Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Happy news about concealed carry in nat'l parks

  1. #1
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,995

    Thumbs up Happy news about concealed carry in nat'l parks

    Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication and is available to the public on www.doi.gov.

    Existing regulations regarding the carrying of firearms remain otherwise unchanged, particularly limitations on poaching and target practice and prohibitions on carrying firearms in federal buildings.

    “America was founded on the idea that the federal and state governments work together to serve the public and preserve our natural resources,” Laverty said. “The Department’s final regulation respects this tradition by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so under state law. This is the same basic approach adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS), both of which allow visitors to carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.”

    On February 22, 2008, Interior Secretary Kempthorne responded to letters from 51 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, urging him to update existing regulations that prohibit the carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. In his response, the Secretary directed Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty “to develop and propose for public comment by April 30 Federal regulations that will update firearms policies on these lands to reflect existing Federal laws (such as those prohibiting weapons in Federal buildings) and the laws by which the host states govern transporting and carrying of firearms on their analogous public lands.”

    Changes in the final regulations from those originally proposed in April were developed as the result of public comments. In particular, comments expressed concern about the feasibility of implementing regulations which directly linked the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges to the ability of an individual to carry a concealed firearm on analogous state lands. The final regulations remove that potential logistical hurdle.

    The existing regulations, as currently in effect, were adopted in 1981 for national wildlife refuges and in 1983 for national parks. Since that time many states have enacted new firearms policies. Currently, 48 states have passed legislation allowing for the lawful possession of concealed weapons.

    “The Department believes that in managing parks and refuges we should, as appropriate, make every effort to give the greatest respect to the democratic judgments of State legislatures with respect to concealed firearms,” said Laverty. “Federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize the expertise of the States in this area, and federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects state prerogatives and authority.”

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Blacksburg, VA
    Posts
    98

    A ticket to mayhem

    Y'all,

    This was in our newspaper today. These are not my words but I thought it was worth sharing

    Michael

    ========================
    DAN K. THOMASSON: Parks no place for firearms





    WASHINGTON - As a parting shot from the Bush administration, courtesy of the gun lobby, those who seek the solitude and beauty of some national parks and wildlife refuges will face the fact that the visitor standing next to them just may be packing heat and is ready to use it at the first sign of any unfriendliness, such as an argument over a camping space.
    Overturning the Reagan-era ban on loaded weapons in these national treasures, the Interior Department has decided it would be all right to carry a concealed firearm into those parks located in states where undercover guns are permitted. So much for finding a moment's break from the threat someone might decide to shoot you over a triviality, a daily possibility in today's urban battlegrounds.
    The only hope one might have under the circumstance is that before the assailant could pull the trigger, he or she would be attacked and eaten by a bear. Those who argue that the regulation change is necessary to protect one from becoming a delicate morsel for a hungry grizzly are blissfully ignorant of the old hunter's rule that one should never take a handgun to a bear fight.
    That is based on a long-standing observation that these not-terribly friendly animals don't take kindly to being thwacked by a peashooter, which in 99 out of 100 cases fails to do what you want it to do to the bear.
    In fact, a bear with a pistol or automatic slug in its paw or elsewhere just becomes angrier, if that is possible. He or she might become so upset that a decision is made to prolong its dinner and your agony by biting off just a chunk of you at a time.
    So to paraphrase an old children's warning, if you go out in the woods today, you better go in disguise 'cause this is the day the paranoids have their picnic.
    Since the days of Ronald Reagan and his sensitivity about being shot (having had the experience), the national parks, forests and wildlife sanctuaries have been the safest places in the country. One could carry a rifle or what have you in his car but it had to be unloaded and dismantled.
    Why is it now necessary to extend the opportunity to commit mayhem under the guise of self-protection to places where mothers and dads take their kids to create lasting memories of family fun? Please don't try to find a sane rationale for much of anything advocated by firearms worshipers. In this city, which should be a sanctuary from violence, one can hardly find a day when someone doesn't die from a shooting. Yet the pistol- whipped, one-vote majority on the Supreme Court has decided the solution to this is to abrogate Washington's strict gun law.
    The obvious aim of those who clearly must sleep with their 9 mm's clutched tightly in their hands is to make no spot off limits to their "Roscoes." We're talking about college campuses and stadiums and bars and wherever. Now they are one step closer to that goal, having secured the right to haul their pistol-packing butts into the last remaining enclaves of sanity.
    How long now before the cheerful sounds of the meadows and forests of the great American set-asides are drowned out by the sound of gunfire? Is that a bit hysterical? Probably, but it is just as hysterical to believe that it is necessary to carry a firearm wherever one goes.
    I eagerly await the cards and letters and vicious e-mails that will undoubtedly follow.
    Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service. Contact him at thomassondan@aol.com.






  3. #3
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,995
    This guy's views are characteristic of the gun grabber mindset:

    One: It is a fact that those with concealed weapons permits are among the least likely to commit a gun-related crime. They have undergone extensive criminal background checks and training. They obey the law and are almost invariably far more level-headed and responsible than others. They represent no threat to public safety, by any rational, fact-based standard.

    Why should their right to self-defense be proscribed, contrary to state (and federal) law, because of the emotive, unreasoning anti-gun hysteria of such as the writer? Note that he cites no specific, factual examples of "mayhem" committed by CWP holders.

    Because none exists.

    Two, there are perfectly reasonable reasons for wanting to "carry" in national parks, including the parkway. Let me give you just one example. I run on the parkway; and just a few months ago, a man (not me) who runs near the area of the parkway where I run was savagely attacked by a stray dog. If he'd had a gun he might have avoided being mauled. There are wild animals - including bears - that can easily maim/kill a human being. While a 9mm or even a .45 slug might not stop a bear, it sure as hell stands a better chance of stopping one than your bare hands.

    Also: The parkway is isolated and very rural; ranger patrols are often few and far between. It is the perfect place for a scumbag to target, for example, women out for a run. The whole point of carrying is to have a defense against such. And that is a right, not a privilege, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. It is an individual right - just like every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is not about "sporting" use; it is about armed self-defense. Period.

    Three, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the people you and I have to worry about - criminals - do not obey the law, including gun laws. They don't give a shit. They will do what they want. All these god-damned laws do is disarm people like me and you - who are no threat to anytone.

    The writer of the anti-carry screed is either a fool or an asshole. Not sure which category he falls into!
    Last edited by Eric; 12-14-2008 at 09:25 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC, USA
    Posts
    3,628
    If a bear is already attacking you, you've got little to lose by attempting to shoot it.

    If the bear isn't already attacking you, even a .45 ACP is too little of a gun to kill one, so the hunting argument fails too.

    Chip H.

  5. #5
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,995
    Quote Originally Posted by chiph View Post
    If a bear is already attacking you, you've got little to lose by attempting to shoot it.

    If the bear isn't already attacking you, even a .45 ACP is too little of a gun to kill one, so the hunting argument fails too.

    Chip H.
    Of course - and the issue's not about hunting, per se. It's about being able to carry for defensive purposes.

    I can fathom no rational reason for being opposed to allowing CWP holders to carry in state parks - or anywhere else, for that matter. As you yourself have noted, CWP holders are among the least likely - based on actual stats/trends over a period of decades - to misuse a handgun in a criminal way.

    Thus, there is no reason to be concerned about CWP holders; quite the opposite.

    But there is a certain element that bases its decisions not on reason - or facts - but on their emotional prejudices. Guns are bad! (Though "bad" is never defined). Guns make otherwise reasonable, law-abiding people into criminals! (Absurd on its face; there are millions of guns in private hands; the vast majority of these guns are never used for any criminal purpose. If you excise the relative handful of scumbags who not only transgress with guns but transgress with regard to other laws, the problem virtually disappears.)

    I'm sick to death of being told I must be a victim - or made vulnerable to being a victim - in order to salve some dopey liberal idiot's emotion-driven neurotic fear of guns.

Similar Threads

  1. AZ passes concealed carry WITHOUT a permit!
    By Eric in forum Guns, Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-10-2010, 06:27 AM
  2. 10 rules for concealed carry
    By Eric in forum Guns, Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2009, 07:26 AM
  3. The Automotive Equivalent of Concealed Carry
    By swamprat in forum Fight Traffic Tickets/Driving Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-29-2009, 11:47 AM
  4. Why decent people need concealed carry permits...
    By Eric in forum Guns, Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 07:13 AM
  5. Will Obama challenge concealed carry in parks?
    By Eric in forum Guns, Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-21-2009, 07:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •