NATIONAL PARKS AS SAFE, IF NOT SAFER
National Park Gun Law Still a Yawner
Now that the national park gun law is in effect, I predict, once more, that park visitors won't really notice the difference, but the onus is now on gun owners to make sure I'm correct.By Bill Schneider, 2-25-10
 |
|
 | |
| Visitors like Bill's grandchildren marveling at Glacier National Park's Avalanche Lake and full-time residents like this mountain goat above Hidden Lake, also in Glacier, can continue to enjoy national parks just like they did before the new gun law. Photos by Marnie Schneider. | |
|
As widely reported, an epic political victory for the gun lobby hit the ground on Monday, February 22. The National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) must now, in accordance with applicable state laws, allow visitors to carry guns into most national parks and wildlife refuges, including loaded firearms and concealed weapons with a proper permit.
For the first time in decades, anybody who can legally carry a firearm in a state can also carry it into national parks and wildlife refuges in that state, but not into most “federal facilities” such as visitor centers and administrative buildings, and federal law still prohibits the use of firearms in most national parks.
I’ve written about this issue several times, and every time I do, I’m reminded of a fantastic, nine-day backpacking trip in the mid-1990s to Alaska’s Gates of the Arctic National Park. While planning the trip, I called NPS offices in Alaska to ask a few questions, and to my surprise, the NPS recommended our group bring a gun. They even gave us detailed advice, preferring a short-barreled 12 gauge pump loaded with a rifled slug for the first shot followed by double-ought buckshot in the rest of the magazine. The NPS even told us how to carry it--with the safety off, but no shell in the chamber, so we could quickly pump the first shell in for a fast shot, if a bear suddenly charged.
We took bear pepper spray instead and had a safe trip, but that conversation stuck with me because, clearly, bringing guns into national parks (at least in Alaska) was--and is--a culturally acceptable no-big-deal. It can be in the Lower 48, too.
A Battle Worth Fighting
In an earlier commentary, I said the national park gun rule/law was a waste of time and conservation groups and park retiree and ranger nonprofits had bigger fish to fry. My reasoning was--and is--that people have been taking guns into national parks for decades and will continue to do so whether or not it’s legal. Nobody really disputes this fact, but the point is, through those decades, there has been minuscule, if any, gun-related incidents in national parks.
Yes, I realize I’m not in Alaska any more, and western national parks are a lot different than small, historical national parks back East. Keep in mind, though, that state firearms laws continue to regulate firearms in national parks where they exist. Guns laws in urban America are likely to be more restrictive than in southern and western states, and those laws will apply to national parks in highly populated states.
I had to retract my waste-of-time commentary when it became clear that the Battle of the National Parks was worth fighting. It turned into a political war that told us who was Boss. The clear winner was the gun lobby and the millions of gun owners it represents. It was sort of a no contest, actually.
But my opinion about the real, on-the-ground, non-political significance of the new law governing firearms in national parks hasn’t changed. To me, it’s still a yawner. People will continue to go to national parks doing the same things they always have, and the fact that a few more people might be packing will have little impact on anything.
Interestingly, I received several press releases from groups opposed to the national park gun law with the same tired predictions of impending disaster, but nothing from groups favoring the new law. The firearms lobby could’ve been out in force flaunting and flag-waving on February 22, but instead, pro-gun groups appropriately chose to let it quietly happen.
Now, the onus is on gun owners to make sure the new law does indeed turn out to a yawner--and keep me from having to eat my words. Be discreet and respectful with open carries and honor the “Firearms Prohibited” signs going up on visitor centers, park offices and other federal facilities in national parks and refuges.
Also, know the applicable state laws, keeping in mind that thirty national parks, such as Yellowstone, are located in more than one state. Gun owners must be aware of the laws of the state they’re in because those are the same laws of the park or refuge they’re in. In Yellowstone, for example, the laws at the north entrance station in Gardiner are different than the laws of Mammoth, five miles up the road.
Grizzlies and Guns
Fortunately, we still have grizzly bears, but unfortunately, it’s the reason many people take firearms into western national parks. Gun owners must resist trigger itch when seeing a bear. A few untimely and unnecessary dead bears from quick triggers could make the new law a lot more controversial than gun owners want it to be.
We don’t need any more documentation that bear pepper spray works better than firearms during encounters with bears. Yes, all bears are dangerous wild animals, but the threat of injury is minute at best.
Even though black bears pose as much--if not more--of a threat, grizzlies grab the most attention. Montana’s Glacier National Park, for example, has one of the highest densities of grizzly bears ever recorded. Over the past five years (2005-2009), almost ten million people visited Glacier, but only three were injured by grizzly bears, perhaps because none of the three used bear spray.
FWS statistics tell the same story. Since 1992, 50 percent of people involved in grizzly encounters and defending themselves with firearms suffered injury. Those defending themselves with bear pepper spray escaped injury most of the time and those who were injured experienced shorter attacks and less severe injuries. Pepper spray is a lot easier on the bear, too.
We don’t want even one trigger-happy tourist blasting away at a bear walking by a campground in Yellowstone or feeding on Glacier lily corns up on Going-to-the-Sun Highway and posing no threat to park visitors. The media would go nuclear on any such incident, which would not only result in a dead bear and a highly publicized citation, but also validate claims currently being made by anti-gun groups. Any inappropriate or dangerous firearms use in national parks could be a game changer and a big shift in the currently high level of political momentum the gun lobby enjoys.
So, gun owners, come through for me and millions of gun owners like me who want this new law to turn out to be a big yawner.
Footnote: Here, courtesy of the NPS, are some key links to answer your questions about the new gun law and the use of bear pepper spray.
Firearms in National Parks Fact Sheet
Firearms in National Parks Frequently Asked Questions
US Fish & Wildlife Service, Tips for Living and Recreating in Grizzly Bear Country
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Encountering a Bear
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Bear Pepper Spray
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
No wonder our country is in the shape it is in with people's attitudes like yours.
With the crazies in the world and the druggies out there protecting their gardens and etc. you probably need personal firearms for protection from them as much as you do the bears.
For you see, I've done it for quite some time, when traveling solo by motorcycle. Here's some more rationalizing:
- I'm a (generally) law-abiding citizen, one of the "good guys."
- It stayed discreetly in my tank bag, not causing anybody any harm. (Cartridges in the magazine, but none in the chamber.)
- In 30+ years of carrying, I've never needed it even once. But "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." (And if I felt compelled to use it, the fact that it's illegal would be a minor concern, compared to the crisis at hand.)
I have a concealed-carry permit for my state. Of course, its validity varies from state to state, unfortunately. (I hope someday for reciprocity in all 50 great states, to alleviate the confusion. And as a further nod to common sense.)
Odds of dying by firearm assault = 1 in 320
Odds of dying by accidental firearm discharge = 1 in 5,000
Odds of being attacked byan animal not your pet = 1 in 4 million
Again, the problem isn't guns, it's stupid people. Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to own them. That would mean no gun ownership for Sarah Palin voters. The world would be a better place.
As for bears... I thought for years a person should carry weapon in bear county, until I watched a promo video by the guy [who was malled by a bear with a gun in hand} who has developed the very powerful bear spray, and shows you how more effective it is for the average {un-trained, under-trained, in-correctly trained person carring any gun for bear protection} I now carry the heavy duty Bear spray in bear country, and feel much more confident in protecting myself from a bear with it than the gun. Google bear spray and do your reasearch. The spray is available at most of the large sports retailers, and many sports and flyshops throughout the west. If you choose a gun, you better get trained, and practice, or you'll get yourself in big trouble fast with a bear thats on you in seconds.
Hey Tom...the responses to your observation prove your point.
And Mike, if guns are so uninteresting, then why would you care if I'm armed or not? Can't have it both ways.
My belief is that it some sort of paranoia that I do not understand.
I am paranoid in national forests after hearing gun shots (and seeing shot up trees) in mid summer while hiking but have never had that fear in National Parks - until now.
Whatever. The all need shooting.
People who carry guns are by default people who are substantially more frightneted compared to the rest of society. Their idea of "that bear got too close" is going to be far different than that of a calm, rational hiker or park visitor who understands bear country rules and behavior.
Also, there are going to be a few who know they can get away with shooting a grizzly, bear or wolf simply because proving that the animal didn't attack/approach them would be very hard to do. There are a lot of very sick and twisted people out there.
I carried a gun on my hip every day for a long summer. Getting a concealed carry license for the number of states I was travelling through was impractical, so I just open carried - except for the day I rode through a national park. Fear may have been the reason others wanted this young woman travelling alone to carry a gun, but it's not why I carried. It is irresponsible to travel in the backcountry with horses and mules without a quick and painless way to put one down.
I'm happy that I won't have to be "breaking the law" next time I take my stock into a National Park backcountry, but it doesn't change my behavior much. I expect it doesn't change anyone else's behavior either. This law was just the gun lobby flexing its muscles and will have little impact on the ground.
At least there is one less minor pain in the rear for me when during hunting season I am expected to disassemble my rifle for the 18-mile trek through the northwest corner of 191. Every year I pass by some nice looking trophy bull elk in the pre-dusk hours, and just as if they were on someone's land or in the wrong district, I manage to avoid going nuts and poaching them. Whether or not my gun is disassembled seems to have no actual bearing on whether or not I am a lousy poacher.
To all the gun haters above, "Get a Life"! Go to England, Australia, Canada or where you might be better suited to that lifestyle.
This is still the good ole US of A and will remain so as long as we keep our guns and defeat the anti gunners at every opportunity.
++
Absolutely. You wouldn't be carrying a lethal weapon if you weren't afraid of something that pushed you to do that.
1. It changed a perfectly adequate and rational regulation on guns in the parks to create a situation requiring more work by law enforcement.
2. The national forests have always seemed slightly more dangerous than the parks due to the lurking and increased likelihood that some users will have guns (for target practice, hunting, noisemaking or personal protection). Doesn't everyone become more reluctant to go into the national forests during hunting season, for example? Now, we need to have increased vigilance in the national parks that some Average Joe nearby may have a gun.
3. Guns seem to beget more guns in our society these days and I just do not see an end to the proliferation trend. Will the next step be that guns can be brought into federal facilities?
With regard to your fist point, I go into Yellowstone and other parks a lot; I go into backcountry, into bear areas, a lot. Yes, I take spray; but, under the previous rules, I've never seen either the need to show that I can shoot someone or something if they don't act right toward me or the need to secretly feel "empowered" by what I'm carrying concealed. I've used bear spray a few times; but, over dozens of trips over the course of decades, I've never experienced, seen, or heard of any occasion in the parks where a gun was either needed or would have been the best choice under the circumstances. As you pointed out, the old rules worked just fine and the new rules will inherently create more risk for law enforcement.
With regard to your second point, guns in the national forests do make those areas less welcoming to many of the American taxpayers who own them, especially during hunting season. It has always been discriminatory to the majority of American taxpayers, who are not shooters, that the current rules allow a guntoting minority to intimidate them from a worry free enjoyment of their own property.
With regard to your third point, guns do unnecessarily beget more guns. People who need to "pack" all the time truly do have psychological factors that drive them to this mental state. They need the feeling of power and strength that comes with carrying a gun on the boardwalk overlooking the geysers. Don't kid yourself; this feeling of power boosts their egos and frees them to take a subtly more intimidating personal stance with the people around them. This stance is perceived by others, a general feeling of discomfort spreads as a result; and, ultimately, this discomfort encourages others to want to "pack" as well.
I think it is illustrative that Tom Klumker has been the most extreme poster on this topic. Those who have never been down to Catron County and experienced the type of society that results from the wholesale implementation of NRA-style thinking need to do so. It sure isn't pretty and is even less so if you happen to be a person of color or from anything other than a WASP background. I don't believe we need to encourage that sort of thing in our parks.
Well stated Mike.
As far as packing a gun I don't either and I don't believe in concealed carry in that it registers you with the gov. and that is not good in my opinion. But I don't want someone to tell me that I can't carry one when it is my constitutional right to do so.
I think restoring any of our freedoms and rights is a good thing and this move to restore fully one of our basic freedoms is a positive thing to keep our constitution alive and well, in this day and age of assault on it by the progressive movement.
Ever heard of an orange safety vest? You can even get them for your precious canine companion (which is running about unleashed so watch out for traps) -- vests weigh next to nothing, fagawsakes.
Speaking of paranoid, there's a local Greenie hereabouts, pretty much an EFer, much unloved, who wears a fanny pack and avoids eye contact -- to public meetings. He's the least discreet "carrier" I've ever seen.
And your psychological projection, fake Mike, is equally asinine. I would bet you couldn't identify with any consistency any of those "intimidators" on your hypothetical boardwalk.
And let me also point out that its always "progressives" complaining about stereotyping our "diversity" and here's your classic case of broadbrushing.
Whatever. The simple fact is, the good guys stuck a blow for freedom in this matter and I'm cool with that....and even cooler knowing there's more to come.
Case in point. My wife and I took a summer Sunday drive into the eastern Cascades {WA} 40 miles from home for a quiet afternoon on a little used creek and FS road for some flyfishing and relaxation. Not thinking about it before, and with no one else around, here comes an old rig, pulls up 100 ft down road and 4 scary looking individuals with no apparent agenda but to be off the highway got out. {most of us know who to be leary of, along with your gut feel} I had nothing but a flyrod for defense. I was never so nervous in my life in my NF, and I've spent my 58 years hunting, fishing and backpacking. They could have done anything they wan't and no one was around to witness or help us. Fortunately they left. {Several similar incidents a year do turn bad in the Forest Service areas} Call me paranoid, but I bought a hand gun and got a permit the next week. I will never go into my Forests again, and be intimidated, or stop going and enjoying myself because of others who seem to have little reason to be there. May sound radical, but there is just way too many incidents, at least in WA, that it was time. {On the other hand, I would likely not carry in a Natl Park unless I was going to be in a remote area}
It's really sad. I think it's largely due to a lack of self development or reading books of various kinds. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone. There are always exceptions and those exceptions get their good names draged down by the legions of buffoons.
There's more to life than guns and god. Much more.
Incredible - you gunheads are so afraid of a "list" being kept that will fall into the wrong hands should a foreign power take over our government.
Really?
You honestly think a despotic foreign power will call you up or show up at your door and say "hand over your guns"?
I got news for you: they will simply bomb you and wipe you out without ever giving you a chance to defend yourself. Or they may simply cut off all ammunition supplies. Or simply starve you out.
They are many ways to kill you without to taking your guns away.
Pro gun persons have always been accused of having a short appendage as being the reason for them having guns. Maybe you could have a study done on this.
I firmly believe that when or if push comes to shove, taking away our guns will cause a true revolution. Any of our high profile leadership still fear guns and being shot, and even though with modern weaponry Mehmnet, world leaders fear guns and want them taken away. Look at what the UN is striving to do. A free citizenry is dependent on our 2nd Amendment Rights, and our founders recognized this. Dave those founders are only rolling over in their graves because people like you will let the power grabbers take away our guns.
As far as "what the UN is striving to do," the UN is still a hot button for you folks isn't it? I remember when you were burning UN flags on the courthouse steps. No, that wasn't in the 1950s when Joe McCarthy was doing his thing; it was in the 1990s when we were trying to negotiate arms control agreements.
I remember the county ordinance that required every adult male in Catron to carry a gun in case the UN or even just the local forest service law enforcement personnel tried to invade. That's taking the NRA-style thinking a bit far in my opinion and, no, it wasn't just street talk. That ordinance was the subject of lengthy and serious discussion by your illustrious County Commissioners, Curly, Larry, and Moe. Was that ordinance in play in the 1890s? No, it was in the 1990s along with the talk of the black helicopters and the cattle mutilations.
Then, I remember the ordinance to require every "environmental activist" to register with the County Sheriff upon entering the county; evidence of being an "environmental activist" didn't need to be to strong for this one to take effect. I remember the corollary; you were forbidden to speak publicly about the condition of any public lands grazing allotment in Catron County until you had been through a mandatory three-day "education" arranged through the County Government. That was also in the 1990s and not exactly ancient history; but, you don't tell people about that do you, Tom?
As far as people who "still cling to their guns and their religion" go, my favorite story is when some conservationist friends of mine went down to Reserve to meet with some USFS personnel and, upon leaving the building, were greeted by the usual guntoting, intimidating, Catron County mob. As they pushed their way through, one old woman ran up and, holding her hands in prayer, told them that God gave the earth to mankind to use up and ruin. When the earth was used up and in ruin, that was, according to the logic of your society down there in Catron, going to be the signal for the return of Christ. She told my friends that, by trying to conserve and protect the earth, they were standing in the way of the return of Christ and thus doing Satan's work. Again, this didn't happen in the seventh century; this wasn't Cotton Mather presiding over a witchcraft trial; this was in Reserve, in your shining beacon of what you want America to be, in the 1990s.
Finally, I recall the proposal to surrender all the public lands surrounding Catron County, federal and state lands straddling Arizona and New Mexico and including the Indian Reservations and unincorporated hispanic settlements that have been there for centuries, to be rolled into an "autonomous celtic racial/cultural homeland." This wasn't a proposal floated by some rebel leader in ancient times. No. this idea was championed by the duly appointed and taxpayer paid County Attorney for Catron County in the 1990s. Seizing public lands to create an "autonomous celtic racial/cultural homeland" is an interesting way to embody all that we should cherish about America in my book, Tom; yet, you were there for it all. Apparently, Skinner was there too, in a sense, writing for the Paragon Foundation, which was right, no pun intended, in the thick of it.
I could go on about Allan Savory and the white-controlled government of Rhodesia and how he jumped ship and left to reinvent himself when he saw the writing on the wall about the end of apartheid-style colonial thievery in Africa; but, the point is that you have no credibility, on any topic, Tom. You were there and won't ever be able to live that down. Be gone!
To be honest, I've never heard of any "celtic" homeland. Not my cup of tea, and during the time I was writing for Paragon, nobody ever mentioned such a thing to me, nor did I ever write about it. So don't be associating me with fundamentalist, quasi-racist claptrap unless you can put my name to it.
And speaking of names...again, until you stand on your own hind legs, your willingness to pimp associational falsehoods from behind your Internet veil is unethical and cowardly. Which I guess is par for your course. Have a nice day.
It sounds like from your babble on Catron County, that perhaps you had a little too much weed or maybe even LSD, or at the very least some Koolaid, whilst down here.
We may be outnumbered by the progressive thinker want to be's, but at least we are real people and proud of our custom, culture, heritage and way of life. I've never witnessed a gun toting crowd here, so that even reinforces my firm belief you must have been on something during your time here, or perhaps you left with your tail between your legs because your ideology was and is flawed, and you knew you were fighting an uphill battle. As Dave said you hide behind your "internet veil" and sling mud.
We like our "rustic paradise" down here, thank you.
Park visitors must know and obey state laws, including knowing which state laws apply in parks (such as Yellowstone) that cross state boundaries.
The new law affects firearams possession, not use. Laws regarding hunting, poaching, target shooting or any unlawful discharge remain unchanged.
It will remain unlawful to carry in certain locations, under a separate law that prohibits possession of any firearm in a "federal facility".
This is the very thing that makes your county sick. Let it go, let it go so you can evolve into modern human beings.
Horst, you are way out on the limb. Or maybe you fell off a limb on your family tree. You forgot part of the heritage, and that would be some of us who have native American blood in us. Those of who settled the west are always being accused of being nothing but crooks, thugs and scum and now you have expanded it in to slavers, Nazi's, Klu Kluxers and ad nauseam! Get real Horst.
Just a bunch of whining Johnny come lately's.
I guess you troll from under your rock because you have plenty of your own tracks to illustrate your wayward, misguided path. At least Tom and I, even Matthew, Jake, we know where we've been and where we want to go.
Get out in the sun, you're starting to mildew. That is, if you have the spine.
I had some folks be very kind to me in Catron County when I was stuck there with a lame horse. I even remember quaking in my boots when I had to cross through land who's ownership I didn't know to get around a cattle guard. Right as I was closing the gate on my way out, someone pulled over, and I figured I was going to get an earful or worse for tresspassing. Instead he told me that the water tank in that pasture was dry, but I was welcome to stop at his place if my mules needed water. That said, I am white. But perhaps it's be better to keep this discussion about gun rights than whether or not Catron County is the root of all evil.
Real Mike, since you're quoting Obama, you might want to think about the context the "cling to their guns and their relgion" quote was made. Obama was discussing how that's a natural way for people to react when they feel their livelihoods and culture are threatened. Call them all the derogatory names you want, but it won't make them go away. The more marginalized people feel, the more they strike out against others. Disenfranchisement or the perception of it is the best way to turn people into an angry mob, and isolating an angry mob sure doesn't calm them down any.
<http://natureblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/high-country-news-misrepresents.html>
Again, "real," we're waiting.
The US is having that discussion today as to whether we should "Merandize" and allow constitutional rights to terrorists, the only difference being that they are foreigners and the above groups are just cowards and so called citizens. I do believe in the 1st Amendment and free speech, but these radical groups terrorist tactics were common place during that time period and I don't think qualify as free speech.
I guess the citizens here are supposed to lay down and take it and our County Commissioner's weren't elected to protect the citizens here. Get "real" Mike. Oh and by the way the Freemen were a group in Montana not New Mexico.
There isn't a nickel's worth of difference in Freemen, sagebrush rebels, border watchmen, or Tim McVeigh. All are spoiled, elitist, constitutionalist, terrorists--patriopaths..
There is a huge difference between sagebrush rebels and border watchmen, compared to the Tim McVeigh's and monkeywrenchers and the Elf,s. I guess your definition of Terrorism is much different, and anyone who speaks out against oppression or patriotism and for the Constitution, are bad.
Radical Eco-ists will stop at nothing to vilify their opponents evidently.
Maybe it's time for you to check out Alinsky's "rules for radicals" book. A classic, for the Left, that is. But a lot of it applies. I was at this human rights thing in Colorado Springs one year, there because I intensely dislike Aryans. Celinda Lake was there, and I swear she was channeling Saul. The idea was not to win the debate, but stick emotionalistic mud on your enemy by any means possible. The merits don't matter, the facts don't matter...slamming your rivals with negative vibes matters most...and works best.
I suppose some radio shock jock must have mentioned him; because rightwingers have certainly been slinging his name aroun recently.
Back to the subject at hand. If I choose to carry a gun, or talk in a national park I'm glad that it's no one else's business but mine. I'm not really afraid of the native wildlife when I am in the back woods. Most critters run, except moose and grizzlies, and grizzlies you can take care of more easily w/ bear spray. It's the non-native critters that would just as soon slit your throat as look at you that would cause me to "pack."
From one of my earlier postings: People who need to "pack" all the time truly do have psychological factors that drive them to this mental state. They need the feeling of power and strength that comes with carrying a gun on the boardwalk overlooking the geysers. Don't kid yourself; this feeling of power boosts their egos and frees them to take a subtly more intimidating personal stance with the people around them.
...and from the most recent "masswasting" posting: Met plenty of weirdos... the creepiest ones made a big deal about having weapons.
Yes, the perception that these people are weird and creepy is a reflection of the behavioral and attitudinal aberrations that result from the feeling of power that being armed gives the more "twisted" (for lack of a better term) of the NRA types. This feeling of power is what boosts their egos and frees them to take a subtly more intimidating personal stance with the people around them and that unnaturally swaggering and intimidating personal stance is what "masswasting" perceives as creepiness. I sense it too and perceive it as weird creepiness just like "masswasting" does.
Frankly, I don't want to be around weird creepiness when I visit my national parks.
"Knowing is half the battle... The other half involves guns."
45-8-317. Exceptions. (1) Section 45-8-316 does not apply to:
(i) a person who is outside the official boundaries of a city or town or the confines of a logging, lumbering, mining, or railroad camp or who is lawfully engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, backpacking, farming, ranching, or other outdoor activity in which weapons are often carried for recreation or protection
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-317.htm
A permit is NOT required to carry a concealed handgun in the backcountry in Montana when hiking; thus, with the new National Parks gun law, a permit to carry a concealed handgun is not required when hiking in Glacier National Park.
"the old rules worked just fine."
He's right you know. The old rules worked just fine. Those would be the old rules we just went back to where, prior to the restrictions brought in by Reagan, you could legally carry a firearm for self defense in the parks.
So was blood running down the trails during all those decades where we could legally carry firearms? No. Park staff being murdered everywhere? No. Indeed, apparently the old rules worked just fine, didn't endanger park staff - and it is equally certain that with our return to the old rules, they will continue to work just fine.
I am constantly bemused that those who hate the idea of law abiding citizens going armed always have to descend to childish name calling and narrow minded, beyond amateurish, psychological evaluations that they make through the lens of their bigotry and prejudice. I've always been curious about that. Then it occurred to me is the reason is quite simple - they have nothing else to base their arguments on.
We see this every time a "shall issue" concealed carry law is passed in this country, when the "assault" weapon ban disappeared, etc. Blood will run in the streets, anarchy is coming, yadda yadda yadda. And yet, once all these law abiding people who The Real Mike and his fellow travellers describe as fearful, psychologically damaged, egotistical, etc are allowed to carry firearms, what happens? Absolutely none of what Mike and his friends are having hysterics about comes to pass. Their predictions and fears prove groundless.
So... who's the paranoid ones again?
That being said, there is also the small matter that we do have a Bill of Rights in this country, one of those rights being the Second Amendment - that would be the one which is the only one containing the words "shall not be infringed". What is so hard about the word those words to understand for those who believe constitutional rights end at a park boundary?
Yes, I understand the sight of a firearm, or the thought some people might have concealed firearms, causes some people to drop their guts. Tough luck. I don't like the way people like Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Pat Robertson, etc use their right to freedom of speech - but I'm sure as hell not going to demand limitations on freedom of speech because I don't like how they express themselves.
Personally, I get up everyday and notice that you can almost always find someone who has been saved by the responsible use of a citizen-carried firearm, be it at a school, home, workplace, shopping or just traveling around on your business. Wonder if the anti crowd read these stories and quickly say a prayer that the good people, the potential victims, were not injured?
Why have guns in a park? Why not? Might as well ask why have a Bible, Koran,prayer rug or a newspaper? All of these items are among those which are not only legal but also enjoy various added protections under our Constitution. You remember the Constitution, that somewhat inconvenient document that established this country? I know it gets in the way of what YOU think would be better but until you put through a new amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment you will just have to shut up and exercise your choice to stay away if you are so afraid and disgusted at the thought that some of us remember our rights and choose to exercise them.
"I am constantly bemused that those who hate the idea of law abiding citizens going armed always have to descend to childish name calling and narrow minded, beyond amateurish, psychological evaluations that they make through the lens of their bigotry and prejudice. I've always been curious about that. Then it occurred to me is the reason is quite simple - they have nothing else to base their arguments on."
If any of the firearm-ignorant crowd are interested in why the new rules make sense, I've spent part of this deer season hunting public lands near the border of one of the California parks, as I often have in the past. Again, most urban liberals probably have no idea, but the borders of Federal Disney Land aren't fenced and gated past the entrance station parking lot. The boundaries are lines on a map which slice through deep forest and remote desert, often adjacent to other public lands with other uses, marked by simple boundary markers where crossed by the numerous wilderness trails which ramble back and forth across the boundary, cut across corners of the parks, etc. I hunt along some of these trails. In past years, when I got to the property marker at the park boundary, I was legally (and ridiculously) obligated to stop, unload my magazines, take the firearms apart, and lock them up. Then a few minutes later, upon exiting the park boundary, I had to stop, unlock, reassemble, and reload my firearms before continuing to hunt. Not going through all of this senseless routine risked being caught by a park ranger and arrested. This year I was very reasonably allowed to cross the park boundaries without having to take any action other than noting that I would be within the park boundaries (but miles away from your parked Subaru, gift shop, snack stand, and the usual park attractions that don't require more than a 100-yard walk to see) for a while and therefore would have to make do with simply observing any game I came across before exiting again. No big deal. I can now also openly take a firearm with me on my trips into the parks' backcountry--not for defense from scary animals, but in case I happen upon some of the criminal element who've taken up residence in remote areas of our parks to farm marijuana and operate meth labs. I guess I could give up my public lands to that element and stay home baking cookies like some of you, but I choose not to.
Carry the biggest handgun caliber you can handle. Practice with it at 25 yards. A shotgun with slugs in your vehicle too.
Moving targets even better. Wear it in a "Chesty Puller" holster on you chest or your side. Keep alert and have fun viewing natures
beauty.