« Violence Policy Center -- interesting study | Main | This is the Chicago Sun-Times? »
Allowing firearm carry in National Parks and Forests
From Christian Science Monitor:
"Drug smugglers, armed robbers, and hard-partying or alienated city dwellers are setting up camp in the deep woods and clashing more with rangers, US Forest Service personnel say. What such incidents have in common is an urban grittiness, they say....Many incidents, he says, relate to drugs and problems along the US border. In the West, Mexican cartels have moved into central California to grow marijuana on public lands, especially in the Sierra and the Stanislaus National Forests, he says."
From the Seattle Times:
"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. "
But the Official Position remains:
"But a coalition of park rangers and park service retirees say the amendment could jeopardize public safety and make it more difficult to stop poaching.
"There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits hunting," the groups said in a statement."
17 Comments | Leave a comment
If you've ever met some of these park rangers, you'd understand. Most that I've met are your standard issue tree-hugging lefty.
I'm a retired Forest Service Fireman/LEO and I hate to admit it, but Letalis Maximus, Esq. is right. These days the agency is mostly left-leaning. When I started in the early 70's most FS workers were rural, conservative men, hunters, fishermen, horsemen and campers. Now much of the leadership is urban-raised, progressive, female, more interested in a latte than "cowboy coffee."
And the Park SErvice is much worse than the FS.
Gun Free Zones. That's what National Parks are. That is what Virginia Tech is, and Northern Illinois University. And Chicago, and Washington, DC.
Given the wake of VT and NIU...I think the "other side"...the sensible side, is for once getting more attention. Their message? Gun Free Zones don't work. Eliminate them. Liberalize concealed carry....it seems to work, and certainly does not hinder.
I think this will happen in National Parks, too. Just keep the pressure up on them!
I won't go into any park where I can't take my dog or my sidearm. Maybe a .45 won't stop a bear, but it might scare one, and it'll sure as hell stop one of the methheads and pot growers that have taken to the wilderness.
I mean, does anyone recall the case of the mother and daughter that were killed in the mountains in 2006 near Everett, WA. Dangerous criminals don't restrict themselves just to the big cities.
The poaching thing is complete BS. It is illegal to shoot animals in a NP. All the restriction does is tack on another charge.
I say let people carry concealed weapons in the parks. No one is doing any serious hunting with a 4" 1911 or Glock 19. Leave rifles out. You could even leave scoped handguns out for that matter. That makes it more clear who is poaching and who is just trying to defend themselves from 2 legged varmints.
Time for some US Code Title 18 Section 242- Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law action, if some lawyer can find someone with standing.
Except for that pesky Constitutional thing, which nobody pays any attention to these days anyway.....
Where DO these people come from?
There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a ranger or other government employee to carry a loaded gun in a national park.
I wonder how the coalition of park rangers and park service retirees would like that? If the citizens can't carry then the government workers shouldn't either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Partner: "That sign said 'No guns'."
Me: "Sign? What sign? I didn't see a sign. Let's hit the trail."
What I find even more silly is that I'm licensed to carry Concealed in public which includes all other places, and yet I'm not considered by the park service to be trustworthy enough to carry in a park.
And god knows that at home when seconds count police are only minutes away, but in a National park, when seconds count the park service is not likely to be anywhere around.
Ahh, I'm to think that attacking boar away!
Idiots. There was a time, long ago, when the remark by the Ranger on seeing the S&W 29 .44 Mag was "nice gun".
Sure, like violence and poaching in parks will really increase because a woman has a handgun in her purse or backpack to deal with two-legged predators, or a man with any sense is going to hunt deer with a snubby revolver? There are rape and murder cases in the parks every so often, and basically if the Rangers won't let folks defend themselves, they have to take a share of responsibility for those crimes.
If someone hunts out of season or without a license in a park, with a rifle, you've already got laws to deal with them, and you can't hardly hide a deer rifle down your pants. (Is that a .30-'06 in your pants, or are you just happy to see the Ranger?) Rifles can also be heard for long distances, which would alert the rangers to cover the roads and watch for someone trying to bring out a deer rack.
Bullsh*t, Ranger Bill. Absolute BS. The parks belong to the people, not the bureaucrats, and the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
"But a coalition of park rangers and park service retirees say the amendment could jeopardize public safety and make it more difficult to stop poaching."
There's already a public safety issue, that's adimitted to in the first paragraph. And poaching goes on anyway, the present laws certainly hav'nt stopped it. And the tree hugger rangers, who I doubt ever leave a trail or road, seldom, if ever catch them.
Do we know specifically which ranger group it was that issued this statement? I'd like to write them a letter showing them the error of their ways, but I don't want to send it to the wrong group.
Kempthorne wrote a letter today saying that the rules wil be changed: http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/KempthorneRTC.pdf
im an american soldier in afghanistan. ive defended our country for the last 11 years of my life.that is to say that ive defended our constitution for the last 11 yrs as well. i often take my family to the national and local parks.and yes i do carry everywhere i go. even the parks. this is for personal protection reasons only.both my spouse and i have full carry/concealed carry permits with the states that we have lived in.i cant even phathom the day when i or my spouse wont b carring. and as far as the government telling us that we can not carry wherever we go.i and my spouse say. prye them from our cold dead fingers. i have not risked my life for the last 11 years just to have some paper pushing burocrate tell us that we cant take full advantage of the very same constitutional rights that i took an oath to defend and even lay my life down for. to those who think that this is in any way a possitive step in the right direction,we say u need to step down from your publicly held seat,and allow some one who isnt affraid to stand there ground hold office.
Since there is no reason for any thoughtful gun owner to carry a gun in a National Park, I guess everyone who wants to do that is thoughtless. The condescension of these Park Service bureaucrats is really outrageous.
I am really thrilled to see this issue is finally gaining some traction. I have been annoying my Senators for years about it to little effect, but now both of them have signed the letter to Kempthorne and one of them is a cosponsor or Coburn's amendment (the NRA is of course responsible for getting my Senators on board, not my annoying letters).
Here is a NRA update about the issue: [url]http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3529[/url]