"Coming Soon to the National Park: Guns!"

[amborin]

Coming Soon to a National Park Near You: Guns, Guns, Guns!

by Josh Sugarmann

Currently, visitors to national parks are allowed to possess guns only if they're stored out of reach and unloaded. All this will change on February 22, 2010, when park visitors will be able to possess firearms in national park areas consistent with the laws of the state in which the area is located.

The change is the result of an amendment sponsored by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) added to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009 signed into law by President Obama last May.

To mark this National Rifle Association-backed change, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR) issued a release this week offering examples of what visitors may soon be experiencing in our national parks. According to the CNPSR:

•Yellowstone National Park (WY, MT, ID): In the world's first national park, Yellowstone, while watching Old Faithful erupt you could be in the company of other park visitors wearing holsters and handguns. In the evening campfire circle, you may sit next to someone who can legally carry a shotgun or rifle to that special place. Anyone hiking in the backcountry can openly carry guns, increasing the risk to other hikers and park wildlife.

•Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts (VA): Virginia's gun laws are very permissive. The grounds of Wolf Trap, including the "lawn seating area," will be open to people carrying firearms.

•Grand Canyon National Park (AZ): Arizona's gun laws are very permissive and while standing on Mather Point, enjoying the breathtaking view of the canyon, you could see another visitor with an assault rifle slung on his shoulder. At your campsite in the park's campground, you could see guns prominently displayed in the campsite next to you.

•Mesa Verde National Park (CO): Colorado law is very permissive about open carry of firearms except in some cities. During your visit to Cliff Palace, you could be listening to the ranger's interpretive discussion while standing next to someone with a handgun and holster prominently displayed.

•Gettysburg National Military Battlefield (PA): Pennsylvania is also a very permissive state relative to gun laws. During your tour of the battlefield, you could encounter other visitors legally carrying rifles--and not the historic kind.

•Carlsbad Caverns National Park (NM): At the evening bat flight program and even on the cave tours, you could be joined by others openly carrying firearms. As you wander through the park's restaurant and gift store, looking for a bite to eat or a souvenir to buy, other visitors might be seen legally carrying firearms.

•Great Smoky Mountains National Park (TN and NC): This park is an example of one of the problems visitors will face with the new law. In North Carolina, there are few gun restrictions and visitors could be seen openly carrying guns. However, if you happen to be a gun-carrying visitor, you will need a "carry permit" when you cross into the part of the park located in Tennessee.

•Mount Rainier National Park (WA): While hiking the famous "Wonderland Trail" you could encounter other hikers openly carrying handguns, rifles or shotguns.

•Denali National Park and Preserve (AK): While riding on an NPS-licensed bus operated by the park concessioner on a day-long trip on the "park road" (the only way to get into the heart of the park other than to hike) you could be sitting next to someone with a handgun in a holster.
Not surprisingly, the Coburn Amendment was opposed by every major parks organization, including in addition to CNPSR, the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police and the National Parks Conservation Association

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/11-9

[farmout rightarm]

1. It's about time.

:-)

[SsevenN]

105. This

Sounds freakin great to me : )

[joeybee12]

2. The sheer stupidity of this new regulation is breath-taking...

...just a capitualtion to the right-wing nutjobs and the NRA...no reson to carry a gun in a national park, none whatsoever...just wait until these yahoos start shooting the wildlife...oh, but Bambi threatened me, I have my consitutional rights for protection.

You want constituitonal rights, assholes, join a Militia! Becasue that was the second amendment's intent.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

7. Oooo, Lorien said "penis." Hhhh-h-h-h-h, hhhh-h-h-h...

"She who first smelt it, dealt it" -- Aristophones.

[SteveM]

6. Ah, Joeybee, if you really believe in "capitulation to right-wing nutjjobs..."

Then look at how that capitulation dynamic comes about: the constant squeaking and braying of gun-controllers who propose meaningless legislation, then howling angst when a well-organized and politically powerful Second Amendment rights coalition responds effectively. Everytime. Now, THAT'S "stupidity."

The best thing going for those who support 2A is good 'ol Josh & The Boys.

[wtmusic]

12. Yeah! For once we aren't capitulating to those park ranger/police nutjobs!

:silly:

[SteveM]

14. What? Park rangers/police have guns? Why dat? nt

[wtmusic]

31. Someone has to keep an eye on the rightwing nutjobs. nt

:P

[sharesunited]

10. Well, there are bears, wolves and mountain lions.

But I wouldn't want to be on Coburn's side on anything I can think of.

Dear Oklahoma: Fire that man!

[cowman]

18. Man

I can't believe the hatred from the anti-2nd amend. crowd. The people who carry are the law-abiding citizens. Oh and BTW the 2nd was not created for Militias

[aliendroid]

26. same argument, modified to whatever situation: if they have guns they will shoot everyting in sight

"" ...just a capitualtion to the right-wing nutjobs and the NRA...no reson to carry a gun in a national park, none whatsoever...just wait until these yahoos start shooting the wildlife...oh, but Bambi threatened me, I have my consitutional rights for protection.

You want constituitonal rights, assholes, join a Militia! Becasue that was the second amendment's intent. ""


There are no limits to the number of ways you can rewrite the same old thing about the world being flat, but you know what pal, it is round and the idea that alowing law abiding citizens more gun rights is the new and enlightened way of thinking, while thinking that restricting guns which has been a failure is like thinking that the world is flat, in 20 years, people like you will be thought of as primitives. So time to wake up and move on, gun control, been there, did that, didn't work.

[rd_kent]

28. Your statements only show that you really have no undersatnding of legal gun ownership.

Your ignorance on this matter is stupefying.

[proteus_lives]

36. Ignorant.

Your post is rude and uninformed.

Oh and that wasn't the intent of the 2nd. Check your facts.

[Tim01]

57. You are very ignorant about this subject. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Why, is it a problem now in the National Forests?

Because that's already the law there.

Though, the national parks will have stringent rules on when you can shoot, for instance, no hunting, no target practice. Anyone violating and caught, goes to jail.

[Euromutt]

99. "No reason to carry a gun in a national park, none whatsoever"?

I can only ascribe such assertion to a distinct lack of imagination and familiarity with the facts. Crime happens in National Parks. Maybe not at the rate of any major city, but the counter to that is that law enforcement is typically a damn sight further away than the city's police department.

In the Puget Sound area, we've had gangs of car burglars showing up at a trailhead and systematically working their way along the cars. They're inclined to get violent with interlopers, and again, there's usually a bunch of them. They've been known to post armed lookouts on the trail on occasion as well.

Or, for an anecdote, a friend of my wife's went through an ugly divorce a while back, and she'd go hiking, by herself, to clear her head. On one such hike, in the Olympic National Park, she runs into another hiker on the trail, a man, and they chat for a few minutes about birds, plants, what have you. Then my wife's friend says something along the lines of "well, I'll be moving along" and the guy responds "I don't think so." She says that at that moment her blood froze as the realization hit her that the guy intended to rape her, and possibly worse. Fortunately, three seconds later, a married couple of hikers come round the curve, and my wife's friend rushes towards the woman shouting "Susan! I haven't seen you since Janet's wedding! Fancy running into you here!" Now understand that this couple were complete strangers, but the woman sussed the situation immediately and played along, and my wife's friend headed off down the trail with the couple.

Now, my wife's friend, through a combination of good fortune and extremely quick thinking, managed to extract herself from that situation, but the story does illustrate that National Parks are not free from predators of the bipedal variety, and we ignore that fact at our peril. Or, more likely, somebody else's peril. If my wife's friend hadn't had the amazing luck to have that couple show up, she could readily have become just another violent crime statistic.

[Suuko]

104. When my wife was a child...

When my wife was young, her family went to the park in Washington state where they had a family outing.

Her brother got lost in the woods, so of course they went looking. Her parents hadn't realized that she was left unattended by herself.

A man came up to her asking her is she was alone while at the same time looking around to see if there was any witnesses. She was scared and told the man her dad and brother would be back any minute. She remembers him being very "on-edge" and not the type that is trying to help her find her parents. Her comment scared him off.

I'm not saying a gun would have saved her... but it shows that there are criminals who lurk in parks.

[Suuko]

103. Yes because only humans live in the woods...

Really?

There are countless incidents where park-goers are attacked by animals. People who didn't have a gun to defend themselves. Do you even visit parks?

Sheer stupidity... heh.

[AndyA]

3. Coburn. The man should be committed to a padded cell and undo

psychiatric evaluation.

The man is absolutely crazy. He wants the high school girls in southeastern Oklahoma to use the rest room one at a time, due to the rampant lesbianism down there! :crazy:

I'm sure it must be something in the water they're drinking. :eyes:

[farmout rightarm]

42. Yes, he is nuts, generally speaking but that doesn't mean he must therefore be wrong

about every single thing that ever surfaces. I think of this one as an example of the stopped-clock syndrome.

[DFW]

5. This one is ripe for repeal if Democrats can get some of that spine Howard Dean was talking about

Having any idiot allowed to roam a National Park with a gun is pure insanity.

Not that Coburn has been accused of being sane recently.

[farmout rightarm]

11. Are you under the impression people, both good and bad, have never taken guns

into national parks?
:eyes:

[DFW]

16. I am under the impression:

That in today's America, the only ones who need to take guns into a national Park are cops and rangers.

I have visited plenty of them, and never felt any need to take my gun there, and would not have felt safe
knowing any whack job could carry. Nut cases with guns do not limit their range to college campus romps.

[PavePusher]

17. Cite to legal (i.e. Constitutional) or historical support, please?

"That in today's America, the only ones who need to take guns into a national Park are cops and rangers."

Also, are you claiming that Constitutional Rights end at Park boundaries? And, what is stopping your "nut cases" right now? Words on paper? Not according to crime stats....

[DFW]

21. This is 2A gibberish, and I'm not playing

2A doesn't forbid carrying into elementary schools either. It's still a stupid idea. The Constitution doesn't
forbid common sense. I have visited National Parks from Hawai'i to Cape Cod. My personal experience with my
family is what I base my opinion on, and have no need to cite links to why I feel better when I can visit them
free of firearms. If I want to visit a place where everyone is carrying, I'll vacation with the Taliban.

[rd_kent]

30. Hahaha! Facts are now 2A gibberish huh? No wonder your side is losing.

[proteus_lives]

38. It's great, actually.

They keep getting more incoherent and we keep gaining ground.

They're actually helping us out. :)

[rrneck]

35. That's probably

because some park ranger took an assault for you. Stay lucky if not safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_ranger

According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers suffer the most number of felonious assaults, and the highest number of homicides of all federal law enforcement officers.<2>.

And oh, make sure you keep the park safe for everybody else, since you seem willing to tell them what to do regarding their own safety. Or will that be beyond your own personal experience?

[DonP]

37. Ha! "My personal experience with my family is what I base my opinion on..."

You can't be serious?

Well, my family and I have never experienced an earthquake or hurricane - so I don't believe in them. Is that how it works? If you don't ever see it yourself, it doesn't exist?

I'd be willing to bet that, unless you live in Illinois or Wisconsin, there are people around you and your entire family right now with guns. They go armed to supermarkets, movie theaters, clothing stores and malls. Tens of thousands of them in every state but two. They are all around you every day. OH NOOOES!

They probably were there when you were visiting all those nice parks too.

Most of them are just honest but cautious citizens that have been screened by the FBI, trained and passed the requirements for concealed carry in that state. The records show that they are from 4 to 10 or more times LESS likely to be involved in a crime that people like you, that don't have a CCW.

The others are just criminals looking for an easy mark, you know somebody at the park with their cash, cameras and maybe some travelers checks and credit cards with a family to worry about that can serve as their next easy victim.

But as long as your FEEL BETTER that doesn't matter I guess. If you don't see it it didn't happen. Good philosophy.

[wtmusic]

41. Yeah, well so-called "constitutional rights" also end at airport gates,

owning fully auto, etc etc

If we let you carry a rubber knife into parks would that work?

[pipoman]

66. They end at security check points where

everyone inside has been screened...let me know when that level of security is happening at national parks, malls, etc. Owning a fully auto IS legal in most states...you knew that right?

[wtmusic]

79. Let me know where "security check points" appears in A2 nt

[pipoman]

93. There isn't a single person

who frequents the guns forum here on DU who isn't aware of, and fine with certain limitations on this and every other right. The limitations simply must be 'reasonable'. Reasonable isn't imposing limitations based on one person or another's feelings, it is statistical and scientific in nature. Show the proof that waiting periods work. There is none, even though there are numerous areas which have imposed waiting periods to virtually no improvement in violent crime. Not a reasonable restriction in my (and many other's) opinion. Same is true for the stats on concealed carry licensees, there are no stats...NONE, which support any theory of of ccw carriers being dangerous statistically..in fact the contrary, they are among the least likely to commit criminal acts statistically. Can you find anecdotes? yep...stats are not anecdotal.

OTOH, I know that the statistical probability that my house will burn is minusculy small yet I keep fire insurance and a few fire extinguishers and smoke detectors. The probability that I will be a victim of violent crime is small, yet I remain able to defend my family and myself in my home and where I go. So the distinction is made. We, as individuals, must decide what is best for us based on anecdotal probability but "reasonable restrictions" on civil rights must be based on statistical probability...the numbers ain't there in National Parks.

[PavePusher]

73. I'm sorry, maybe I missed something...

Are they doing full-body scans going into National Parks now?

No? Oh.....

Perhaps you are offering to guarantee my safety while I am there....?

No? Oh.....

Didn't think so.

[wtmusic]

78. The airlines nor the TSA guarantee your safety either

and full-body scans are irrelevant.

A2 can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, as the colonial meaning of "militia" is no longer relevant, and (many would argue) nor is the colonial meaning of "arms". I would interpret it differently than you would, that doesn't mean I'm "right".

It doesn't mean you're right either.

[PavePusher]

85. "the colonial meaning of "militia" is no longer relevant"

10 (or is it 18?) U.S. Code says you are wrong.


"nor is the colonial meaning of "arms"."

Really? How so?

[wtmusic]

87. .

The term militia (pronounced milisha) is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:

* Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.<2>
* The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

Re: arms, is a nuclear missile an "arm"? Do you have the right to bear one?

[PavePusher]

89. Let me help you avoid your next fail-post.

Firstly, Wiki, while often useful, is not a definitive source material. Use of Wiki as a reference in any scholarly work will get you a stern talking-to by any reputable teacher/professor.

However, since you went there....

Militia: Scroll about 4/5ths of the way down to the U.S. entry, Twentieth Century section. Note the reference to 10 U.S. Code $$ 311: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html




Next, since you appear to be able to stumble about the Internet, however rudimentarily, attempt to look up the definition of the word "arms". One of the first results you may get: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arms

Note: I don't think you will find a definition of "arms" that encompasses nukes.

P.S. That canard has already been debunked here many times.

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. The colonial meanings of 'speech' and 'press' are no longer relevant

Is an Internet posting 'speech'? Do you have the right to freely express yourself in one?

[farmout rightarm]

23. Okay, what exactly kept the "whackjobs" from taking guns into them in the past,

and how would you know if they did?

By the way, I'm glad you feel so safe with officially authorized and presumably trained people carrying

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=11947356

[aliendroid]

27. man!

"That in today's America, the only ones who need to take guns into a national Park are cops and rangers.

I have visited plenty of them, and never felt any need to take my gun there, and would not have felt safe
knowing any whack job could carry. Nut cases with guns do not limit their range to college campus romps."

Are you kidding????? You think criminals cannot take guns to national parks??? It is a miracle that they have not done so given that they know people are not armed there. You tried it in the 60s-80s, you tried writing laws to restrict guns, and it turned out the criminals did not bother to read them and went ahead and carried guns to gas stations and stores and banks and muggings and in fact did so in larger numbers because people like you helped to protect them while doing their crime.

[rd_kent]

29. So, because YOU don't want them, EVERYBODY must not want to either, right?

[wtmusic]

47. No, because YOU want them, everyone ELSE must want them!

That may be the silliest argument I've ever heard.

Thanks, you've brightened my day. :rofl:

[PavePusher]

74. We're just Pro-Choice.

How do you like them apples?

[wtmusic]

82. Then you must be entirely open to the idea

of me choosing to interpret A2 differently than you do.

Taste good!

[PavePusher]

84. Oh, please...

interpret away....

[wtmusic]

88. You too!

:P

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I don't care what you think.

[DonP]

34. Oh, you mean a police state.

That's what we call it when only officials of the state have the right to carry or use guns.

I can tell you're worried about guns in parks, but what about all that "blood in the streets" from all those shoot outs in supermarkets and parking lots with the concealed carry people in Ohio, Minnesota,, Iowa and the 48 state that allow concealed carry. Oh, that's right it never, ever happens when they pass Concealed Carry, but your hero Sugarmann said it would every single time it came up for a vote in the state. Let me give you a hint. Sugarmann is a lying sack of shit who has his own Federal Firearms License, one of the few in DC. He led a lot of Dems down the primrose path in '93 and '94 and right out the door of Congress.

Do you want to start on the repeal of those laws too? While you're at it Sparky, start working on getting that "obsolete" second amendment pulled out too.

Let's see, record setting concealed carry permits being issued, record gun sales for the last 2 years and ... according to the FBI ... the lowest crime rate in the last 20 years.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

But feel free to be frightened as much as you need to. Just a hint, you really don't want to research "Crime in National Parks". It will make your hair stand on end. And that's before the law abiding were allowed to carry!. Maybe Josh Sugarmann will protect you.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Since when has a legal prohibition on the presence of firearms prevented a 'college campus romp'?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. So you think the nut jobs who go on shooting sprees would obey the NP rules? LOL.

That's some funny stuff. :rofl:

[SteveM]

13. Please read #6. Thanks. nt

[DFW]

19. I did.

I stand by my opinion that non-Park personnel and non-Law Enforcement should not be carrying guns into National Parks
any more than they need to carry them into Kindergarten or second grade bake sales. National parks should be places
where people can feel safe from the sort of nut cases who suddenly open fire for no apparent reason. Since mental illness
is not worn like a uniform, the public's best protection, and best shot for an unencumbered vacation, is for no firearms
at all allowed in there for civilians. I might make an exception for the immediate confines of the Buck Island trail off of
St. Croix.

[farmout rightarm]

24. What sort of law would effectively insure that no mentally ill person would ever take a gun

into a national park...or pretty much any other non-locked-down venue? I'd love to hear how such a ban could be effective. Maybe just pass a law against sociopathy= would take care of this and all other criminal activity, nu?

[dmallind]

49. So your thinking is....

....that someone willing to break the law by murdering perople when opening fire for no reason, which would be of course punishable by execution or life imprisonment, will be stopped by his unwillingness to break the law against carrying a gun into a national park, which is punishable by a fine and maybe probation?

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Are you saying there are cougars and bears and meth labs in kindergartens and bake sales?

That sounds like what you are saying...

[pipoman]

68. Feelings, nothing more than feelings,

trying to forget....that criminals don't give a flying fuck about your feelings...You keep talking about "feeling safe", if you feel safe with the prohibition on legally possessed firearms in parks, you sir, are kidding yourself. If someone decides to shoot you and your family in a park, it will almost absolutely be a person who doesn't give a shit whether it is legal or not to have a gun in the park...THEY ARE FUCKING SHOOTING YOU..do you think they care about unlawful possession of a firearm?

Since mental illness is not worn like a uniform,...

And illegal guns in the park are not worn like a head ornament, they are hidden until they are being used, your laws, signs, and rules are mindbogglingly ineffectual..don't you see this? Really?

[PavePusher]

"...the public's best protection... ...for no firearms at all allowed in there for civilians."

How do you propose to enforce and guarantee this proposal?

Do you volunteer to provide security for those not capable of fending off an attack by hands and feet?

[X_Digger]

95. "where people can feel safe"

FEEL safe.. but not actually BE safe, eh?

[cowman]

22. What the

hell are you talking about? Dems voted for this also. I don't consider myself an idiot, I am an honest, hard working american who happens to believe in the RKBA as most americans and the anti-2nd amend crowd seems to grow more desperate and shrill as we win more battles.

[virginia mountainman]

25. You do realize...MANY democrats support this??!?!

Their is ZERO HOPE of stopping this law.....

Actually the signs are very good, for MORE GUN CONTROL LAW repeals..

[Tim01]

58. You are very uneducated. nt

[Euromutt]

100. "Ripe for repeal"? It doesn't even enter into force until the 22nd!

How about giving it a year, say, to see if the usual dire predictions of "blood in the streets" (or in this case, the trails and fire pits) come true? If the experiences of CCW permit "shall issue" legislation are anything to go by, no such thing will happen. Again.

It deserves note, by the way, that this law only permits "any idiot to roam a National Park with a gun" insofar as the law of the state in question already permits that same idiot to roam the streets with a gun.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Thanks, Tom.

You just reconfirmed that you're still an idiot.

[SteveM]

9. Take a clue, pardner, the guns are already there...

Now, law-abiding folks can carry them.

BTW, people gather to watch bats in downtown Austin. Some of them are armed. Did you know that?

[PavePusher]

15. Wow. Hysteria, much?

I'll finally be providing my personal security legally.

Free at last, free at last....

And about damn time.


Edit: They seem awfully concerned and suprised that Citizens might want to actually exercise those pesky Civil Rights.....

[benEzra]

20. Be Afraid!! Be Vewwwy Afraid!!

:eyes:

This is, of course, from the guy who wrote the book Every Handgun Is Aimed At You, and who almost single-handedly suckered the Third Way/DLC'ers into throwing away the Congress over the gun issue in 1994. He makes a very good living selling fear to the MSM.

BS like this is what destroyed the U.S. gun-control lobby, though. Constantly fearmongering about the lawful, responsible, and nonviolent while stubbornly ignoring those who break the law and commit criminal violence.

FWIW, he could have had carry in parks restricted to licensed CHL holders only, but he and the repubs at the Brady Campaign fought tooth and nail to have that rule thrown out. So he got the result he worked for...

[Hoopla Phil]

32. Great news!!!!!!!!!

[rd_kent]

33. So the entire argument against this is "YOU MIGHT SEE PEOPLE WITH GUNS"!!!

You might SEE guns. Not that crime will go up, or that anything bad will happen, but that you will SEE guns.


No wonder gun control is a lost cause.

[brendan120678]

40. Yep, that's how this article reads. (nt)

[proteus_lives]

39. Wonderful!

Gun rights keep getting stronger. All democrats and liberals should celebrate that if they actually value personal freedoms.

[spin]

43. Crime slowly creeps into parks, forests ..

Originally published Sunday, October 15, 2006 at 12:00 AM

"Park rangers are the most assaulted federal officers," Jordan said. "Urban police officers had a lot more crime to deal with, but we have less staff."

It used to be that being a ranger in Washington state's national parks and forests meant guiding people through the great outdoors and serving as caretaker to plants and wildlife. But as cities and suburbs rapidly encroach upon wilderness areas, drugs and violence have crept into the outdoors.

Whether it's meth labs hidden amid lush forests or car prowls at trailheads, park rangers and forest officers are seeing an increasing amount of criminal behavior.

While neither the U.S. Forest Service nor the National Park Service keeps precise statistics about crime on federally protected lands, officers and rangers in Washington say that crime appears to be on the rise in the backcountry.

That fact was underscored by the July 11 slayings of a Seattle mother and daughter on a trail in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, killings that remain unsolved. The shootings of Mary Cooper, 56, and Susanna Stodden, 27, prompted hikers and campers to briefly stay away from the popular recreation areas near Mount Pilchuck at the height of camping season.

Such violent crimes are still quite rare in national parks and forests.

***snip***

In the summertime, Mark O'Neill, who patrols Olympic National Park, parks his patrol car along Highway 101, the main drag between Port Angeles and Forks, to catch speeders. During these traffic stops he often finds fugitives wanted on arrest warrants.

"We take weapons off people all the time," O'Neill said.

***snip***

During 12 years as a Forest Service officer, Shane Wyrsh said he's seen alleged gang members practicing shooting; he's helped investigate violent assaults and even stumbled upon "the mother of all meth labs." This was a property where people were exchanging cars, bicycles, generators and other stolen items for drugs.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003305418_safetrails15m.html emphasis added

Top Ten Most Dangerous Parks

America's national parks, particularly those in border areas, are becoming crime-infested sanctuaries for illegal aliens and their drug smuggling associates. Citing inattention from Congress and federal officials that has led to severe manpower and equipment shortages, America's Park Rangers say some of the country's most popular national parks are becoming too dangerous for citizens to enjoy.

#1 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (Arizona). After the August 2002 murder of National Park Service Ranger Kris Eggle by illegal aliens, the park service temporarily sent in tactical teams as a public relations ploy to reassure the public. But after the publicity about the murder faded, staffing has fallen even below previous inadequate levels, leaving visitors vulnerable to the many illegal aliens who use the area for crossing into the U.S.

#2 Amistad National Recreation Area (Texas). Amistad has the same problems of drug smuggling and criminal aliens as Organ Pipe. Only seven rangers are expected to protect 85 miles of international border. With days off, only one or two rangers are on duty at any given hour of the day. At night, smugglers and other criminals have free reign in this park.

***snip***

#6 Biscayne National Park (Florida). Lots of drug smuggling and illegal fishing, with a nearby terror target, a nuclear power plant. The Coast Guard never sends out of boat with less than 4 officers, the park service sends rangers into the ocean alone on patrol against drug gangs.

#7 Shenandoah National Park (Virginia). Management has cut the ranger staff here even as increasing crime spills into the area from the immigrant-burgeoning nearby suburbs of Washington, D.C.

#8 Delaware Water Gap (New Jersey/Pennsylvania). Now with less than half the number of rangers on patrol in the 1990's, the park is virtually unguarded at night, when only two rangers are on patrol. The two are told to avoid areas where crimes occur, leaving citizens vulnerable to attack.

http://www.manews.org/0903parks.html emphasis added

It looks like national parks are rapidly becoming a dangerous place to visit. Unlike other areas of the country, law enforcement is often a long distance and and a long time away.

If I choose to visit a national park, why should I be a defenseless target? The chance of being attacked is small but not impossible. Gun free zones have a record of attracting violent criminals. Armed citizens will reduce the temptation to rob, rape or pillage in a national park.

[wtmusic]

44. Then why don't park rangers endorse it?

Seems like they'd be all for it, if it's such a grand idea. They're not.

[rrneck]

50. Link? nt

[wtmusic]

52. Look up

When all else fails, read the OP.

[rrneck]

54. Ah. Of course. Thanks. nt

[spin]

53. Police who live in gun friendly states have a far different attitude...

toward gun ownership and concealed carry than police who live in areas where concealed carry is not allowed and the ownership of firearms is heavily restricted.

In Florida, for example, the overwhelming majority of police officers have no problems with honest citizens having loaded weapons in their house or vehicle and feel that those with concealed carry permits are trustworthy and present very little or no danger to society.

Obviously, when "shall issue" concealed carry passed in Florida many police officers were concerned and thought it was a terrible idea. I predict that in a year or two, most park rangers will feel that allowing armed citizens to have firearms in national parks provided far more of a plus than a minus.

It seems logical to say "more guns = more crime". It also seems logical to say that the world is flat. Both statements have been proven false.

[wtmusic]

56. Florida's violent crime rate is also 7th highest in the country

What was it before 1987 (before CCW)? Doesn't seem like it could get much worse.

[spin]

69. Yep, Florida's violent crime rate was REALLY bad before 1987...

Florida's homicide rate has declined 21% since adopting CCW in 1987.

No comparison of aggravated assault, robbery, and rape (99.3% of Florida violent crimes) beginning before 1988 is valid, according to the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement. In 1988, Florida changed its method of compiling crime statistics.

In Florida, as in the U.S., more than 70% of violent crimes do not involve guns. Violent crime rates, therefore, don't necessarily reflect violent gun-related crime trends. According to the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Reports (1992), nationwide firearms were used in the four violent crimes that make up the total "Violent Crime" category, as follows: Aggravated Assault (58% of volent crimes) -- firearms used in 25%; Robberies (35% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 41%; Rapes (6% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in an estimated 5% - 10% (survey data); and Homicides (1% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 68%.

In Florida: Aggravated Assaults (64% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 25%; Robberies (30% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 37%; Rapes (4% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in an estimated 5% - 10% (survey data); and Homicides (0.7% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 61%.

***snip ***

Since adopting CCW in 1987 Florida's homicide rate has decreased 21% while the U.S. Rate has risen 12%.




Area 1987 1992 %Change

Florida 11.4 9.0 -21%

U.S.A. 8.3 9.2 +12%

Nationwide, homicide rates peaked in 1980 - 1981. After fluctuating, but dropping overall thereafter, both the U.S. and Florida homicide rates began to rise in 1986. Florida adopted CCW in 1987, and its homicide rate began to decline, dropping 21% 1987 - 1992. The U.S. rate continued its upward trend, rising 12% in the 1987 - 1992 period. (Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports)
http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/fla_model.htm emphasis added

[PavePusher]

76. Gee...

Did you ever think they might be... ummm... wrong??

[wtmusic]

81. Seeing as they work there day and night

(and their life is on the line) they might have a more valid opinion than you on this.

[PavePusher]

83. Naw...

They don't trump the Constitution or my personal safety. And, since they can't, apparently, even protect themselves, I worry about how much faith you seem to have in them...

[wtmusic]

86. What is "trumping the Constitution"?

Is that not being allowed to bring handguns into elementary schools? Or onto planes? Or walk down the street with a loaded shotgun?

That poor Constitution is being trumped all over the place, idnit?

[PavePusher]

90. Doesn't mean it's correct.

Or that I follow the UnConstitutional laws.

I like to keep people guessing. :evilgrin:

[Dappleganger]

71. Yes, there are criminals in them thar hills...

our last home was located right on the edge of the George Washington Nat'l Forest and it was rife with moonshiners, meth heads and people who would shoot you on the spot if you came upon their weed farm. It would take at least 30-45 minutes for any ranger to drive out there, not counting time it takes to hike to remote areas. The good that police or rangers are out there is to gather evidence and notify next of kin.

[Taitertots]

45. They were always there

Except the only people with them before were drug growers, maniacs, and poachers. People there with the intention of breaking laws.

[wtmusic]

46. So people who legally carry guns don't commit crimes?

News to me.

[DonP]

48. Very, very little according to state police and the FBI

The reports from Texas and Florida, the states with the longest track records of widespread concealed carry, indicate that citizens with permits are from 4 to 10 or more times LESS likely to be involved in a crime than the average citizen without a permit.

So, in short, a CCW holder is safer to be around than you probably.

[wtmusic]

51. Your logic is inane.

"Citizens with permits are from 4 to 10 or more times LESS likely to be involved in a crime than the average citizen without a permit."

does not imply that

"a CCW holder is safer to be around than you probably."

It implies that it is safer to be around a permitted CCW holder than a non-permitted one. Still more dangerous than being around someone without guns at all, especially considering some states don't require any training to get a permit.

[Euromutt]

59. It may come as a shock to you...

...but there are other ways of committing violent crime than with a firearm (1/3 of homicides in the US are committed by means other than a firearm, for example), and the available data indicates that CCW permit holders are less likely to commit non-firearm crimes as well. So on average, it is still safer to be around a CCW permit holder than a person without a firearm.

[spin]

61. Statistically you WOULD be more likely to commit a crime ...

with a firearm than the concealed carry permit holder standing beside you.

In fact, that permit holder would statistically be less likely to commit a crime with his firearm than the police officer who might be talking to the both of you.

Stinson, Philip. "Criminality of police officers: Initial findings from a national study of police officers arrested" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript

Abstract: Each year hundreds of police officers are arrested throughout the United States for committing crimes, although no official data or statistics are kept on this hidden phenomenon. In this study, data were collected from newspapers across the country regarding police officers who were arrested during 2005 and 2006. Preliminary content analysis and findings indicate that the prevalence of police officers arrested is significant, as is the range and type of offenses committed by those officers.
http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/research/index.php?cmd=www_search&offset=0&limit=5&multi_search_search_mode=publication&multi_search_publication_fulltext_mod=fulltext&textfield_submit=true&search_module=multi_search&search=Search&search_field=title_idx&fulltext_search=%3Cb%3ECriminality+of+police+officers%3A+Initial+findings+from+a+national+study+of+police+officers+arrested%3C%2Fb%3E&PHPSESSID=31cedfcc5ff4470c8a21f3ef7b23ff25

This is not meant as an insult, just a statistical fact.

[Tim01]

62. I think you are confused.

People with a gun and a permit are less likely to be involved in a crime than average citizens who don't have anything to do with guns.

CCW holders are on average safer and more law abiding than police.

[Dappleganger]

72. In FL they also have to go through background checks...

fingerprint ID's, etc.

[Tim01]

92. Same here. nt

[DonP]

65. No genius, safer than the average citizen, like you, NOT a non-permitted gun carrier ntxt

[wtmusic]

80. whatever.

Your statistic is poorly stated and there is no link, so I really don't know WTF you're trying to say. :silly:

[DonP]

91. No, that's not true, you just cant seem to accept the proof set in front of you.

Several people have already shown you plenty of proof that CCW holders are more law abiding than the average citizen without a permit.

That just doesn't mesh with the simplistic, cartoon level view you seem to be stuck on about guns and gun owners.

You world view on this subject is as rigid and unthinking as a "Fundie" on the issue of choice.

Try for just a minute to be a bit more progressive in your thinking here. The reality is that guns, in the hands of the law abiding, don't make people more dangerous or the streets or parks scarier places. There are no, none, nada, zilch facts or reports to support that thinking, other than individual "feelings" of fear. Guns are already in the hands of the criminals and gang members. Laws have no impact on them anyway and just disarm the law abiding.

Every time a new state considered concealed carry we had people like you screaming that the streets will run red with blood, led in the chorus by Josh Sugarmann and his minions. Ohio, Minnesota, Missouri, et. al. In many of those states we lost Dem Governors and legislators who refused to sign the legislation, Ann Richards was one of the earlier casualties and thanks to her standing on her "principle" we got Bush as Governor.

Texas go their CCW law and the mass shootings they kept saying were inevitable never emerged. The FBI, you've been shown the numbers several times, says that crime, including crime with guns is at a 20 year low now, even after the spike in gun sales.

You can either start to look at things more progressively and consider facts or stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA LA - I can't hear you. for the next few months. With the McDonadl versus Chicago case in SCOTUS March 2nd it's going to be in a lot of news reports and it's going to piss you off every time you see it.

[cowman]

102. You know

it does not matter what stats and arguments we put to you. You are obviously anti-2nd amend and your crowd is losing the fight on guns. Get used to it and if people with guns bother you, move to the U.K. or stay in your house but don't trample on my 2nd amend right

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. The old ostrich tactic, nice one.

[DonP]

67. You can apologize any time now.

[Taitertots]

101. It does imply that

If you were in a bubble with 10,000 CPL holders you would be safer than in a bubble with 10,000 non-permitted people. The 10,000 non-permitted people is going to contain several people who carry guns anyway. Especially if they make no effort to keep them out(national parks), even more so if there is profit motive for criminal behavior (national parks).

[spin]

55. True, those who have carry permits are in no way angels ...

however when compared to other groups of people they shine.

The monthly statistical report on concealed carry published by the Florida Division of Licensing proves this.

The report covers a period of time from October 1, 1987 - January 31, 2010. During this time frame 1,704,624 concealed weapons permits have been issued and currently 692,621 permits are valid.

During this 22 year time frame, 4,589 licenses were revoked for crimes committed after the license was issued but only 167 involved the misuse of a firearm.

You can view the report at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

[Taitertots]

75. Who ever said that?

They do infrequently commit crimes.

But there was nothing stopping people taking guns into national parks. For some reason the drug growers, meth lab workers, and poachers didn't follow those rules.

[Euromutt]

70. Unrec for citing Sugarmann without comment

The entire piece is bullshit, which is par for the course with Sugarmann. If you put his alarmist rhetoric in context, what it comes down is that the possibility of encountering an openly armed citizen is now the same in any given National Park as it is in the state in which the National Park is located.

Quick fisking of a few points:

Anyone hiking in the backcountry can openly carry guns, increasing the risk to other hikers and park wildlife.

The increase in risk is about on a par with the extent that smoking contributes to global warming. This is known as the "genuine but insignificant cause" fallacy.

<...> while standing on Mather Point, enjoying the breathtaking view of the canyon, you could see another visitor with an assault rifle slung on his shoulder.

The likelihood of any licensed owner of an automatic weapon (unlike so-called "assault weapons," assault rifles are by definition capable of automatic fire) carrying it around in public are exceedingly slim.

Great Smoky Mountains National Park (TN and NC): This park is an example of one of the problems visitors will face with the new law. In North Carolina, there are few gun restrictions and visitors could be seen openly carrying guns. However, if you happen to be a gun-carrying visitor, you will need a "carry permit" when you cross into the part of the park located in Tennessee.

Whereas previously, it was possible for a CCW permit holder to be legally carrying in his home state, and then break the law merely by driving along a stretch of road over which the NPS has (or claims) jurisdiction, such as the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia, or the stretch of US 101 that runs through Olympic National Park in Washington state.

Mount Rainier National Park (WA): While hiking the famous "Wonderland Trail" you could encounter other hikers openly carrying handguns, rifles or shotguns.

While the legality of openly carrying handguns in Washington state is well established, the status of openly carrying a long gun is not so unequivocal; see State v. Spencer (1995) http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/State_v_Spencer.pdf
Sugarmann didn't do his research; surprising for someone who is supposedly an expert on this topic.

Also note the generous use of the term "prominently displayed." Most open carriers do not carry their handguns in a particularly prominent fashion; most casual observers don't even notice the holstered handgun. The insinuation is, of course, that anyone open carrying seeks to intimidate those around him; actively and deliberately doing so, however, is typically illegal. And the fact is that those who intend to use firearms for unlawful purposes typically carry their weapons concealed, which is why most gun crimes are committed with handguns, and why rifles and shotguns with an overall length of 26" are tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

And ultimately, the gun control organizations have nobody to blame for the present situation but themselves. Originally, the alteration to the federal rules would only have permitted licensed concealed carry; no open carry, and certainly no long guns. But gun control groups field suit to prevent the rule change, and the Dept. of the Interior opted not to appeal. The Coburn Amendment wouldn't even have been introduced were it not for the gun control groups' lawsuit. That came round to bite them in the ass.

[PavePusher]

77. "Sugarmann didn't do his research; surprising for someone who is supposedly an expert ..."

Ahem... Methinks you are overly generous, kind sir...

:evilgrin:

[Hoopla Phil]

96. Great news!

[donheld]

97. Wooohooo. What the world needs now is Guns sweet guns

What the world needs now,
Is guns, sweet guns,
It's the only thing that there's just too little of.
What the world needs now,
Is guns, sweet guns,
No, not just for some but for everyone

:eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. No just for those who want them and are legally permitted to possess them.

[bhikkhu]

98. State laws are adequate. I'm in favor

A part of responsible behavior is expecting responsible behavior and allowing for local determination of what responsible behavior is. In my area its definitely gun country (though I've never owned one), and its not a problem. Removing laws imposed from the other side of the country is likely to make more people mindful and responsible for their own behaviors.