LOADED FOR POLITICS, NOT BEARS OR CRIMINALS
More Guns in National Parks
By Bill Schneider, 2-21-08
 |
|
 | |
|
You've probably heard about pending legislation to allow visitors to our national parks to carry loaded and accessible firearms. The cover story is the concern that people must be able to protect their families from perverts and wild animals infesting out national parks.
To this overused assertion, I must ask why doesn't the gun lobby get out front with the real reason it does these things?
This amendment and, it seems, most other gun legislation, isn't about guns or the Second Amendment. It's all about politics, and the gun lobby is panicked about who might be living in The White House next year.
This one isn't that hard to figure out. Republican frontrunner John McCain (R-AZ) already supports more guns in national parks, so this amendment is hardly about the right to bear arms. It's about forcing democrats Hillary Clinton (N-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) to make an "anti-gun" vote before the general election.
| |
| Is this a high priority issue? | |
|
Instead of stifling congressional efforts to actually accomplish something, perhaps the National Rifle Association and the rest of the gun lobby should get it over with and ask one of their senators, such as Tom Coburn (R-OK), sponsor of this more-guns-in-parks amendment, to introduce a resolution that every member of the Senate and House of Representatives must vote on to get their retirement package. The resolution should contain only five words: "We support the Second Amendment." Then, this yes-or-no vote can be used in all elections going forward, and we won't have to deal with such counterproductive amendments and riders that have no relation to the legislation they delay or kill.
The gun lobby won't do this, of course. We all know what would happen. The vast majority of people and politicians support the Second Amendment. The vote might be close to 535-0 in support of the Second Amendment, and then how would the gun lobby raise money?
By accusing a lot of people who support the Second Amendment of being liars, of course.
Even with such a vote on record, the gun lobby would accuse democrats who voted yes and then later voted against having guns in national parks, against taking concealed weapons on airplanes or against six-graders taking assault rifles to school, of being "anti-gun," and against the Second Amendment if not against freedom.
Incidentally and ironically, and you won't see this in the NRA press releases, the current regulation requiring guns taken into national parks to be dissembled, unloaded and inaccessible (such as cased in the truck of the car) was put in place in 1983 by none other than a NRA darling, Republican Ronald Reagan and under the reign of terror of Beyond Republican Secretary of the Interior James Watt.
As far as guns in national parks go, is this a high priority issue? It is for park rangers who have opposed it, along with national park retirees who see it resulting in more poaching and public safety issues. But I suspect that people so afraid for their personal safety that they carry a concealed 9mm into coffee shops or legislative hearings probably take it into national parks, too.
Personally, I don't have much heartburn about people having guns in the parks because I know some people do it anyway, which is why I keep saying "more guns," and I can't recall a single incident where this has been a problem. Plus, I suspect I'm not going to see many people packing concealed weapons at backcountry campsites where I stay.
But I do object to the timing, motivation and method of this amendment. If we want to vote on the issue of taking guns into national parks, introduce a targeted bill and vote on it. Don't tie up major legislation and be honest about the motives.
Such a more-guns-in-parks bill would probably pass the Senate because 51 senators have already officially supported it, including senators (democrats and republicans) from Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming, but it would likely get shot down in the House, the end result being more wasted time and money that could have gone to something worthwhile like curing our health care crisis or ending the Three Trillion Dollar War.
(I had to get that one in there.)
So, I hope the Senate finds the political will to strip the more-guns-in-parks amendment out of S.2843, pass this major legislation, and move on to something else that needs to be done.
Footnote: Click here to read more NewWest.Net articles on the NRA.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
One more thing - as a hunter, I wish our western members of Congress would spend more time looking for ways to protect habitat than showing off how pro-gun they are. Who cares if you can carry an assault rifle if you can't access public lands or if there is no game left to hunt?
Mike
I'm of the ain't broke, don't fix it school on this one. We cannot have hikers shooting grizz and lions on sight in the Parks- its a recipe for disaster. Pepper spray is best in the Parks, and it works just as well on Ted Bundy as it does on Bart the Bear or Louis the Lion.
To Mike Attaway, you have an indisputable point. Remember the issue is the National Parks, not National Forests like the Ocala or the Bitterroot or the Lolo. It is totally legal to carry firearms in National Forests, State Forests, etc. And, I might add, it is highly advisable, if you are experienced with firearms, to be armed anywhere on those public lands that are accessible by road or ATV.
Very few nasties hike around the backcountry molesting and killing people, but a whole lot of nasties see isolated places that are acccessible to their vehicles as their personal hunting grounds.
But the Parks are different, because they are the last redoubts of say, the grizz. And crime is really pretty low - Yosemite comes to mind as a crowded place where there a few human nasties, but I still think pepper spray is best for that kind of place. I remember camping there one night (illegally, I'm afraid, hidden in the bushes) and a bear came in to a group camp and started wrecking the place, coolers flying, people screaming. If somebody had been packing, and had a just a tiny bit of bad judgement, the bear would have been shot and the situation would have been dangerous for the people. But in the end the bear just left, cooler in mouth, and nothing was really lost.
I've fished those lakes in the Ocala NF once, long ago- and I was wishing, even then, that I had a sidearm. Same with the Hungry Horse country here in MT., with all those people just living out there in their cars or whatever. Most of them are people of good will. Some of them are not.
But I sort of agree with Bill that the debate should be on the merits...as if THAT ever happens in the Swamp.
Hal, guns in the parks should be legal. You shoot a T and E species, you are going to have a heck of a backwards burden of proof but at least you will be alive to pay the lawyahs. You shoot a B and E species, as in bad guy, again....judged by twelve or carried by six?
Never mind all those ecotourists with cell-phones, good glass both photo and lookie, liberals most, with good hearing from their quiet cubicle lives...the crack of gunfire will most emphatically be noted and reported.
You should turn down the partisan politics yourself, buddy. I've been following this issue closely for a number of years because of a personal experience on Park property. The NRA has been working on changing the NPS policy since at least 2003. Do you really think they need ONE more vote to show the American people how anti-gun Obama and Clinton are? Isn't that a matter of well established public record? Obama is a supporter of an outright ban on the civilian ownership of handguns and has voted the wrong on gun rights every time while in the U.S. Senate and Illinois Legislature. Nothing needs to be said about Clinton and her cherished Million Mom March, of course.
I hope you're just being facetious with the “vote on the support for the 2nd Amendment” idea. You know well that too many politicians like John Kerry and Al Gore dance around saying how much they support the 2nd Amendment – the whole time crossing their fingers and telling themselves that it only applies to those in the U.S. Army. Words are easy to shape in any manner you’d like, actions are not. Lay off of the NRA for a change, they’ve got this one right. I deserve the chance to protect myself and family without worrying about being treated like a common criminal and having an arrest record as a result of choosing to be a responsible, self-sufficient citizen.
Lee
Virgina enacted shall-issue CCW back in the 90's and when I last lived there - 1997 - there were over 50,000 permit holders. However, Viriginia is possibly unique in having a several National Parks in close proximity to heavily urbanized areas. I was stationed at Langley AFB and the Yorktown Battlefied, Jamestown and the Colonial Parkway were all within a few miles of my house.
Virginia permit holders were justifiably concerned about not being able to carry on NPS property when such property was almost in their backyards. Moreover, easy access into and out of these parks meant that crime can occur there as well as in the surrounding areas of Hampton Roads.
In fact, while I was there, we had a Langley airman abducted and murdered just a short distance from Yorktown. Where in Mr Schneider's experience, National parks are remote and prisitine areas out West, I'm here to tell you that a park in other parts of the country is just as likely to be the site of a crime than anywhere else.... or maybe more likely, since predators can have some confidence that victims aren't armed.
I'm sure one could read the subtleties and innuendo of politics into every bill which was ever brought before Congress. However, while visiting a national park, should you and your loved ones be confronted by threesome of 16 yr. old, drugged out, societal predators, who have chosen you for today's subject of murder and mayhem, it might be wise to reconsider your seriously-flawed position on luck, divine intervention, and/or the unproven effectiveness of some less than lethal alternatives often promoted by the Kumbaya crowd.
"Nothing gets a man's attention like a sucking chest wound." - a line from the 60's sitcom "Bosum Buddies", starring Tom Hanks.
I am a proud gun owner - so much for my "delicate sensibilities." A would-be rapist would find out very quickly that my sensibilities are not so delicate. And I don't have a daughter... or any children for that matter.
A good kick in the head of a rapist (or other body parts), knife to the throat, a blast of pepper spray... yeah, I'd rather someone "helping" me use those techniques instead of getting trigger-happy and missing the shot. At least pepper spray doesn't have the possibility of killing the person you're intending to help. And it's just as easy to carry pepper spray as a gun... you don't have to "go look for it."
I do applaud you for your act of courage 20 years ago.
"I suspect I'm not going to see many people packing concealed weapons at backcountry campsites where I stay."
Gee, Bill, I think that's the IDEA of concealed carry.
CCW4ME2
This has been a frustration of mine.
You sum it nicely in saying “But I do object to the timing, motivation and method of this amendment. If we want to vote on the issue of taking guns into national parks, introduce a targeted bill and vote on it. Don't tie up major legislation and be honest about the motives.
Such a more-guns-in-parks bill would probably pass the Senate because 51 senators have already officially supported it, including senators (democrats and republicans) from Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming, but it would likely get shot down in the House, the end result being more wasted time and money that could have gone to something worthwhile like curing our health care crisis or ending the Three Trillion Dollar War.
(I had to get that one in there.)
So, I hope the Senate finds the political will to strip the more-guns-in-parks amendment out of S.2843, pass this major legislation, and move on to something else that needs to be done.”
I have never had a problem with guns in YNP, except in the 1972 when a ranger at the gate asked that I put the rifles I had in my pickup rifle rack behind the seat while in the Park. There really are so many more pressing issues to that Congress should be addressing.
Only a fool would go into a National Park Service Area with no ability to protect themselves.
In Texas CHL Holders are allowed into All State Parks with their weapons. This has been for the last several years and there is no problem with them.
Most USNPS Administrators and Many Employees are anit gun, whether it Civilians or their own Rangers.
My first Superintendent said, "I rather see a Ranger in a Flag Draped Coffin than wearing a Gun". Tell you something doesn't it.
Jungle Work
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/KempthorneRTC.pdf
Jungle Work
I can't speak for the NRA leadership, but for me it's about being able to protect myself whenever and wherever police are not available to protect me (which is most of the time). "
I have to got to agree with fsilber.
Do you know when you are in bear country? When you start finding tinkle bells and chewed up pepper spray cans in the bear scat along the trail, you better watch out! Being a professional guide and outfitter I talk to a lot of guides and hunters who operate in bear country and most of them say the pepper spray is usually very ineffective. Pepper Spray is almost as big of a fairy tale, than is the tired notion that wolves are not dangerous to humans. We are starting to witness a bigger and bigger human safety factor with wolves now that they are being recovered, and especially the human habituated pen raised wolves turned loose in the southwest. We pack heat everywhere here now just because of these wolves that absolutely have no fear of humans. They are not wild. They are dangerous. I know because I have had a major invasion into our hunting camp with them.
T. Klumker
So, this is actually yet another issue where the NRA is advocating policy that is directly counter to the interests of sportsmen!
kidding
As far as guns in NP's:
I'd say long guns need to stay, unloaded, in the trunk of the car.
Handguns, with a concealed permit, OK by me.
Qualifying for a concealed carry permit needs to be looked at closely. ANY DUI, domestic abuse, mental illness, drug or weapons misdemeanor and any felony should automatically and permanently exclude a person from getting a concealed carry permit. Gun ownership is a right; a permit to carry on concealed is NOT a right. If the population is to have faith in the notion of the effectiveness of "law-abiding" armed citizens in improving safety, they have a right to know that the bar is a lot higher than it is now.
There's a lot of talk about "law-abiding" citizens needing protection with little definition or qualification for that term. A lot of domestic damage done with handguns is by people who bought the guns legally and were "law-abiding" up to the minute they pulled the trigger.
If you are a "law-abiding" citizen (as I am) you should welcome the prospect of a much more rigorous qualification system than we currently have (at least in MT) for concealed carry permit.
Rett
http://ga1.org/campaign/Coburn_Amendment?qp_source=adv_hme
"Qualifying for a concealed carry permit needs to be looked at closely. ANY DUI, domestic abuse, mental illness, drug or weapons misdemeanor and any felony should automatically and permanently exclude a person from getting a concealed carry permit. Gun ownership is a right; a permit to carry on concealed is NOT a right. If the population is to have faith in the notion of the effectiveness of "law-abiding" armed citizens in improving safety, they have a right to know that the bar is a lot higher than it is now."
I really think you should look at MCA 45-8-321 ( http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-321.htm ). Permit to carry concealed weapon.
The State of Montana has perhaps one of the strictest requirements for the carrying of a concealed weapon despite being a "Shall Issue" state.
The follwing section reflects convicted person ineligibility...
"Except as provided in subsection (2), this privilege may not be denied an applicant unless the applicant:
(a) is ineligible under Montana or federal law to own, possess, or receive a firearm;
(b) has been charged and is awaiting judgment in any state of a state or federal crime that is punishable by incarceration for 1 year or more;
(c) has been convicted in any state or federal court of a crime punishable by more than 1 year of incarceration or, regardless of the sentence that may be imposed, a crime that includes as an element of the crime an act, attempted act, or threat of intentional homicide, violence, bodily or serious bodily harm, unlawful restraint, sexual abuse, or sexual intercourse or contact without consent;
(d) has been convicted under 45-8-327 or 45-8-328, unless the applicant has been pardoned or 5 years have elapsed since the date of the conviction;
(e) has a warrant of any state or the federal government out for the applicant's arrest;
(f) has been adjudicated in a criminal or civil proceeding in any state or federal court to be an unlawful user of an intoxicating substance and is under a court order of imprisonment or other incarceration, probation, suspended or deferred imposition of sentence, treatment or education, or other conditions of release or is otherwise under state supervision;
(g) has been adjudicated in a criminal or civil proceeding in any state or federal court to be mentally ill, mentally defective, or mentally disabled and is still subject to a disposition order of that court; or
(h) was dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces.
(2) The sheriff may deny an applicant a permit to carry a concealed weapon if the sheriff has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant is mentally ill, mentally defective, or mentally disabled or otherwise may be a threat to the peace and good order of the community to the extent that the applicant should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. At the time an application is denied, the sheriff shall, unless the applicant is the subject of an active criminal investigation, give the applicant a written statement of the reasonable cause upon which the denial is based."
The above section is just a portion of what is required.
The section that gives the chief law enforcement officer for a County the option do deny a permit is crucial and a tremendous opportunity to "do right"
"That is the essence of the right-wing, racist gun morons, Mary Beth, who think they are actually protecting themselves when they really are nothing more than willing pawns to help the NRA elect Republicans and subsidize international arms dealing. People who who want to carry EVERYWHERE they go scare the hell out of me more than drug dealers etc."
Willing Pawns of the NRA...I do not think so, at least an intelligent free thinking non Kool-aid drinking person will not but ALL the drivel the NRA puts out.
I have been an NRA member for more years than I care to recall, I have on occasion written scaithing letters to the NRA leasership chastising them over statements and position they have made or stood by.
You are scared of a trained, certified, licensed person carrying concealed? How sad is that? I can think of everyone I know that is a licensed firearm carrier being willing to die in the protection of those who do not should push come to shove. Are you willing to give your life for another in protection of that person?
Drug dealers do not scare you? Why, are you one? Silliness aside, You must have led a shelterd life. I have ( in my former career) dealt with Drug dealers, "coyotes", drug runners, and illegal arms runenrs, south and central american gangs, eco terrorists, domestic terrorists. They ALL scare the Hell out of me. Do you want to know who scare me even more? People who do not or are not willing to give up everything (life included) to protect others.
"Willing Pawns of the NRA...I do not think so, at least an intelligent free thinking non Kool-aid drinking person will not but ALL the drivel the NRA puts out."
The "but" after not should read "Buy"
My interest is not in making it harder to carry concealed or to find a sneaky way to seperate people from their guns. But if we want a SOLUTION (which means a majority of stakeholders buy in) then we should look at mechanisms which would logically work to allay the fears, rational and irrational, of those opposed to people carrying guns.
If I knew that there was additional rigor to the process, I would be much more comfortable. Both in that I would know the vetting was more stringent but that also those who were willing to go through the process and accept the "insults" to their 2nd amendment rights would be people of a more sober, responsible and reasonable nature.
ALL ccw permit applications are vetted by NICS and by CJIN. Finger prints are run through the State of Montana NFF database and then verified by FBI.
Should loaded guns be allowed in national parks?
Yes 7509 93.6%
No 513 6.4%
I have personally encountered various illegal activities as well as many dangerous animals on the trails in Washington’s National Parks. I was lucky enough to see both before they saw me and high tail it out of there since I was obeying the law and did not carry my firearm with me in the parks. Do you really think that changing the rules will encourage criminals to carry in the Parks? News flash, they already do. Illegally.
If you want to trust your safety and your life to a Ranger miles away, be my guest. No one is forcing anyone to carry a gun or even visit the Parks. If your life means so little to you that you would turn over your most effective means of defending it to a stranger that you most likely wouldn’t be able to call to for help anyway, go right ahead. The police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. What? Does that sound surprising? The Supreme Court stated about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is “You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980’s when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.”
The only person responsible for your safety is you. You feed yourself, clothe yourself, keep yourself sheltered, and keep yourself alive. No one else is responsible for this. That is why I carry a gun, because no one else should have to run to my rescue. It’s the same thing in a national park. I want to go to the park and enjoy myself, have a good time with my family, roast some hot-dogs and enjoy the outdoors. I want to do it without fear of bears, cougars, rapists or murderers, and I don’t want to have to wait three hours for a park ranger if I find myself in danger (and without cell phone reception). It’s not because I want to be able to go shoot up our national parks, it’s just because I want to be able to enjoy myself without putting myself in a helpless position. I’ll take responsibility for my own safety and that of those who are with me, thanks.
While neither the U.S. Forest Service nor the National Park Service keeps precise statistics about crime on federally protected lands, officers and rangers say that crime appears to be on the rise in the backcountry. Between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults, according to National Park Service.
Statistics of people harmed in national parks by crime or wildlife are not justification for carrying guns, sure. I carry a gun with me every day, everywhere I go. I don’t shoot people, or have any intention of shooting people. Most people wouldn’t guess that I have a gun. I don’t carry it because I’m going somewhere dangerous and I’ll need it, I carry it because I am responsible for my own safety.
If you think our Nat’l Parks are safe havens, free from crime and bastions of peace and harmony with nature, you obviously don’t get out much. Just ask Julianne Williams, Carole Sund, daughter Juli, Silvina Pelosso and Laura Winans. Oh wait, you can’t. They were murdered in a National Park!
http://www.alphalock.ru/catalog.htm