PDA

View Full Version : National Park Service Gun Ban Expanding


hagar
07-23-2008, 11:24 PM
National Park Service Gun Ban Expanding
-- 600-mile Trail to be added to NPS

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org


ACTION: Urge your two senators to support S. 2619 -- a bill introduced by
Sen. Tom Coburn -- to repeal the gun ban on National Park Service lands.
Also, please urge them to stand with Sen. Coburn against the strong-arm
tactics of Majority Leader Reid, who is trying to silence Coburn and thwart
his pro-gun agenda.

You can skip to the bottom and use the pre-written letter below to contact
your two senators right away. Or, you can first read the following alert to
better understand the battle Sen. Coburn is embroiled in and how Sen. Reid
is trying to use his position as Majority Leader to trample Coburn (and the
Second Amendment).


Wednesday, July 23, 2008

On July 10, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to designate the
Washington-Rochambeau Trail, which stretches 600 miles from Rhode Island to
Yorktown, Virginia, as a National Historic Trail. Such a designation would
place the trail under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior and the
National Park Service, thus subjecting the Washington-Rochambeau to the
current NPS gun ban.

Carrying firearms on land controlled by the NPS is prohibited, even if the
state in which the land is located allows firearms. The only way you can
legally have a firearm anywhere on National Park land currently is by having
it unloaded and inaccessible, such as locked up in your trunk.

While the Interior Department recently (after seven years of foot-dragging)
proposed new rules to partially reverse the gun ban, they have not yet taken
effect. If and when they do go into effect, most gun owners would still not
be allowed to possess firearms on these lands because, among other problems
with the rule, open carry would remain prohibited. Congress still needs to
take action to make the gun ban repeal complete and permanent.

Before the bill passed the House, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) filed an amendment
with the Rules Committee to protect the Second Amendment on the trail. His
amendment would have required that state and local laws govern firearms
possession and carrying on the trail. The Rules Committee changed that
language and made it apply only to hunting.

Rep. Bishop denounced the Committee during debate on the measure, pointing
out that the committee "did not defend all of the Second Amendment, only the
so-called hunting rights, which is not, not the purpose of the Second
Amendment."

Rep. Bishop made a motion to send the bill back to committee with
instructions to restore the pro-gun language. His motion narrowly failed,
211-202.

The bill (H.R. 1286) now heads to the Senate where the situation is much
more complex. Dr. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has been a leader on repealing the NPS
gun ban. Sen. Coburn previously introduced a bill (S. 2619) to rescind the
ban, but it remains bottled up by senate leadership. Earlier this year,
Sen. Coburn entered into a so-called unanimous consent agreement with Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid to get a vote on his repeal language, but Sen.
Reid reneged on his promise and blocked the vote.

Sen. Coburn remains committed to forcing a vote on killing the NPS gun ban,
and Sen. Reid seems equally committed to blocking that vote. Reid's most
recent maneuver to silence Coburn is to introduce (as one measure) a package
of bills that Coburn has held up on constitutional grounds. Rolling many
bills into one, loaded with pork and pet projects to dole out to a variety
of senators, is a transparent attempt to erode the widespread support Sen.
Coburn has among his colleagues.

If Reid is successful in passing so many bills at one time without debate,
the ability of individual senators to force deliberate consideration and
roll call votes on important legislation will be threatened.

The reason each state has two senators is stop large population centers
(such as an unholy alliance of NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles) from dictating
their will upon the rest of the country. Historically, the rules of the
Senate have always allowed any individual senator to keep the full body from
acting in an unconstitutional manner.

If other senators allow Reid to act as the dictator of the senate, Coburn's
ability to stop the expansion of the NPS gun ban will be severely
threatened.

Unless Sen. Coburn's effort is successful in repealing the gun ban, the 600
mile Washington-Rochambeau -- which encompasses parts of major thoroughfares
such as I-95 -- will become yet another Second Amendment infringement zone
effecting hundreds of thousands of gun owners up and down the East Coast.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center
at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Senators at
202-224-3121 or toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator,

Senator Tom Coburn is leading the fight against the National Park Service
gun ban.

While the Interior Department recently (after seven years of foot-dragging)
proposed new rules to partially reverse the gun ban, they have not yet taken
effect. If and when they do go into effect, most gun owners would still not
be allowed to possess firearms on these lands because, among other problems
with the rule, open carry would remain prohibited.

Senator Coburn is the sponsor of a bill, S. 2619, to make the gun ban repeal
complete and permanent. I urge you to become a cosponsor of this
legislation.

In addition, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has used unprecedented
procedural maneuvers to silence Dr. Coburn and to keep this bill or a
similar amendment from coming to the floor of the Senate. Please stand with
Sen. Coburn against the strong-arm tactics of Sen. Reid and support the
repeal of the NPS gun ban.

Sincerely,

Darklyte27
07-23-2008, 11:31 PM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides..

bulgron
07-23-2008, 11:45 PM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides..

Crime happens on the trails, and quite a lot of it too. Parts of the Appalachian, for example, are known to have a crime problem.

What happens is that these trails will meander close to population centers, and the riff-raff in those locations know that hikers are almost always unarmed -- usually by government decree. And so they prey on hikers.

It doesn't happen enough for there to be a huge hue and cry over it, but it does happen enough to make some people reasonably believe that they should be armed in America's wilder places.

For example, Meredith Emerson (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/08/georgia.hiker/index.html) was kidnapped off a trail in Georgia and held for at least three days until her kidnapper finally killed her. The kidnapper was caught and he talked about how hard Meredith fought him, but without any sort of a weapon her 61-year-old male kidnapper was able to overcome her. It's stories like this that have many people believing (rightly) that carrying a firearm while wandering remote areas is a good idea.

ETA: By the way, about Bears, it's unlikely that anyone not out hunting bears will carry a handgun capable of taking down even a small black bear. You have to get into very large handguns firing large caliber bullets (.44 magnum, 454 Casull) before you have a reasonable chance of killing a bear with a handgun. Most people who go hiking just simply aren't willing to carry that much weight. For this reason, arms in our national parks and national forest and so forth are really all about two-legged predators.

762cavalier
07-23-2008, 11:50 PM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides..

Well with that thought process "why do you need a gun at home?" I mean you are the only one there, right?;)

And there are more than just bears predating people in the NPS. Even the two legged variety.;)

M. Sage
07-24-2008, 7:18 AM
Crime happens on the trails, and quite a lot of it too. Parts of the Appalachian, for example, are known to have a crime problem.

What happens is that these trails will meander close to population centers, and the riff-raff in those locations know that hikers are almost always unarmed -- usually by government decree. And so they prey on hikers.

It doesn't happen enough for there to be a huge hue and cry over it, but it does happen enough to make some people reasonably believe that they should be armed in America's wilder places.

+1. You're all alone and help is hours (possibly days) away out there. But there are two-legged predators sometimes. Don't forget that pot farmers like to use park land, and are willing to hurt people to keep them away from their crops...

For example, Meredith Emerson (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/08/georgia.hiker/index.html) was kidnapped off a trail in Georgia and held for at least three days until her kidnapper finally killed her. The kidnapper was caught and he talked about how hard Meredith fought him, but without any sort of a weapon her 61-year-old male kidnapper was able to overcome her. It's stories like this that have many people believing (rightly) that carrying a firearm while wandering remote areas is a good idea.

ETA: By the way, about Bears, it's unlikely that anyone not out hunting bears will carry a handgun capable of taking down even a small black bear. You have to get into very large handguns firing large caliber bullets (.44 magnum, 454 Casull) before you have a reasonable chance of killing a bear with a handgun. Most people who go hiking just simply aren't willing to carry that much weight. For this reason, arms in our national parks and national forest and so forth are really all about two-legged predators.

I agree about the bear thing, but I'll still take my chances with a 9mm or .45ACP with the hope of at least hurting it badly enough to leave me alone. When I hike, I load three HP and the rest of the magazine FMJ. Hopefully the FMJ can reach deep enough...

sorensen440
07-24-2008, 7:39 AM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides..

same reason we need them everywhere else

sorensen440
07-24-2008, 7:41 AM
ETA: By the way, about Bears, it's unlikely that anyone not out hunting bears will carry a handgun capable of taking down even a small black bear.

but the noise from most handguns would be enough to detour all but the most determined bears

RW Dunn
07-24-2008, 9:51 AM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides.. LoL i,m going reframe from your comment, no i'm not.Why do you have weapons at home, why is the sky blue, why do bad people in Yosemite kidnap a women and 2 girls and rape and kill them and also kidnap and decapitate another young women. Why doe's a old man over power a unarmed young women walking her dog and spend 3days raping her before bashing her head in? and all this has happen in or near a National Forest. :mad:

PatriotnMore
07-24-2008, 10:29 AM
I really can't think of an area more appropriate for having a weapon on me, than out in the wilderness. Someone started a "Is A Gun A Tool" thread, and to me, thats exactly what it is. I like guns, and some are beautiful, but beyond all that, guns are designed for killing, whether offensive or defensive.

Out in the wilderness, animal predators only understand hunt and kill. When they are not sleeping, they are hunting food. We don't understand what it's like to have to catch our food, every day, every meal, to keep from starving, they do. Predators don't care if you are a man, or beast if they have not eaten, and their stomach is demanding food. They only understand kill, or be killed, and survive.
You walk up on an unsuspecting Bear, it may run, or it may charge and maul you. Walk into the hunting area of a Mountain Lion, it may let you pass, or it may stalk and kill you depending on when its last meal was. Find yourself in a Wolf packs hunting grounds, again anything can happen.

Add man to the list of potential predators operating in the wilderness, and it seems foolish to me, to even contemplate being out in the wilderness without a weapon.
I would say to those who feel you don't need a gun, fine, thats your choice, but don't make the decision, or a law, for everyone else, based on your feelings.

gunn
07-24-2008, 10:33 AM
Park Rangers & Game Wardens are not just the folks who watch out for forest fires and -- they are cops, too. The problem is that they are woefully understaffed for the region they have to cover. It's not yogi the bear they have to worry about - it's the trash on two legs that invades the campsites.

http://www.getoutdoors.com/goblog/index.php?/archives/1602-Park-Ranger-The-Most-Dangerous-Federal-Job.html
(Although I have no idea WTF is going on with this crazy haired family)

A friend of mine's dad is a game warden (ranger? - I know he covers a big chunk of land and has to check tags but he also has the responsibility of dealing with the visitors on public land) in rural Nebraska. Apparently, the rednecks empty their towns and converge on these two lakes out there with their ski boats, beer, and meth. The problems of the "city" then become the problems of the two or three law enforcement officers.

I know how to take precautions when camping out in the wilderness (bear bags, etc). I'm just concerned about

a) accidently stumbling across a highly defended pot farm or meth lab when hiking around and arousing the bears or
http://cannabis.net/articles/nationalparkpot.html

b) the crazed trash in the next campsite over who bring their generators, Lynard Skynard, and bud light. Camping should be about enjoying the wilderness -- not bringing your living room into it.

-g

Afmo
07-24-2008, 10:51 AM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides..

crime doesn't stop at the border of a national park.

E Pluribus Unum
07-24-2008, 10:56 AM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides..

Why do you need freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from oppression, or any other constitutional freedom?

Do you have a right not to be beaten into submission by the government? Then you also have the right to have arms to prevent it from happening.

The second amendment is about protecting yourself from the government; not bears.

I would argue that in every place you have the freedom of speech, you have the RIGHT to carry a gun.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2008, 12:17 PM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks?

For the same reason I would have no fear about violating the ban. Cops are few and far between.

Darklyte27
07-24-2008, 12:24 PM
The many times Ive been backpacking and camping I never heard of a crime while I was there. Also when doing those activities I go in groups sometimes 4 sometimes 10+

Its funny how many thought that I was against guns in the NP and started stating certain comments.

I personally carry a Kbar and sometimes bear spray, my buddy carries a big *** blade too. Hopefully never encounter such situations.

Whenever I go to the national forest again I will be sure to carry my handgun openly in the future.

as for 762cavalier, Criminals choose homes because thats where you usually have your valuables, I would have my guns here of course to defend.
In a national park, I doubt campers/backpackers carry much money if any or valuables.. We want to backpack usually light as possible.

Pvt. Cowboy
07-24-2008, 1:28 PM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides..

For us Western USA people, our National Parks are familiar as being little set-aside areas of natural beauty like Sequoia National Park, Redwood National Park, or Yosemite: There's signs off the highway pointing to the park entrance, there's a ranger in a hat and a green shirt at the gate collecting entrance fees, BBQ pits over here, RV hookups over there, and a information/learning center with drinking fountains and an attached gift shop to buy momentos of your visit.

In the Eastern USA, National Parks can cover areas of several states with highways running through them and the parks spreading out to the horizon on both sides of the road. You wouldn't even know you were in the 'National Park' if you didn't have a map showing that the entire Western part of North Carolina is considered to be one, for instance. Most of the time, these 'National Parks' aren't even parks. They're just vaguely defined regions administrated by the National Park Service. Sometimes they're just referred to as a 'Scenic Trail', such as the Appalachian Trail that extends from Maine all the way down into Georgia -- some 2175 miles long. The Shenandoah Valley National Park is practically all of Eastern Virginia. Other times they're national monuments or national historic sites. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people live throughout these places. There's highway restaurants, gas stations, little towns, truck stops, and everything else that would make you think that you're anywhere but inside the territory of a National Park. Hell, almost all of the North Carolina coast from Wright Brothers National Monument through Cape Hatteras to Cape Lookout is *all* National Park Service territory. Carry your CCW piece to practically any beach in NC, and I suppose you're felony bound if some National Park Ranger lays his mitts on you or pulls you over for whatever reason.

Also consider how big Death Valley National Monument is. Bigger than a lot of New England states as it is, and it even crosses over into Nevada. That's all National Park Service area.

Point is, you could be on a three day drive from Georgia to New Hampshire on I-95 passing in and out of 'National Park' territory fifteen times and not even know it if you missed the little brown sign in your headlights. Pull over to the side of the road to take a whiz with your legal piece on you and you're committing a felony no matter if you have a CCW license on you that's valid in any or all the states you're passing through. That ain't right.

What the anti-gun people want Americans to believe with this whole 'The gun nuts want to carry guns in the National Parks, OMG!' issue is to put the idea in their heads that NRA members are going to be carrying guns through Jellystone Park or shooting stalactites from the ceiling of Mammoth Cave KY. They don't want people to understand that basically just about everything East of the Mississippi that hasn't got something already built on it is somehow administered by the National Park Service and therefore CCW is prohibited.

-hanko
07-24-2008, 2:05 PM
ETA: By the way, about Bears, it's unlikely that anyone not out hunting bears will carry a handgun capable of taking down even a small black bear. You have to get into very large handguns firing large caliber bullets (.44 magnum, 454 Casull) before you have a reasonable chance of killing a bear with a handgun. Most people who go hiking just simply aren't willing to carry that much weight. For this reason, arms in our national parks and national forest and so forth are really all about two-legged predators.
+1 on the 2-legged predators.

I somehow knew this might turn into yet another bear thread:D...

I backpack a bunch in black bear country and feel perfectly comfortable with a .357. I've also taken black bear with the same pistol (added a scope) & don't feel under-gunned nor overloaded. Were I in brown bear habitat, I'd do something completely different.

In bear country, a dog can be of more use than a gun;)

If the law changed as GOA states it may, I'd probably...well, Calguns.net encourages you to obey the law.

-hanko

tombinghamthegreat
07-24-2008, 2:45 PM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks?

Great spot for a rapist or a serial killer to strike.

gunsmith
07-24-2008, 2:48 PM
Besides popular summer novels, why do we need books in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides

sorensen440
07-24-2008, 2:55 PM
Besides popular summer novels, why do we need books in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides


Ive nothing against popular summer novels but do you really feel they should be allowed in a national park???? ;)

oaklander
07-24-2008, 2:59 PM
I'm going to share a story that I don't often repeat.

When I was a kid in Hawaii, we were camping one weekend. A couple of parolees fresh out of jail decided to "take over" our campsite. They harassed my mother, they ate all our food, they drank all my dad's beer, and basically made life hell for us for over 8 hours.

This was at a remote campground (Makua Cave) on the Northwest part of Oahu. There were no park rangers, and this was before cell phones.

There's more to the story - but I will leave out the details.

My dad was powerless to do anything to stop them from harassing and threatening us.

After hours and hours, they got drunk and wandered off.

We left that night, fearful that they would return the next morning.

My dad started carrying immediately after that.

Remote areas allow criminals to operate with *impunity* and only a fool would choose NOT to carry in a remote area.

-hanko
07-24-2008, 3:15 PM
Ive nothing against popular summer novels but do you really feel they should be allowed in a national park???? ;)
Yeah, they're quiet.

I say ban RV's that run their gensets all night, mobile phones / pda's, any and all consumer electronics:eek:. I'd allow gps units if they're silent.

-hanko

TheDM
07-24-2008, 4:24 PM
Are National Parks part of the U.S.A?

If so, the Constitution is the only law of the land because it is federal land. DC is technically, Federal Land. I see no difference between a National Park, and DC. I mean they call it the National Mall.... DC is just a National Park. Shoul d be no difference legally between the two. I will say that the wildlife in DC is a lot more dangerous.

If I can't be secure in my persons and effects, and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed on a part of the USA, not subject to state law, then it seems that we no longer live in America, or have we ever?

If I could have a few wishes:

Obviously I would go back to the beginning of man and see how it actually happened.

Then of course, back in time again to the see how the universe really started.

Then I would go back and talk to the founding fathers so they could change the constitution so even our dimwits couldn't screw it up.

If God where a lawyer or a supreme court justice, I'd be stuck in colonial times because I was not supposed to be stupid enough to not have a wish saved so I could "wish I was back home".

And that's why we are screwed.

pnkssbtz
07-24-2008, 4:35 PM
Besides Bears, why do we need guns in national parks? Lot of people gather there to see nature. Im not against it or for it.. just trying to see both sides..

Well, you should have nothing to fear then when you are miles from civilization, in an area without ready communications where the next passerby is but 3-5 hours away, on a popular trail.

Why, if you were ever accosted by some tragic life threatening event, be it wild animal (there are critter's other than bears btw...) or wild human hell bent on robbing you of your possessions, why you should just do what every ordinary citizen does and call the police.

Oh wait! Except that you don't have cell reception, the next person is hours a way, you are miles from civilization by foot, and even if you were some how able to notify the police, it would take them hours, if not an entire day to track you down.



Some may believe in the nobility of man kind, but I'm more of a cynic and I trust in the fallibility of man and the satiation of his baser needs.

In God we trust, everyone else keep your hands where I can see them...

762cavalier
07-24-2008, 5:52 PM
as for 762cavalier, Criminals choose homes because thats where you usually have your valuables,

I don't know about you but I consider my life to be my most valuable possession. And just because YOU haven't had any troubles on your hikes doesn't mean that it doesn't happen or that you shouldn't be prepared in the event it does happen. ;)

sorensen440
07-24-2008, 6:16 PM
Great spot for a rapist or a serial killer to strike.

+1000

redneckshootist
07-24-2008, 6:31 PM
The many times Ive been backpacking and camping I never heard of a crime while I was there. Also when doing those activities I go in groups sometimes 4 sometimes 10+

Its funny how many thought that I was against guns in the NP and started stating certain comments.

I personally carry a Kbar and sometimes bear spray, my buddy carries a big *** blade too. Hopefully never encounter such situations.

Whenever I go to the national forest again I will be sure to carry my handgun openly in the future.

as for 762cavalier, Criminals choose homes because thats where you usually have your valuables, I would have my guns here of course to defend.
In a national park, I doubt campers/backpackers carry much money if any or valuables.. We want to backpack usually light as possible.

WOW I can tell some storys wile in remote areas. Im a huge hunter and since I live near some great hunting areas I go a lot. There is this one area that Ive bagged a lot of deer. Its remote and a Cache creek runs right through the hunting area. Ive stumbled on POT fields many times (usally see them through the spotting scope first).

There was this time I was fishing in a semi-remote area, I had bought my first hand gun 6 months before hand. It was a iverjohnson uberti 44mag revolver. wile I was fishing I lit a fire on the beach, these 3 guys pull up two older gentle men and a little boy came to my fire and they seemed friendly so we chatted for a wile. Some how the conversation led to religion I mentioned that I was mormon. Next thing I notice one of guys is threating to kill me with his knife. I pulled my gun talked him into putting the knife away. His friend started told me he was a chipper and he presented his badge. I talked them into leaving. Right after they left, I left. If I knew the as much about the law as I know now I would have turned them in.

I can tell more too.... but Im tiered of typing

M. Sage
07-24-2008, 7:18 PM
I doubt campers/backpackers carry much money if any or valuables.. We want to backpack usually light as possible.

You'd be surprised. Backpacking gear is usually somewhat pricey and probably pretty easy to sell.

I know that there have been robberies in Gila Wilderness (New Mexico), where I've hiked twice (and want to go back - that place is awesome!). One of the guys I hiked there with last year has been camping out there since the '70s, and has some stories about people like that.

odysseus
07-24-2008, 8:02 PM
Just a wild eyed question, but does the Heller decision have any implication on this subject?

.

bulgron
07-24-2008, 8:27 PM
Just a wild eyed question, but does the Heller decision have any implication on this subject?

.

Not immediately because Heller didn't really get into the question of Bearing Arms. However, at such a time as a Son of Heller acknowledges that The People have the right to Bear Arms -- that is, carry them around in public -- then the ban on carrying on non-secured federal lands such as our National Parks ought to fall in court, if it doesn't fall before then due to public pressure on the NPS.

The most I can imagine the NPS reasonably getting away with is a ban on carrying in certain specific and limited locations such as visitor centers.