Good News......

AspenAdventures

AspenAdventures

Very Active Member
Messages
2,889
Bush Administration to Propose New Rule
Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks
Friday, February 22, 2008

Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.

"Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction."

These new regulations, when finalized, will provide uniformity across our nation's federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Park lands did not.

The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA believes it is time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.

The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.

The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most National Park lands and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to render state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands.

"These changes will respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we look forward to the issuance of a final rule this year," concluded Cox.

-NRA-



"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Finally something worthwhile from our lame government. Hope they get it done before summer for my trip to bear country.
 
sure, I can see that law being okay in the campgrounds and parking areas but NOT in the back country of our national parks, I live in the hart of National Park Country, all we need here is to make it legal for people to pack guns in the back country, it will be a poor decision should the Bush Administration and NRA get it's wish. . .
 
"all we need here is to make it legal for people to pack guns in the back country, it will be a poor decision should the Bush Administration and NRA get it's wish."

WOW!!! the great defender of firearm's rights is now speaking out of the other side of his mouth!!! What happen to the " they will get my guns when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.
I guess you want your firearm rights, but the other peons can not have them.

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-08 AT 04:05PM (MST)[p]Good try, but I sill own my guns, dont feel any pressure from the feds that that will change. Let me ask you this RELH, should we be able to pack into federal buildings, courts, booze stores, banks, and bars, how about the nations capitol or maybe you want to pack a pistol into white house or Arlington cemetery?

None of those really affect my ability to own guns. . . If you want to have a debate, get something to debate with.

BTW, in case you guys forgot, (I know RELH wasn't still dumping in his diapers) it was under your hero Ronald Regan that the existing laws were passed, or should I say, Regan signed the existing law that allows transport but not carry in national parks. . .

I guess, once again, Regan, AKA, Mr. Amnesty, and Mr. take my guns away, wasn't really the guy you thought he was . . .
 
Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to pack in ANY public place? Don't bother answering that one. There is no answer that will change my opinion.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-08 AT 06:23PM (MST)[p]
There probably is no place that represents the spirit of this nation, freedom, democracy, around the world, and is more "public" than the National Mall in washington dc, the arlington cemetary, the national catherdral, the white house, the federal courthouse, the jefferson building, the Dirkson building, the national archives, I could go on and on, should just anyone with a gun be allowed in those buildings?

I'd like your oppinions on this, come on, guns in national parks, nevermind the serious poaching issues that cause the ban in the first place, how about guns in the capitol, that's a national park folks . .. ..

If you say "sure" than who's the gate keeper? Who or what is going to stop a criminal from entering the halls of congress and shooting the place to bits?

What say you?
 
The same guy that mans the metal detectors for the national parks I guess.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. --Ronald Reagan
 
I thought everyone was giving Regan credit for the fall of the Wall, and communism in russia, are you suggesting that Regan was not the government? Hum. . . .
 
talk about beating around the bush, now we have gone from packing in the back country of national parks, to packing in court houses, the white house. Tfinal your arguments make as much sense as your girlfriend's, Hillary, claiming to be for firearms rights. Both of you lack creditability on this issue.

RELH
 
Stay on topic T. That is a signature quote that has been on my posts for quite some time. Good approach to default though, changing the subject.


Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. --Ronald Reagan
 
come on boyzzzzz I think it was said, and in bold ANY . . .

Also, as i said, most of those government facilities are under NPS jurasdiction. . .

anyhow, adress the issues of gun control in the NP system. . .

The regan quote is critical because it was Regan who signed into law the bill that now regulates guns in national parks. . .
 
It's REAGAN.....not regan..........I don't care who sighned it, it's wrong. I would be happy to let any law abiding citizen carry a gun any where he pleases......anywhere.Period.

JB
 
Tfinal alot of those places you mentioned as being under control of the NP system are located in areas that have some of the most restrictive firearms laws in this country. They are also noted for having some of the higest crime rates with a high percentage of homicides.
Now you tell me how it is going to lessen those crime rates by the continuance of not allowing law abiding citizens not to pack licensed concealed weapons. I hate to break your seclusion bubble, but allowing concealed carry rights have proven to lower major felonies in areas that were smart enought to inact laws for licensed concealed carry. OPPS! I forgot, this is strictly hush hush among the anti gun liberals who are trying to sell their agenda to the public.
Now before you come back ranting on and on, I have no problem for some restrictions in the Courts, school grounds for minor children, just use common sense in making these restrictions. As for colleges, I have no problem with allowing adults that have passed a background check and having a concelaed license to carry on campus. alot of my college teachers would have crapped their liberal panties if they knew I was in class with a colt 45 under my coat. a few of those teachers had guns also and a license to carry.
Now why are you so adamant that citizens should not be allowed to carry in the backwoods of a national park, if we can get back to the original statement made by you.

RELH
 
1. You are for limited gun control as am I. Now you and I agree. However, you did not address the Federal capitol, the white house, and all other federal buildings - what about them? Should we fling open the doors and just say come one come all? Heck, maybe OBL might just strap a bomb on his side and walk right into the capitol and blow himself up - whos going to know who's a crook and who's not? We can't possibly keep track of it on a national level and as you well know each state has their own carry laws.

2. Here are more of my reasons, you likely wont change your mind, but since you asked, I'll tell you again, why I'm against it, but this time in much more detail.

The main reason, in the first place for the restrictions was to protect the often habituated trophy quality animals from POACHERES. Again, imgine what glacier park and Denali would look like if everyone were packing. I can just see it now, "hey honey, are we ready for that trip to Yellowstone?" "yes darling." Okay, we need make sure to pick up that rifle from your brother, I've heard that there are bears around there and I sure dont want one getting near our camp." "O yea honey, great idea, we should take a gun to protect ourselves from the bears, and the rapests and thugs that frequent our national parks."

Gun restrictions in NP works agains helping to reduce poaching. Not completely, but it is effective. I can tell by your lack of knowledge of the issues that you dont really understand the consequences. So, grab you coffee and read . . .


Guns in parks:


Increases Opportunities for Poaching: Poachers could operate with impunity in parks because rangers would lack the authority to question individuals about their loaded weapons. The agency believes that poaching is a significant factor in the decline of at least 29 species of wildlife and could cause the extirpation of 19 species from the parks. Yellowstone, our country?s first national park, was, in part, established to provide protection for wildlife from hunting and poaching. An indirect effect of increased poaching or just target practice on wildlife is that wildlife become more fearful of humans and will be less visible, reducing some of the most important opportunities for visitor enjoyment.

Makes It Harder to Protect Our Nation?s Icons: At beloved icons, such as Mount Rushmore or the St. Louis Arch, it could be more difficult to protect visitors against terrorism. The increased presence of guns increases the potential for crime, taking park rangers attention and energy away from protecting our national treasures. Is being able to carry a loaded gun on a tour of the St. Louis Arch more important than protecting that same landmark from terrorist threats?

Increases Potential for Incidental Killing of Wildlife: Human-caused mortality is the biggest annual cause of death for Yellowstone?s grizzly bears. People with guns have killed at least 4 grizzly bears this year in the Greater Yellowstone area, three of them females. As a recently delisted species, there is an extremely low threshold for allowable bear mortalities. For 2007, allowable mortalities came very nearly to being exceeded. Just a handful more human-caused female mortalities would likely have exceeded the limits. If limits are exceeded two years in a row, a 'status review' is triggered, which could lead to possible re-listing and loss of management control by the states.

Parks Will No Longer Be Viewed as Safe: The public visits parks now with the knowledge that they are some of the safest places in the world. The crime rate is exceedingly low. For example, in Cuyahoga Valley National Park there have only been a handful of incidents involving guns since the creation of the park 34 years ago despite the fact that it sits between two of the most densely populated urban areas?Cleveland and Akron?in Ohio. Park staff is concerned that if there is a change in the guns rules for the parks that not only will park visitors feel less safe, but that park rangers will necessarily need to be more wary of park visitors.

Increases Potential for Unpleasant Visitor Experiences: Viewing individuals carrying weapons may upset other visitors. At the Flight 93 National Memorial, the staff believes that in the high visitor use areas of the memorial it would be very upsetting to the family members (of the 9/11 victims) to see other visitors carrying weapons. Another unfortunate consequence is that the potential would increase for school groups to encounter individuals carrying weapons in parks and possibly make national parks less attractive for field trips.

Fewer Drug Dealers Detained: In Big Bend National Park and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, illegal drug operations are a threat. Without the current regulation, it would be more difficult to detain possible drug runners because possession and display of a weapon would no longer be probable cause to initiate a search.

Creates New Safety Hazards: Kite flying is prohibited at Gravelly Point, a parcel along the George Washington Memorial Parkway adjacent to Washington?s Reagan National Airport, because of threats to flight safety. It's conceivable that the Coburn amendment would allow the possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons at the same location since Virginia has unrestrictive gun laws. For instance, the state allows for the sale or possession of large capacity ammunition magazines that can fire 30, 50 or even 75 rounds without reloading. Furthermore, there is no state requirement that criminal background checks be done on all firearm sales. Why would we have rules telling kids they can't fly kites while potentially allowing for possibly dangerous individuals to take semi-automatic weapons to those same locations?

Overwhelms Understaffed Parks: Right now Yellowstone does not allow guns in the backcountry at all (with minor exceptions). Yellowstone has 15 rangers that are primarily dedicated to the backcountry meaning that there is one ranger to patrol every 140,000 acres. The duties of those 15 rangers will become a whole lot tougher under already logistically difficult circumstances.

Increases Opportunities for Vandalism: Fragile park natural resources, such as cacti found in Saguaro National Park and Death Valley National Park, or certain wildlife species, such as desert tortoise, not to mention national park signage, will become victims of target practice.

Creates Confusion for Visitors to Parks that Straddle Multiple States: Death Valley National Park is located within both California and Nevada. However, the two states have dramatically divergent gun laws. In Nevada, there are no state restrictions on the sale or possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines ranging up to 75 rounds. Nevada also doesn't require criminal background checks be done on all firearm sales. California, on the other hand, restricts the sale of all semiautomatic assault weapons, such as semi-automatic versions of AK47s and Uzis, and limits magazines in excess of 10 rounds. The state also requires universal background checks on all firearms. Since there is no state line running through Death Valley National Park, how are visitors and park rangers to know which states guns laws would apply? What if rangers were pursuing someone in CA because of their illegal weapons, but the individual made it into NV, would NV law then apply? Would the Park Service need to put stakes in the ground every ten feet so gun owners know what state they're in? How would park visitors react to individuals walking around the NV portion of the Park with semi-automatic weapons?

Another example is Great Smoky Mountains National Park--North Carolina prohibits possession of firearms by regulation within any park. In fact, state law even prohibits slingshots. Tennessee law appears to apply to possession of certain firearms with no lawful purpose. Which law would apply in Great Smoky Mountains National Park? Would these or other state laws apply to possession and transport of firearms through a national park?
 
T, I'm not sure if you are trying to be heard or maybe you just like to hear yourself be heard. Lets face it, you hate the GOP, you hate anyone that has more than you, and did I say that you hate our honorable President? How can someone harbor so much disdain and hatred? It must be a case on envyitous. Your guts must be rolling around waiting for the big chunk throw. Best of life to you.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-08 AT 10:06AM (MST)[p]
Is that it BB? Would you like to get involved in the real discussion or just brow beat me because you cant justify limitless weapons carry in the USA? I dont know what my "hate" for the world has to do with my logical discussion of the issues.

Hate or love, the legislation is what it is; my positions are what they are, who cares about my intent or what's in my head? Really, what difference does it make? You have your positions (or at least I assume you do, maybe you could clue us in to yours) and I have mine, mine usually are supported, why not throw at least a hint to your positions in your next post so that it's remotely connected to the subject. . .
 
tfinal;
Those reasons you listed are plain B.S. from anti gun people who must give "a so called valid reason" for restricting firearms in our N. parks. Those rangers that patrol those parks was by large unarmed a few years ago. Not today, the feds had to arm them due to increased violence in our park system from people under the influence of illegal narcotics.
This increase in violence should along dictate that a citizen be allowed to have the means of self protection. I find it very distasteful that the places we need the most to be armed for protection, are the same places that do not allow firearms be carried by lawful citizens. Only the criminal is packing because he does not obey any gun laws while seeking his prey, the unarmed citizen who is at his mercy because of people like you and your thoughts about being armed.
You have the right to go unarmed to those places, it is your choice, my choice is to go armed and be prepared to defend myself and my family.

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-08 AT 11:40AM (MST)[p]Please cite for us the risk factors you are "protecting" yourself from in the backcountry of our national parks. . . Go look at the stats, how many DC shootings were on mall or in NP jurisdiction last year?
 
It would stop poaching like D.C.'s gun ban made them the homocide capital of the nation.



Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. --Ronald Reagan
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-08
>AT 11:40?AM (MST)
>
>Please cite for us the risk
>factors you are "protecting" yourself
>from in the backcountry of
>our national parks. . .
> Go look at the
>stats, how many DC shootings
>were on mall or in
>NP jurisdiction last year?


jeezus T, you are a bureaucrat to the core...."risk factors"? Who gives a ##### what the "risk factors" are. To me it is an inalienable right to pack. You are more than free not to.

JB
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-08 AT 12:11PM (MST)[p]Show me the risk now of going into a national park while your guns are unloaded and in a case. . . How many rapists are there, how may thugs are packen that might off you or your family, show us the risk, show us the numbers.

If there are significant issues in some national parks, than address those at the local level but dont make a new law allowing loaded guns into places like yellowstone, glacier, or the park properties in DC.

We never will agree on this issue, but fortunately I'm right. .
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-08 AT 12:36PM (MST)[p]Funny how some people beieve that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS carrying guns will increase crime, poaching and violece.

THEY ARE LAW ABIDING. Get it?

If criminals are willing to BREAK the law then they are not waiting for this law to pass to allow them to pack. They are packing in the parks today.

Get it? Yeah, didn't think so.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Here is a list created by park rangers just for you T. I also read recently that the National Parks big wig dude testified to congress that the crime rate in parks was alarming and that something should be done about it to protect the public. That's why this bill is up to be voted on. The reference escapes me perhaps you can find it to help prove me right.

Your list:

The Most Dangerous National Parks
Government Executive May 15, 2003 National park rangers nationwide were surveyed in 2002 about which parks were most dangerous and why. Here are the top 10:

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Arizona-Mexico border
Drug trafficking and heavy illegal immigrant traffic

Big Bend National Park
Texas-Mexico border
Drug smuggling, illegal immigrant traffic, plant and animal poachers along more than 100 miles of the border with Mexico

Padre Island National Seashore
Texas Gulf Coast
Drug smuggling, illegal immigrant traffic, poaching of endangered turtles and their eggs, illegal commercial fishing, radio communications problems

Shenandoah National Park
Northwest Virginia
No reliable radio communications on eastern side of the park, reduced ranger staff, plant and animal poaching

Lake Mead National Recreation Area
East of Las Vegas, on Arizona border
Ranger staff too small by half

Grand Canyon National Park
Northern Arizona
Crime caused by overcrowding; frequent, difficult and dangerous rescues of injured and exhausted hikers

San Juan National Historic Site
Puerto Rico
Urban park with gang and drug problems, short staffed with just two commissioned rangers and one commissioned supervisor

Yosemite National Park
Northeast California
Too few rangers, heavy workload, poorly equipped and staffed fire brigade

Biscayne National Park
Southeast Florida
Illegal commercial fishing, drug smuggling, congested boat channels

Gateway East, Sandy Hook Unit
Northeast New Jersey
More than 2 million visitors, state's only beach to allow alcohol and nudity, shrinking ranger staff, potential terrorist targets in major shipping lanes

Source: National Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police

(C) 2007 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
>If there are significant issues in
>some national parks, than address
>those at the local level
>but dont make a new
>law allowing loaded guns into
>places like yellowstone, glacier, or
>the park properties in DC.


It's not about making a new law, it's about restoring our constitutional rights guaranteed to us under the constitution.
 
Poaching of black bears? No way..it is gun free!! Meth, marijuana? No way. They should make it illegal for all these activites mentioned in this article...oh wait, it already is and yet it still goes on...I'm puzzled. Good news is if you need help you could call for one of the officers assigned to the 118,000 acres you are in from your satelite phone and they should be pretty prompt in getting there. That brings me to another point, if you were using your satelite phone in the NP would it be ok if they wiretapped your communication? Or is the only constitutionally protected right we can infringe there the 2nd ammendment?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0808/p03s01-ussc.html

National parks are meant to be laid-back places where the stress and strain of work and home are left behind for a more mellow experience.


But increasingly, those rangers in their Smokey Bear hats who give talks on nature and lead campfire singalongs - especially the ones trained in law enforcement - are facing crime and violence.


A watchdog group last week warned that law enforcement work in national parks is the most dangerous in federal service.

"National Park Service officers are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents," the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility reported. "National Park Service commissioned law-enforcement officers were victims of assaults 111 times in 2004, nearly a third of which resulted in injury. This figure tops the 2003 total of 106 assaults and the 2002 total of 98."

"The National Park Service has an astoundingly poor safety record for its officers," says Randall Kendrick, who represents park rangers as part of the Fraternal Order of Police. "If anything, these assaults against park rangers are undercounted. If there is not a death or injury, pressures within a national park can cause the incident to be reported as being much more minor than it is in reality, and it is not unheard of for an assault to go unreported altogether."

So why all this violence and crime in places that are supposed to be tranquil and relaxing? Alcohol or drugs are part of most violent incidents. Hideaway methamphetamine labs and marijuana fields in rural park areas (some of them run by drug cartels) and illegal aliens crossing through parks near the US- Mexico border are part of a growing crime scene.

But like increasing incidents of road rage, the stress of modern urban life, especially in the post-9/11 world of terrorism, may have something to do with it as well.

"We're suffering from the same societal problems that most urban areas are," says park service spokesman David Barna, who notes that park rangers interact with 1 million visitors a day and a lot more than that during the summer months.

FBI agents "are not face to face with the public the way we are," says Mr. Barna. "We're more like cops - metropolitan police organizations."

Here in Oregon recently, two rangers at Crater Lake National Park attempted to calm a man at the Mazama campground who had been involved in a domestic disturbance, loudly threatening people, disrupting an evening program, and leaving campers cowering in their tents. Undeterred by pepper spray, he came at the rangers with a club. They finally fatally shot the man.

The National Park Service (NPS) is a huge organization whose 20,000 professionals and 125,000 volunteers oversee 388 parks, monuments, battlefields, historic sites, lakeshores, recreation areas, scenic rivers and trails, and the White House. Their security and law-enforcement responsibilities include more than 18,000 permanent structures, 8,000 miles of roads, 1,800 bridges and tunnels, 4,400 housing units, 700 water and wastewater systems, 400 dams, and 200 solid-waste operations.

While Yellowstone National Park had the biggest number of violent incidents directed at park service officers last year (16), nearly half the total took place in urban areas where US Park Police patrol: the National Mall, the Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, the Camp David perimeter, and dozens of parks and parkways in the Washington, D.C. area.

For some critics, this raises questions about why there are fewer US Park Police today than there were before 9/11, even though the park service's law enforcement budget has increased $42 million in the last three years and officers now get more training.

Last year, US Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers was fired for speaking out against the dangers of understaffing at places like the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. With help from whistle-blower organizations, she is fighting her termination.

In a report last summer, the National Parks Conservation Association, a private organization, noted that the number of commissioned permanent and seasonal rangers had been declining in recent years while the number of park visitors was rising.

Noting incidents of vandalism, arson, burglary, and theft, including stealing old-growth redwood trees and poaching of black bears for use in Chinese medicines, NPCA warned that "a shortage of law enforcement rangers has a direct impact on park resources."

"The Park Service's on-the-ground law enforcement capacity has been further eroded by the demands of homeland security," the group stated in its report, titled "Endangered Rangers."

"The agency has estimated that it spends $63,500 each day that the nation is at orange alert," according to NPCA. "This diverts funds from the parks' operating budgets, and when rangers from parks such as Rocky Mountain and Shenandoah are sent to guard dams and icon parks, their positions remain unfilled."

More recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) expressed concern about the ability of the Interior Department - of which the National Park Service is part - to maintain adequate security in the post-9/11 world of heightened alerts due to potential terrorist attacks.

Based on interviews with Interior and Park Service officials, GAO reported that "the department's law enforcement staff is already spread thin ... averaging one law enforcement officer for about every 110,000 visitors and 118,000 acres of land."


Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. --Ronald Reagan
 
looks like until they pass the new law, you should stay home, the national parks might actually be tooooo dangerous.

Or, I guess you could always pack anyhow, no matter what the law says. . .

Thanks for interesting and informative article and your thoughtful opinions!
 
I was backpacking one time in the Marble Mountain Wilderness, here in Northern California. I had my trusty Ruger .45 LC strapped to my side. We came upon some hippies along the trail, and one of them asked why in the world would I pack a pistol back in the Wilderness? I told him I like to have it on me, to kill anything or anybody that needs killing.

Every law abiding citizen should have that right. Especially in National Parks and such places where help could be hours or days away.

If some law abiding citizens with concealed weapons permits were allowed to carry on 911 we could have shoved those box cutters where the sun don't shine.

Eel
 
I still go. But then again I can pack anywhere in the 50 states legally, which is also why I see many realities others do not on a daily basis. So when you say I can pack anyhow I guess you're right. I can. My purpose is to advocate the right of others, who legally, cannot.


Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. --Ronald Reagan
 
tfinal stated thanks for the information that he requested, why do I still get the feeling he does not want citizens to have the right to protect themselfs in NP land, and this information was wasted on a person who does not intend to change his mind no matter how many facts you give him!

RELH
 
From most of Tf anal's posts, one could get the idea that the only valid point is his......or the selected bites of support he posts.

And until he chooses to spell "Reagan" properly, it will be Tf anal to me.

No sane person I know would travel in the Sierra without some kind of protection....and I don't mean condems. This ain't 1956.
 
You guys give me too much credit . . . anyhow, I support, as I said limited gun carry. Is seems that most of the trouble in our parks with a couple of exceptions comes from the SW. Why do you think that is?

Anyway, I know you guys feel better if youre packing a gun, I used to be that way too. After I got my knuckles out of the dirt, I learned that you cant live your life thinking there's a boogie man behind every tree.

If you want carry laws for the Sierras, lobby for that, but I dont think we need to allow everyone in the country to pack a loaded gun in our national parks, and I know for a fact that law enforcement would not encourage everyone to pack a loaded gun around, most would prefer to not have guns in the parks, that's all they need is now to have a bunch of vigilantes out there acting like Rambo?s. . .
 
I spend very little time in NP's because they are full of clowns like you Tfinal.....I'd rather camp next to nickmans gun than your mouth anyday.

JB
 
"If you want carry laws for the Sierras, lobby for that, but I dont think we need to allow everyone in the country to pack a loaded gun in our national parks, and I know for a fact that law enforcement would not encourage everyone to pack a loaded gun around, most would prefer to not have guns in the parks, that's all they need is now to have a bunch of vigilantes out there acting like Rambo?s. . ."

TF, if they make it legal in NP, please leave your gun home. I'm afraid you'll just hurt yourself.

Eel
 
you know if it were made legal, I'd have to pack just to be able to shoot back. . .
 
Spoken like a true dumb-butted demo! I love how you'll decide if the situation merits carrying a gun. And if someone is carrying in a park they HAVE to be up to something! How bout I decide how to defend myself and my family? I'd let the government but they screw up everything they touch. I want the option to defend my family without waiting for anyones permission. And Tfinal may have his knuckles out of the dirt but his head is firmly planted somewhere else! Try assuming that folks who want to carry are law abiding citizens and not hardened criminals. Try thinking what could of happened at VT if somebody could have atleast tried to defend themselves. Try being tolerant, openminded and able to rationally look at other ideals like you preach to us. And stand up for all of our rights as sportsmen, as Americans and as human beings to defend us and ours against whatever of whoever threatens our lives, without getting a note from some know-it-all who decided what is best for us. You keep yapping at the badguys, I'll be re-loading!
 
D13r....come on over and we'll shoot up some beer cans, squirrels, marmots and get us a deer for camp meat....so Tfinal can say we were just idiots out trashing the parks.
 
TF, what does it matter if LAW ABIDING citizens carry in National Parks?

They are LAW ABIDING citizens. How many Grizzly attacks were there in the last 10 years in Yellowstone? If those citizens would have had guns instead of bells on their shoes to scare away the bears it would have been better for the people and the wildlife. Once a bear attack happens the bear is put down. Might as well give the citizens a chance to scare away the bear instead of having an attack on a human and a bear that must be put down.

It would benefit wildlife and humans in this scenario.

You will say that people will just shoot the bear and we would be worse of than we are now. My response is that the bear, if it attacks, will be put down anyway. Most people will give a warning shot. The bear learns to become afraid of humans and humans are safer from attack. Both of us benefit from that situation.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-08 AT 07:54AM (MST)[p]Okay, so are we will sacrifice a few bears, buffalo, elk wolves, and coyotes along the road, in the town and around the hotels so that one idiot in the back country might have a chance against a bear?

Moreover, allowing people to pack in the park means that there now will be a thousand "brave" guys who are trying their best to abide by the law but who now think they can go in search of grizzlies and wolves because if the bear turns on them they will shoot him/her, whereas before, they would have stuck to the trail or stayed in their car.

Is the NPS now going to write "take" permits for ESA?

Poachers will now be among the law abiding citizens so there is almost no way to separate the two, I and you now will become suspects just because we have a gun. Nothing you can justify will work, it's a horrible idea that will go down in the same flame as you hero GHWB. . .
 
After reading through all these post of your T I sumise that you have a basic distrust of the LAW ABIDING citizen.
I take my family camping in national parks, the thought of poaching never ever crosses my mind. Why? Because I am a law abiding citizen. As free men we should be able to carry in a national park.

So with your logic, assuming this law passes, since I will be able to carry I will suddenly become a blood thirsty poacher?????

What part of LAW ABIDING don't you get T?

Could it be your elitest character flaw coming through? The rest of us are just to stupid to understand? You know whats best for us? We are unable to think for our selves? Is that it?



"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)
 
Many states give concealed carry permits to citizens who request them, take a class, then pass a background check. Lots of people like TF said the end was near if we allowed good citizens to protect themselves! They said crime would shoot up, macho guys would be provoking fights then shooting each other. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN!

In fact most places saw a small drop in violent crime. Most cops that I know if asked to vote, would absolutly vote to allow responsible citizens have concealed permits! Many law enforcement administrators would vote to not allow responsible citizens to have permits....not sure where they lost their common sense about the issue....maybe they always thought like TF.
 
I don't know about you guys, but last I checked, the poachers liked BREAKING THE LAW. Poaching is already AGAINST THE LAW.

We were not all waiting around for them to pass a law so we could go shoot a grizz in Yellowstone.

Criminals don't wait for others to make laws to make their activity legal. That is why they are called criminals. I am afraid of all these gun toting crazy people. Apparantly they are all going to go the the National Parks now and shoot lots of stuff. Wonder why I don't see them around here? They must all come out of the cracks in the woodwork and just show up at National Parks and start shooting stuff.

OR

"They" don't exist. What does exist is Big Joe on vacation with Little Sue and their little tikes. They want to take a walk around Yellerstone. So they take a gun to protect themselves.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
T

Thanks for showing your liberal values of "compassion", "bipartisanship", bla bla bla. Calling "one" person that want's to protect themselves an "idiot" was really smooth.

One idiot I know lost her leg to a grizzly. It happened in Yellowstone in front of her husband and kids. Why don't you tell her about how she is an idiot. She jumped in front of her kid to take the blow from the bear. She lost her leg, and almost her life, to protect her kid. She also lost her beautiful face. The bear mangled her face pretty well.

A professor of mine at Utah State University has a funny limp. His face looks like it got burned in a bad fire. He too was attacked by a grizz while doing studys trying to help the bruins.

Tell us about more idiots that want to protect themselves T.

Please tell us.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 

Similar threads

txhunter58
Wildlife commission appointment/reappointments?
Replies
9
Views
334
AZGuy
AZGuy
txhunter58
Relocation of problem wolves. 😁
Replies
55
Views
2k
HntHrdr
HntHrdr
BMosh
PSA: Bass Pro Shop Rocklin
Replies
25
Views
1k
Bluehair
Bluehair

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Kicker Buck
0EBCEBF8-9D21-4194-BC61-6756F660A6D6.jpeg
20220415_174102.jpg
6A570905-E27B-4F61-A6AB-23A475703CFB.jpeg
2010 buck2.JPG
66D3D463-7222-4063-8CF0-A91183C79139.jpeg
Unit 9 2005 094.jpg
Screenshot_20211126-231927_Gallery.jpg
20240814_200636.jpg
IMG_0940.JPG
IMG_0753.jpg
IMG_1202.jpg
Back
Top Bottom