spray in your carry-on. Sheesh!
And yes, outlawing helmets would be silly. If someone wants to wear a helment, we should let them. Likewise, if someone wishes to carry a gun, let them also. Since there is a clause in our Constitution explicitly giving us the right doesn't it seem like it should be even harder to imagine outlawing the guns than it does the helmets? You might remember that 30 years ago nobody wore helmets while biking, now there are many states where a paarent can be held negligent and both them and their children cited as negligently operating a bike if they are without one.
As for the Mall situation, there the predators are more likely the two-legged kind. The Federal buildings protections remain, apparently, at least for now though and DC is still struggling with how they will deal with the total failure of their gun ban, both to deal with crime AND its unconstitutional foundation. I suspect that the Mall's proximity to terrorist targets gives them a legitimate environment where they will restrict weapons, I even endorse it. Our national treasures, government structures and even our politicians need the best protection we can provide, balanced against our society's accessibility and educational needs.
And thank you very much for the comment, "I don't really have a problem with you (or people like you) carrying a gun in Parks.." that is reall all we expect.
Ed,
I live just south of Lobelville, south side of I-40. If you've been over to the opencarry.org site PM me there. I post their as Task Force 16. Maybe we can meet up out on the Interstate on your way.
Keep your powder dry.