Should loaded, concealed guns be allowed in national parks?

Sorry but I'm a Democrat and I STILL want to keep my 2nd admendment rights! I conceal carry and taught my daughter to defend herself with a weapon at an early age. She's now 23 and has her own concealed carry permit. I don't know what planet you came from but where I live you either defend yourself or when the police arrive they tape off the crime scene and wait on the coroner! No thank you I will defend myself!! I WILL however make you a BIG sign for your front yard proclaiming your home to be a GUN FREE ZONE!! Good luck afterwards!!

first of all, this nation is pretty civilized anyways if i do say so myself, and who flippin cares if other nations laugh at us or make fun of us, thats their problem we dont need their approval for anything, the way we've run this country in the last 230 some odd years has made us into the lone super power that we are today, takin away guns wont stop gun violence, i mean what makes you think the criminals are gonna turn in their guns when the government asks them to? Families need protection against not only criminals but wild animals as well, such as bears or mountain lions

Help me understand the need to carry around a concealed weapon. Is it paranoia that one might be mugged, robbed, or something similar? Is it the feeling of being the "big man" from being armed? Is it because you live in a hell hole and are afraid of everyone around you?

Stating “you morons lost in November” and insulting citizens, by using words like moron to describe people choosing to keep their Constitutional rights, are comments made by someone who should be ignored.

The 2nd Amendment is all about a "well-ordered militia," which we later made even more effective by calling it our armed forces. There is no reason for the mass proliferation of firearms among the citizenry (many of whom are shot with their own guns). The arguments are too old to rehash here - righties hate all but one Amendment, and believe that the sanctity of life ends at birth. This is not a Constitutional issue - this is about weak people who feel they need "equalizers" in a fight (that or some kind of mechanical penis enhancement). Real men don't need guns.

Everyone should be allowed, no encouraged to bring all their guns, machine guns, anti-tank rockets, missiles and self-propelled ICBMs to the National Parks, just in case the squirrels drop acorns onto them. What kind of nonsense is this.

It makes the National Parks, havens of peace and nature, into WAR ZONES.

This is Madness!!

real men don't need guns??...right...using a gun to defend yourself against an armed robber makes you 'weak'....that make logical sense....

I love it! The all inclusive Liberal Democrat party will gladly coddle you providing you do not have one original thought outside of the playbook. I love the anger. Too bad we can not harness the power, reduce our carbon footprint, and exhaust you control freaks, take from those who do to give to those who do not, socialist, freedom hating, self centered idiots! You elitist, "I know everything and you do not", pig.

Whew. Back to the topic. Yes, I am a gun owning AMERICAN. I have subjected myself to a full background records, FBI, Medical, check to have the PRIVLEDGE to own and conceal carry a weapon unlike the RIGHT I was provided by our Constitution to protect myself from the elite sorts that want to take away our way of life. Hence, I believe someone who has LEGALLY obtained the RIGHT to own and carry should not be denied. Acoustictherapy, you may well one day be glad for the fact that American's like me have chosen responsibility over foregoing my RIGHTS though I certainly hope it never comes to that.

Finally, enjoy the time in the sun. With the likes of Pelosi, Biden, Comrade Obama, etc, your time in power may be short lived...then again, it looks like we will be the USSR of NA before the mid terms.

OK one READ THE CONSTITUTION. Also people will smugger in guns these are you are your murders rapists killers and so on. But you have people who will be carrying guns in order to protect themselves and others around them. So here is what you can do.

1. Don't allow the 2nd Armament to do what it was made for and see you on CSI as a corpse

2. Allow it and atlest be protected and have a better chances of liveing.

If you think that just because someone chooses to carry a concealed firearm they like to "feel like a big man" you're clueless! Some of us live in nice communities, however we work in the criminal justice/law enforcement field and are not living in your utopia of peace and love. If being a big man means protecting my family, then yes I hope I am a "big man". Your lucky that there are responsible firearm owners in this country, because I would bet that most that have permits to carry would step up and help you if you were being victimized.

Dave in NM - You obviously know nothing of the 2nd amendment, its intent or history. And, you're right, it's no longer a constitutional issue; the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendmend pertains to INDIVIDUAL rights so go rest easy.

As for "real men don't need guns"...... I've spent half my life in NM and 1/2 in Texas and you obviously know that your opinion is a little off the mark (unless you live in Santa Fe/Taos). We have guns because we want them or ........... (you fill in the blank). I think you may be that sweetie I saw on the streetcorner in Albuquerque last week hawking yourself to the guys.... are you???

Ha!Ha! real man.

Amen. And for those of you who think the 2nd ammendment's only function was to protect us from the armed English crown, look up posterity. The founders wrote the bill of rights, the constitution and the original ammendments for all generations. People are people and natural rights are INALIENABLE. What? You think that our government, whomever's in the white house at any given time isn't poised all big and ripe to take all the power away from us serfs? Right to bear arms in a public park? How about the right to trade intercontinental bulistic missles and keep them in the garage. Guns can't save us from our own govt at this time, and there are those of you who believe we shouldn't even have them? Read or re-read the history books about the rise and fall of free societies and governments and you'll find that you'll want to hold on to your gun.

In case there is any confusion, my full name is Christopher Bruce Deile. Sometimes I write under my middle name...Bruce. The bear attack story refers to me by my first name Chris.
________________________________________________

Anchorage Daily News; Letters to the editor (12/16/08)

Park officials use guns, so let us

Re: "Allowing Guns In Parks Doesn't Seem to Bother Alaskans" (Craig Medred, Dec. 6):
It's difficult to argue for more firearms given the horrific trauma people must experience due to gun violence, but as for allowing protection against bear attacks in national parks, this is a step in the right direction.

National park officials use firearms for bear defense but have been advising the general public to use pepper spray. This latest action by the Bush administration to allow firearms in national parks is right in that if government officials have the freedom of choice in a bear attack, citizens should too.

– Chris Deile
Bellingham, Wash.

______________________________________________________________

To the Editor: 5/9/09

[Western Front newspaper form Western Washington University]

Thank you very much for publishing my letter. However, the title--"Firearms Enhance Safety" (Western Front; 5/8/09)--is misleading in that it implies support of firearms in general. But my letter only supported firearms specifically for bear attacks. People are suffering far too much from the glorification and prevalence of guns in this culture (see 1970's YouTube video by Rita Pavone "My Name is Potato"). I think we'd be much better off like Canada and Europe, only that firearms should be allowed in Banff National Park, etc.
By the way, your editing involved a misprint....the abbreviation for Alaska is AK (not "Ala."). Also, and this was partially my mistake, a sentence should have read: "Similarly, as Glacier National Park has the most bear attacks in the contiguous U.S., GNP rangers respond with firearms."

Your revision showed that Glacier has "had" the most bear attacks, and as it followed the reference to Anchorage's numerous attacks last year, it read as though I were referring only to attacks last year in Glacier instead of over the past few decades. But a pattern of attacks has been established in GNP, and education involves not only taking precautionary measures to avoid an attack, but also, contrary to popular propaganda, that pepper spray may not be enough should one occur. Firearms should be considered as the best defense (except of course in GNP, etc., where unfortunately firearms are presently illegal).
Finally, the Anchorage Daily News article, 'A Can of Spray, A Lot of Luck' (9/29/96), describes Keith Benner and I being attacked by a brown bear along the Kenai River in Alaska and pepper spray not preventing the attack from involving a face to face encounter after the bear knocked me on my butt. It can be found in a Google search of my name, or I can write the story and submit it to the Western Front as a follow up. -- Bruce Deile

______________________________________________

Firearms enhance safety 5/8/09

In the May 5 article, 'Former Professor Working to Preserve Local Bear Population': When asked "How do you keep yourself safe while working around bears?" Chris Morgan responded that he knows bear behavior intimately and is respectful. "I don't approach them; I allow them to make the moves," Morgan said. He also mentioned bear-proof containers and pepper spray for bear safety.
It would be helpful if those doing good work for bear preservation admitted that pepper spray may not be enough to stop a charging grizzly. When Anchorage, Ala., had numerous bear attacks last year, local government wildlife officials responded with firearms, not just pepper spray. Similarly, as Glacier National Park had the most bear attacks in the contiguous U.S., rangers responded with firearms. Yet, since firearms are prohibited at the park, the general public is advised to use pepper spray.
This double standard was a big reason why George Bush enacted a federal law allowing firearms in national parks before he left office.
After Barack Obama was elected, that law was immediately ruled unconstitutional purportedly because environmental concerns were not given proper scrutiny. Practically speaking, this means the issue most likely will be shelved indefinitely as people continue to be mauled at Glacier National Park.
As difficult as it is to argue for firearms given the horrific trauma caused by gun violence, allowing firearms in national parks, specifically in this instance for bear defense, was a step in the right direction.
Remember world famous bear photographer Michio Hoshino? A grizzly killed and ate him in his tent on the Kamchtka Peninsula in Russia. And like Chris Morgan, Hoshino loved, respected and knew bears intimately. Yet his tragic death showed bears will, at times, kill indiscriminately. Hopefully, Chris Morgan will include in his talk this Friday the warning that pepper spray may not be enough to stop a charging grizzly.

Bruce Deile
Bellingham homeless resident

bicfj,if you know people with ICBM's,grenade launchers and machine guns and they're not military you're hangin' with the wrong crowd. I know a lot of people with guns and carry permits,they've never shot anyone. It's funny schools used to have gun clubs and shooting matches and it wasn't a problem until the last 30 years or so.

where is the media about nancy pelosi and her calling our cia liars and that she told the truth the whole truth put her on trial now.......under oath and see if she still will stick to this tale....

Minan59- what's the point? Reason doesn't enter into your attitude

There are many of us who still believe in the Constitution.

Please visit www.campaignforliberty.com

The whole purpose of the second amendment was to provide the american citizen the means of killing politicians. It was to allow a revolt to be made by an armed populace.

Judging from the tremendous increase in guns sales and ammunition sales over the last months, I would think there's a lot more people in the country who are suddenly locked and loaded. So much the better for them if there is some criminal impeding on their home, even better if it's the state impeding on their home without the rule of law behind it.

That is the true reason we have the second amendment. And, no, I don't have a gun.

Homeless people, the majority of whom are categorized mentally ill by the ruling class, are thereby denied the right to legal gun ownership. Thus the *plutocrat* minority are the only ones able to excercise their second amendment rights. Meanwhile, children are being shot in the head for stepping onto someone's private property in Texas, etc. All so that the privileged few can enjoy their security while possessing the best arsenal. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Freedom and liberty? For who? Besides, homeless people could never compete in a nuclear arms race. See my opinion piece--'American Roadkill'. It's found through Google search of "Bruce Diele" (a misspelling of my last name).

another reason why Texas should suseed from the union.

Hmmmm.  One of the things that makes bad people bad is that they don't care about the law or doing things legally.  Whether this bill passes or not, the bad guys are still going to break the law and carry concealed and not-so-concealed weapons pretty much anywhere they damn well please.

Kumbaya.

Second Amendment huggers???

Rather an odd use of words?

GUN CONTROL is being able to hit your target.

Any intelligent person would know that the "BAD GUYS" can't legally carry a gun at ANYTIME, and don't care if they can, as for using our brains, we are, that's why this is a good thing, so you (maybe not you, but someone else who's armed) can protect "YOUR FAMILY" ( doesn't seem much of a priority to you though), and pertaining to the WildWest comment, AMERICA has only been invaded 3 times (REV. War, War of 1812, & WWII Aleutions), guns have kept us SPEAKING ENGLISH & not a Different Language (or as you called it a different civilized language.

So you think it's okay for the bad guys, but the good guys shouldn't have access.

Wayne I don't normally get personal, do have to say, that 's fuzzy thinking.

AcousticTherapy, there are OVER 6 Million JEWISH REASONS that are over 60 yreas old as to how well "GUN CONTROL" works, maybe you'ld also like to ask any of the Joseph Stalin Russians as well, and YES, CHILDREN where often VICTIMS of these GUN CONTROL Proponents, I must agree with WCE though, GUN CONTROL is hitting your target, REPEATEDLY!!!.

Well this 2nd amendment hugger, also hugs the rest of them. If you lose number 2 you will lose the rest of them over time and while I do respect your right of free speech, and your right to vote and your right to disagree with me. I would just ask that you let me protect my family from harm, and if necessary, I would like the right to fight for your rights with a firearm if that day should ever come up.

I agree with Jerry. People who brake laws are always going to brake laws. Whether they can or can't carry a gun in a national park is irrelevant. They can still kill you with a knife, rape your wife or children with a knife or do these things with their own physical strength. ME I'm going to carry a gun!!

I wish people would quit with the "now bad guys can carry guns" with pro-gun laws.  It is against the law everywhere for bad guys to carry guns.  Bad guys carry guns regardless of any law on the books.  That is why we have the 2nd admendment people.  It is for us law abiding citizens to protect ourselves against the bad guys.

What prevented these bad guys you refer to from bringing in their guns before? Was it the law? Somehow you think that the bad guys would suddenly be concerned about that right? Look, I'm all for having guns off the streets. I think we'd all be safer but ask yourself if that's truly possible in this day and age. How many guns are out there now? How many in the hands of criminals who won't turn them in when their supposed to? How then do you propose we clear out every single weapon then? I don't see a way to achieve that. So now you can either restrict honest people from carrying them and have a society that's unprotected from it's criminal element (except for AFTER a crime, when the police show up) or you can allow virtually anyone 18 or older to own and carry a gun anywhere they please. In which scenario are the honest citizens safer? Seriously. And this shouldn't be a 2nd Ammendment issue either. That debate is so old and there are so many different interpretations it's sickening. We can read what it says in a literal sense but the concept that the framers seemed to be proposing was that the people that make up our nation, should never be without an ability to fight off not only other oppressive nations, but also our own government should it become tyranical. That means we need the ability to consider revolution again if necessary. That means that non-governmental people, individually, or by group or other orgaization, need to have access to sufficient arms to acieve that. I don't like the idea of guns in our parks but understand, they're already there, in the hands of the bad guys who don't care what you and I think. The question is do you want to be allowed to bring your own to deal with them if you and your family are confronted by them or would you prefer to take your chances and hope for the best? That's the real question here.

so now the bad guys can carry guns legally in the parks..? what's the logic in that..?

you second ammendment huggers need to use your brains.."

********************************************************

Goodness are you for real? Since when have criminals needed permission to carry guns, knives, baseball bats, or any other weapon ANYWHERE!! The ONLY people who don't carry weapons in these National Parks now are the law abiding citizens. They're the ones who NEED a law to BE ABLE to carry their concealed carry weapons there.

I didn't realize that our Constitutional Rights were dependent upon what "bad guys" or anyone else did?

Nora

You poor misinformed woman, this law only allows CWP holders who have been granted a permit by their state to carry a concealed weapon in the parks. It's still against the law for someone without a CWP to carry a firearm in a park. I know you anti-gun nut-bags never let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

More like Freedom and Constitution hugger

Remember the pursuit of happiness - I'm most happy when I can bear arms.

Just continue to carry un-loaded.......I bet most real gun owners can load faster than the criminal can run......lol....lol

The anti's are so living in a "protected" world. If they only knew...

I like how simple minded people try to differentiate between "good" and "bad" people to make this point. The fact is that there are no "good" or "bad" people, there is only the law and people that have decided to break the law.

By giving someone a gun, you are givinig that person a means to commit murder. I know that there are backwards people stuck in the mentality that, "well I'm a good person, so I'll only shoot the bad people!" But watch what happens when you're drunk, or someone shoves your girlfriend way too hard, or you're scared and a strange man approaces you. Suddenly you become the bad guy that comitted murder.

And when someone rapes and kills your daughter why you are forced to watch. Would you want a gun then. There are good and bad people, they have to make the choice which they will be. And guns can protect you from the ones who choose to be bad. Of course I am sure you think that would be the job of the police but for some reason they seem hard to find at times.

It's obvious that you are a dope. "Bad Guys" are forbidden by law to purchase. own, or carry firearms. The fact that the law doesn't work is the subject of a different discussion. Another fact is that people do get killed by animals. I don't think it's a stretch to say that I have a right to protect myself from something that could easily kill many people in one encounter. Whoever suggested that "real men" don't carry guns should step into a cage with any wild animal in a bad mood. I'd like to be there to watch the "real man" crap his pants before getting eaten.

And now we will have one fewer way to arrest them. Yippy for gun lovers.

Dave in NM...I am not sure I follow you? One fewer way to arrest who, the bad guys?? By definition, the bad guy, opps, PERSON, will be arrested if they act in such a manner as to break a law and are eventually caught.

This is the Greatest Country if for no other reason we are able to have this debate! Regardless of where you stand, even if you are liberal, we are all great Americans.

Yes Dave, now there will be one less law to arrest gun-toting criminals with. And such a tragedy that is, since all of the other laws on the subject work so well don't they? Perhaps there's another answer which makes more sense hmm?

Convicted felons cannot carry guns legally. If you find one, you can have him arrested. If you are unarmed, may I film the encounter?

So Dave in NM wants to arrest the bears and mountains lions?

Dave in NM doesn't visit Natl. Forests very often I don't think. We have rogue black bears and mtn. lions kill campers/hikers every year. Rarely do you hear of people being attacked by other people. Carrying a whistle or a bell just doesn't cut it. I would rather break the law and carry a gun illegally than wish I had one if confronted by a pissed off wild animal that wants to eat me! I'm talking serious backcountry where you don't see a soul for days, not your tourist ridden forest areas.

With guns we can shoot each other.

Without guns we actually have to talk with each other.

bicfj,

You cant reason with scum. Where have you been all your life?

Before GUNS we just used a SWORD....then Bow n Arrows.....etc... DA

You'd go walk the dog with a loaded firearm?

Why not just get a bigger dog?

This is the most rediculous debate ever. Fewer guns means less access to guns. Repeal the 2nd amendment and get rid of all of them.

Are you serious.  Why punish law abiding citizens.  The scum bags of the world will always have access to guns. 

And then of course criminals will be the only ones to have guns. Won't that be a great way to live, or not as the case may be? I am a legal gun owner who is responsible and law-abiding and am currently licensed to have a concealed handgun. I should also point out that I am trained in the laws that cover having a CCW and the proper use of the weapon. Would you rather have me standing at your side or some violent crominal with an illegal weapon and bad intentions for you and your family?

I'll be the camper having a great time 3 tents down from you, safely and with the security of knowing my family and I are much safer than you or yours.

I also carry a shotgun when I walk my dogs in certain areas. We have these things here called RATTLESNAKES. Anyone in law enforcement will also tell you that the best weapon for home defense is that same shotgun not a pistol. This is not about the second amendment.

However as far as the National park system is concerned the guns need to stay out. I go to Yosemite and Yellowstone to see the wildlife there. the last thing I need is some moron taking potshots at the bison or bear that got too close to his car or camper. There are already too many problems in the parks caused by people doing stupid things without being armed. Feeding bears, not storing food properly, trying to get real close to the deer or bison for the perfect photo and so on.

Thanks, for being sensible, keeping the discussion on topic. While most fall into their usual pro/anti gun rants.

Paul, You hit hit it square on the head. Reread the article folks, even though it was poorly written. It says you may carry (concealed) as long as it is permitted in the state you are in. Anyone has always been able to carry a weapon in their vehicle, unloaded and out of easy access (the trunk). If you are on vacation, what are you going to do, mail the weapon to a town on the far side of the park (would entail a weapons transfer between two FFL dealers). This law simply means that if you have a valid CCW permit, you can legally carry a concealed weapon in the parks, just as you can in Miami, Boise, and any other city in states that have concealed carry laws. It does not mean that you can carry an AK over your shoulder and shoot every rabid squirrel you encounter. There is no hunting in National Parks I believe, so if anyone discharges a weapon, they'd better be ready to answer for it. It's really just making laws in effect in any other part of a given state, the same for the parks. There was an instance here in Florida where a man was busted for posession of a weapon in a park. He was traveling with his family on a highway that cut through the park and was pulled over for a traffic violation. He told the officer he had a permit and was carrying, but because it was in a national park, he was busted. That was just one of the little inequities of the previous laws. And for those with the polyana views of life, violent crime in the park system has been increasing at a substantial rate in the last couple of decades, so this law is one worth having. For those unfamiliar with the CCW permits, they entail a hefty fee, a background and records check, fingerprinting, and a class on the does, don'ts, and responsibilities of carrying a concealed weapon in public. You have a lot more to be wary of in the parks than responsible gun owners, from Peter the pervert to a really pissed off grizzly. Or mountain lions. I heard from my brother they're snacking on Californians quite regularly.

National parks are Federal land not State land. They are regulated by the Department of the Interior. Seems to me this law is saying that, even if your State has laws against carrying concealed weapons, it won't matter.

kmom..............this law makes the national park rules match the rules of the surrounding state lands. If the state permits conceiled carry you can carry conceiled in the park if the state does not permit conceiled carry you cannot carry in the park.

I frequently travel thru Hot Springs Arkansas, if you are driving south or walking down the sidewalk on the southbound side you are on private/city property if you are driving north or walking on the northbound sidewalk you are on national park property. This law makes it possible for CCW permit holders to legaly walk from one side of the street to the other without danger of being arrested. Incidently most of the public restrooms I am aware of are on the national park side of the street.

G.H. I respectfully ask that you see my earlier post and tell me how I'm too resolve this issue. If you are against firearms possession in general...fine. But how can the law abiding gun owner ensure that he or she is in compliance if the law makes one legal one moment and illegal the next in the course of daily activity?

I couldn't tell you that, Paul, unless you should walk your dog elsewhere. I am not judging you. I am only saying (as a retired Park Ranger), that guns in National Parks should not be allowed. I also realize things can happen which we don't expect, but I don't think guns can always *fix* it. I own a rifle, a shotgun, and a semi-auto .22, so no, I am not against gun rights. Just right to guns, in National Parks. My opinion only, same as you.

You've obviously never had to climb a tree to get away from a cow moose or a grizzly bear. I've had to climb trees a couple of times (once in Yellowstone, once in Glacier) to get away from bears.

I'm not saying I would have necessarily have opened fire, but its really nice to have the option as I'm don't climb trees as well as I used to.

The general public would be surprised to know just how many thousands of legal concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders carry their weapons - without incident - each day. Antigun activist's predictions of wild west shootouts between permit holders on the streets has not materialized, even though CCW is common in the majority of the U.S.. By and large, CCW permit holders are among the most law abiding citizens in this country. All have to pass background checks to apply for their permits, must demonstrate proficiency with their weapons, and since all CCWs realize just how precarious their armed status is, go much out of their way to avoid situations that would put them in conflict with law enforcement. In light of this, I find it curious that a retired park ranger would be against law abiding people lawfully carrying a weapon for self defense in remote areas where law enforcement personnel are few and far between. Debate on this and related issues should be fact and logic based, rather than based on emotion and spleen.

Well, as I said above, I am a retired Park Ranger, and nothing like that ever happened to me. Bears can climb trees too, as can big cats.

Mr Ex-Ranger says that if guns are outlawed in National Parks

1. Only Rangers and criminals will have them
2. Criminals and people will give their guns up when entering National Parks so only Rangers will have them
3. There will be no guns in National Parks. Citizens, Rangers and criminals will leave them home.

Which answer, Mr Ranger? Notice how I avoided the word 'civilian'?

G.H. - Is it safe to say that if a hiker or camper were in danger, a Park Ranger would be nearby to assist? And if they are not, should the Park system and Park Rangers be held liable for not insuring the safety of hikers or campers? My only problem is people will easily say that the general public doesn't need to have a gun for protection, but they're certainly not willing to put their money where there mouth is.

G.H......................see my post above about Hot Springs, Arkansas and Hot Springs National Park.

In a Police-State, the police, (or park rangers) tell the citizens whether or not they can have guns, and if so, what kind, and how they must carry them, what ammunition they are allowed to have, etc.

Our nation is not a Police State - so the citizens tell the police (or park rangers) whether or not they can have guns, and if so, what kind, and how they must carry them, what ammunition they are allowed to have, etc.

That is one reason our nation remains a far safer and more stable one than many others around the world. We founded it with the notion that an 'elite ruling class', protected by a standing army, was a really bad idea. The freedom has costs - the freedom to drive kills thousands of individuals yearly, the freedom to consume alcohol, smoke tobacco, skydive, etc., ALL carry a risk. When it comes to "guns in parks" the so-called "risk" is minuscule compared to the benefit that opponents of concealed carry resort to all kinds of distortion and exaggeration in order to frighten the public.

The bottom line is, what imaginary 'right' do individuals who irrationally fear guns have to endanger other more rational individuals by forcing them to surrender their safety and ability to protect themselves? Is this the same SICK LOGIC that the Virginia Tech administrators used to prohibit concealed carry there - that it would make students and faculty "FEEL safer"? It isn't about "feeling" safe - it is about BEING safe, and the facts simply do not support the anti-gun fanatic rhetoric.

Years ago only a few states allowed concealed carry, and without exception, every time another state adopts concealed carry, two things happen: 1. Hoplophobes crawl out of the woodwork, and predict mass murders over parking spaces, police being overpowered, and massive increases in crime. AND 2. After a couple of years, the state has a decrease in crime. Don't you people ever learn? It's happened in something like 47 states now - are the last three going to 'prove' gun carrying is so awful as to reverse the experience of the other 47? Are "FEDERAL parks" somehow different than "STATE parks" or "CITY parks" or "shopping malls" or "libraries" or "hardware stores" or any of the OTHER places where CCW has failed to produce the blood-and-guts you keep predicting?

The Constitution does not speak of individual, unorganized, uncontrolled gun ownership. I suggest you read it if you're going to wave it around.

Actually, the Supreme court in a 5-4 ruling agrees with Dusty-1112636. Perhaps you should re-read the document yourself.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

Actually, the ammendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, yes it does speak to the individuals rights shall not be infringed.

It seems pretty clear that the idea was to encourage widespread, anonymous, gun ownership of defensive small arms comparable to what the military would be equipped with - else how exactly would the militia be effective? As far as the term "regulated" - a "well-regulated" thing was considered one which was of quality, precision, accuracy - NOT a thing which was bureaucratically micro-managed.

I guess you could say the Constitution does not speak of "individual, unorganized, uncontrolled" speech, or religion, or property ownership, either.

Besides, any question about the 'intent' is easily resolved by reading the contemporary debates surrounding the wording and inclusion of the Bill of Rights, and numerous well-documented publications on this topic exist. Despite what Oprah says, the Second Amendment wasn't just added on for the heck of it so's Bubba could go shoot him a big deer every Thanksgiving, as long as he used a "legitimate sporting firearm" that didn't have too many sticky-outy-thingies on it like magazines, grips, muzzle brakes, or <gasp> bayonet lugs.

That is what the law says. Not just anyone will be permitted to carry in the parks. Just concealed weapons permit holders. That is not a large group of people and the permit requires some effort to obtain. Extra background checks, testing etc.

The sad part is that even Democrats feel they have to support this idiocy because somehow loving guns is associated with strength, while not needing them is considered weakness. Oh, the right wing and their ass-backward logic. War is peace, freedom is slavery.......

Well at one time I was an instructor on the pistol range at MCS Quantico Va.

I think I have as good a feel for weapons as most, better than some.

I can also tell you, that as some one , who had to open the plant up at 4:00am, in the near west side of Chicago, that I would have quit that job, before I would have done it, with out a weapon.

I suspect it saved my life once and I know it did once in the 5.5 years I did that.

It's not necessarily the crime I'm worried about in a National Park, its some of the wildlife. I have a .357 Magnum I carry whenever I go outdoors. Rattlesnakes, Bears, Moose, Wolves, all can be a hazard. I don't go out looking to kill something, but if some wild animal decides to attack its nice to have the OPTION to do something about it.

I'm not aware of any increase in the crime rate in National Parks so I can't imagine what problem this legislation is aimed at solving

The issue is states rights verses federal law. As an example Wyoming is a state that allows concealed carry but Yellowstone Park does not. Yellowstone takes up a big chunk of Wyoming so the state of Wyoming is saying (not a real quote) “in our state we allow our citizens to carry and we want our citizens to be able to carry in all of Wyoming”.

That is where the issue started, so it is only partly about crime, the other part of it is states rights.

The amendment only affects parks within the states that allow citizens to carry firearms. If the park is within a state that does not allow citizens to carry, then it would be illegal to carry a firearm in that particular park.

Dave in NM

That psuedo psychology has a hard exterior but is soft and mushy inside. It's half-baked.

Part of the problem they are trying to solve is the patchwork of laws that could inadvertantly make a law abiding citizen a criminal because he happened to be driving on a road that is part of the NPS system. Even though he has a state issued concealed weapons permit or license, just because he unknowingly drove on an NPS road, he's now a criminal. I don't know of any state that has roads dedicated to circling around a national park in the event you happen to be legally carrying a firearm.

"The sad part is that even Democrats feel they have to support this idiocy because somehow loving guns is associated with strength, while not needing them is considered weakness. "

I've had to take help rape victims put back the mental and physical pieces of their lives after assaults, and those women obviously needed guns, even if they didn't realize it, or disliked guns, at the time. They were strong enough to survive their attacks, but most of them have not been STUPID enough to go back out in the world assuming that guns are only for nasty, macho, men, and that decent people stay away from them. If you doubt it, try to assault one of them sometime, and they might show you their gun!

To borrow a quote I heard: Remember, when seconds count, the authorities are only minutes away.

It will ruin you day to need it and not have it.

You're absolutely right. The problem isn't criminals bringing guns in. We have assured such a glut of firearms in this country that it would take decades of rational gun policy to get the numbers down, so the criminals will be well-stocked no matter what. The problem is not career criminals, it's yokels who start out law-abiding, then get drunk and disorderly. Those folks might leave their guns at home but for laws like this (though I wouldn't count on it). Now we're just giving them something more to play with during the second 12-pack of Pabst.

I don't know all state laws but in Missouri if you're caught intoxicated with a firearm you get a criminal charge and lose your CCW,it might be a felony so you lose the right to even own a gun. I believe that's a law in most states. The people I know with a CCW are very careful not to cause trouble,as are most.

It is. Read the article. It says they may be carried in parks, in states that allow it.

Jim #18.2, When you go to the parks, do the rangers open your trunk and inspect it and the interior of the car. I doubt it. nor do they do it to the millions that visit the parks every year. And i would be willing to bet that 20% or better had a firearm somewhere in the vehicle, hopefully locked and stored properly. And remember, criminals, dirtbags and rapists take vacations just like you and me.

Sometimes they do.

As you acknowledge, the actual "well-armed militia" (i.e. the U.S. military) could take you, EVEN WITH the guns you believe in.

Besides - most gun lovers would side with the Bushes.

Dave, it most really bum you out that the gun lovers appear to include the current Prez and V Prez.

HEY DAVE

remember waco texas the jack booted thugs who got put in body bags(the ATF) DONT FCK WITH TEXAS

Dave, the well armed Militia referred to in the 2nd Ammendment, isn't the military. See my previous post for a better view,

There is a big difference between a military carpet-bombing an enemy nation, destroying infrastructure, and indiscriminantly killing citizens - it doesn't exactly create good-will - and a military having to control and dominate a society. Just look at our recent 'conflicts' and even in foreign nations we can't do that without ill-will and danger. It would be hard to get our own military to 'occupy' our own nation in this manner without serious morale problems and without serious public opposition building, which would render the process moot. Controlling and Destroying are two very different things.

Dave in NM.......

you'll have to look it up, but its law, the US military cannot stand agianst its own citizens, so they won't be "taking us out"

diditagain, you might want to check more closely on that. It used to be the law but not to long ago I believe they passed some amendment that changed the wording of it. Also it does not protect us from the govt. having foreign troops attack us on our own soil and Bush I believe made an agreement with Canada which would allow their troops to come down and trounce on us in case of a civil uprising.

Dave, there are some 80 MILLION gun owners in the U.S., many former military and Law Enforcement.

There are barely 150,000 actual infantry-type shooters in the U.S. military, the vast majority are so-called "support elements" that do not routinely carry arms, or train as assault forces.

There are a few hundred aircraft capable of attacking ground targets.

Given that all military personnel took an oath to "support and defend the Contsitution" and many or most would do so while ignoring UnConstitutional orders, would you care to make a reassesment of your statement?