David904
Member
Hi,
A few days back a forumite referred us to a website in which we could express our views regarding law/policy surrounding the RKBA in the national park system.
I used their form and submitted my message. They sent me a canned response thanking me for helping their cause and how bad it would be to allow guns into the parks etc.... Anyway, being me, I couldn't let this go by and replied to their email with a rather terse reply that I was on the opposite side of the fence from them.
Anyway, this is the log of my comms with them to date. Do you think I have represented our side well and diplomatically, or am I making a hash of things?
Thanks.
*******************************
On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:32 PM, NPCA wrote:
Dear David,
Thank you for taking action to help keep sound regulations on
the books and guns OUT of our parks. Be sure to keep up to date
on this, and other park issues at http://www.npca.org .
Sincerely,
NPCA
>>> David904 6/27/2008 5:22 PM >>>
Actually, I used your form to voice my opinion that my civil rights
should NOT be infringed upon simply because I am enjoying the national
parks. I am quite certain that when the founding fathers wrote the
second amendment, they intended for us to be able to bear arms
everywhere - thus the words "shall not be infringed." I'm sorry you
are afflicted by irrational fears regarding those of us who have
passed FBI background checks. However I am offended that you would
seek to throw away freedoms that we enjoy in this great nation.
Thanks.
On Jun 30, 2008, at 10:58 AM, TakeAction wrote:
Dear Mr. David904
Thanks for taking the time to get in touch. Every comment we receive from our members is valuable and we appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts.
It is our position that the present regulations on guns in national parks are working and that they do not need to be changed. In particular, the new draft regulations would create a bureaucratic nightmare of overlapping, inconsistent rules that would be difficult to enforce. The new regulation
would compel the Park Service to let existing state regulations on concealed-carry permits in state parks apply at national parks inside those states.
That's an ill-conceived rule. Many states don't have specific regulations. Others allow concealed-carry permits to apply at some parks and not others. Many have reciprocity laws that are completely inconsistent with one another, and the most heavily visited national park in the system (Great Smoky Mountains National Park) lies on the boundary between two such states. We therefore urge the Department of the Interior to reconsider this new rule.
We are not in any sense an anti-gun or an anti-hunting organization. Our sole concern is to make sure that the national parks are protected and properly managed, and the proposed draft rule does not meet that test.
Thanks again for taking the time to bring your thoughts to my attention. We greatly appreciate the chance to clarify our position and to see if we can reach some common ground. If you have any other questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to let us know. You can also visit http://www.npca.org/media_center/fact_sheets/guns-in-the-parks.html for more information. Also, please take a look at the attached article written by the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Bear Spray vs. Bullets.
Sincerely,
Megan Cantrell
NPCA Member Services
<USFWS Bear Spray vs. Bullets.pdf>
Ms Cantrell,
I appreciate your concerns - though they are founded in irrational fear and ignorance. And please do not be offended in my use of the word, "ignorance." I am not calling you stupid. I am simply stating that your stance is based on your not having been educated on firearms, their owners, and those who choose to legally carry them for self-defense purposes.
Before I go any further, in the interest of fair disclosure, I will tell you right up front that I am a Constitutionalist. Being so, I think that concealed weapon permits are technically illegal. The second amendment, being part of the law of the land, should be all I or anyone should ever need to carry a firearm wherever I so chose - outside of private property. I feel this strongly about ALL of our rights. People tend to forget that the Bill of Rights did not confer these rights upon Americans. It simply acknowledged them as being "inalienable" and not subject to government infringement.
Can you imagine what public hue and cry there would be if we treated the first amendment the same way we did our second? How would you view the prospect of having to purchase permission from the government in the form of a permit in order for you to be able to speak your mind and criticize the government? Of course you would have to be vetted by a government appointed agency to see if you are the kind of person that should be allowed to speak openly; and then you could only exercise your right (if granted) inside the borders of you home state and/or any others that would agree to exercise a policy of reciprocity with your state's government. I could go on, but I think you get the picture that I am trying to paint.
You stated that your organization is not anti-gun nor anti-hunting in its stance. You also expressed concerns that allowing the legal carry of firearms by permit-holding persons inside the national park system would be deleterious to your efforts to protect and maintain it. Those two statements are not consistent with each other. I agree with you that our legal system has become so cumbersome that it has lost its way. We have too many laws and many of them overlap. I has gotten so confusing that one has to have earned a Juris Doctorate in order to be able to understand the laws. The problem would be rectified by the repealing of most of them and actually enforcing the laws that addressed the problems in the first place. However that is a tangent that can lead us far away from the issue here that we are addressing. The fact is that people who are owners of concealed carry permits are known to be law abiding citizens; and they are not the kind that you would really be concerned about behaving in an irresponsible or criminal manner. We do have our fools in our ranks. However, they are few and very far between.
Bear spray versus bullets. Alaskan guides don't seem to concur with your views that spray is preferable to an unloaded and secured firearm in a vehicle. In all my years of hiking and camping, I have never had a problem with bears or any other wild animals. I did have an instance where I was awakened in my hammock by the snuffling and chuffing sound of what I believe to have been a bear poking around my campsite. (Yes I had taken all the necessary precautions regarding cooking and food storage to prevent such an encounter.) I sat up and spoke in a loud voice, "NO FOOD HERE! GO AWAY!!!" And it instantly ran off into the brush and didn't return.
I have also been very fortunate not to have accidentally gotten myself between a mother and her cubs. I highly doubt that spray would help me much at that time. Nor would it help me in getting a mountain lion off my 5 year old child who, full of energy, might decide to run ahead down the trail a little bit. You do read about that sort of thing happening in California from time to time. I don't blame the mountain lion. We are on its land and it is just hunting for food. Though, I think I would take it a bit personally if it were MY child being hunted. A law or policy like the one that you are pursuing is stating that our and our children's lives are not worth protecting.
I enjoy the peacefulness and beauty of our great outdoors. And as I stated earlier, I've not run across an instance in which I needed to shoot an animal to survive - yet. And I hope I never do. I'm not a hunter. That is not a moral stance on my part. I'm simply too lazy to get out and do it, and I wasn't raised in a family that hunted. However, I have run across a few groups out in the middle of nowhere in which I chose to fade back into the brush and break or outright avoid contact because something really didn't feel right. To this day, I think that they would have done me harm if I hadn't made myself scarce. Bad people do show up even in the woods. I would like to be able to know that I can legally have the means of stacking the odds a little more favorably for me that I'll be able to go home in one piece and hold my wife and children. A criminal isn't going to be constrained by the law or policy. He or she is going to carry a gun if it is deemed to be an expedient means for their endeavors. Just because there are some bad folks out there who would do this is no excuse to pursue policy to infringe upon our civil rights.
As for the kind of person I am... I am 38, a family man with a Bachelor's degree from FSU. I am a health care professional and am currently pursuing my RN. I'm politically moderate with slight libertarian leanings.
Thank you for taking the time to read all this. I hope that it will provoke you into thinking a little more deeply on the matter. It may not change your mind, but I hope I have given you a little more insight as to many Americans' concerns.
Sincerely,
David904
A few days back a forumite referred us to a website in which we could express our views regarding law/policy surrounding the RKBA in the national park system.
I used their form and submitted my message. They sent me a canned response thanking me for helping their cause and how bad it would be to allow guns into the parks etc.... Anyway, being me, I couldn't let this go by and replied to their email with a rather terse reply that I was on the opposite side of the fence from them.
Anyway, this is the log of my comms with them to date. Do you think I have represented our side well and diplomatically, or am I making a hash of things?
Thanks.
*******************************
On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:32 PM, NPCA wrote:
Dear David,
Thank you for taking action to help keep sound regulations on
the books and guns OUT of our parks. Be sure to keep up to date
on this, and other park issues at http://www.npca.org .
Sincerely,
NPCA
>>> David904 6/27/2008 5:22 PM >>>
Actually, I used your form to voice my opinion that my civil rights
should NOT be infringed upon simply because I am enjoying the national
parks. I am quite certain that when the founding fathers wrote the
second amendment, they intended for us to be able to bear arms
everywhere - thus the words "shall not be infringed." I'm sorry you
are afflicted by irrational fears regarding those of us who have
passed FBI background checks. However I am offended that you would
seek to throw away freedoms that we enjoy in this great nation.
Thanks.
On Jun 30, 2008, at 10:58 AM, TakeAction wrote:
Dear Mr. David904
Thanks for taking the time to get in touch. Every comment we receive from our members is valuable and we appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts.
It is our position that the present regulations on guns in national parks are working and that they do not need to be changed. In particular, the new draft regulations would create a bureaucratic nightmare of overlapping, inconsistent rules that would be difficult to enforce. The new regulation
would compel the Park Service to let existing state regulations on concealed-carry permits in state parks apply at national parks inside those states.
That's an ill-conceived rule. Many states don't have specific regulations. Others allow concealed-carry permits to apply at some parks and not others. Many have reciprocity laws that are completely inconsistent with one another, and the most heavily visited national park in the system (Great Smoky Mountains National Park) lies on the boundary between two such states. We therefore urge the Department of the Interior to reconsider this new rule.
We are not in any sense an anti-gun or an anti-hunting organization. Our sole concern is to make sure that the national parks are protected and properly managed, and the proposed draft rule does not meet that test.
Thanks again for taking the time to bring your thoughts to my attention. We greatly appreciate the chance to clarify our position and to see if we can reach some common ground. If you have any other questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to let us know. You can also visit http://www.npca.org/media_center/fact_sheets/guns-in-the-parks.html for more information. Also, please take a look at the attached article written by the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Bear Spray vs. Bullets.
Sincerely,
Megan Cantrell
NPCA Member Services
<USFWS Bear Spray vs. Bullets.pdf>
Ms Cantrell,
I appreciate your concerns - though they are founded in irrational fear and ignorance. And please do not be offended in my use of the word, "ignorance." I am not calling you stupid. I am simply stating that your stance is based on your not having been educated on firearms, their owners, and those who choose to legally carry them for self-defense purposes.
Before I go any further, in the interest of fair disclosure, I will tell you right up front that I am a Constitutionalist. Being so, I think that concealed weapon permits are technically illegal. The second amendment, being part of the law of the land, should be all I or anyone should ever need to carry a firearm wherever I so chose - outside of private property. I feel this strongly about ALL of our rights. People tend to forget that the Bill of Rights did not confer these rights upon Americans. It simply acknowledged them as being "inalienable" and not subject to government infringement.
Can you imagine what public hue and cry there would be if we treated the first amendment the same way we did our second? How would you view the prospect of having to purchase permission from the government in the form of a permit in order for you to be able to speak your mind and criticize the government? Of course you would have to be vetted by a government appointed agency to see if you are the kind of person that should be allowed to speak openly; and then you could only exercise your right (if granted) inside the borders of you home state and/or any others that would agree to exercise a policy of reciprocity with your state's government. I could go on, but I think you get the picture that I am trying to paint.
You stated that your organization is not anti-gun nor anti-hunting in its stance. You also expressed concerns that allowing the legal carry of firearms by permit-holding persons inside the national park system would be deleterious to your efforts to protect and maintain it. Those two statements are not consistent with each other. I agree with you that our legal system has become so cumbersome that it has lost its way. We have too many laws and many of them overlap. I has gotten so confusing that one has to have earned a Juris Doctorate in order to be able to understand the laws. The problem would be rectified by the repealing of most of them and actually enforcing the laws that addressed the problems in the first place. However that is a tangent that can lead us far away from the issue here that we are addressing. The fact is that people who are owners of concealed carry permits are known to be law abiding citizens; and they are not the kind that you would really be concerned about behaving in an irresponsible or criminal manner. We do have our fools in our ranks. However, they are few and very far between.
Bear spray versus bullets. Alaskan guides don't seem to concur with your views that spray is preferable to an unloaded and secured firearm in a vehicle. In all my years of hiking and camping, I have never had a problem with bears or any other wild animals. I did have an instance where I was awakened in my hammock by the snuffling and chuffing sound of what I believe to have been a bear poking around my campsite. (Yes I had taken all the necessary precautions regarding cooking and food storage to prevent such an encounter.) I sat up and spoke in a loud voice, "NO FOOD HERE! GO AWAY!!!" And it instantly ran off into the brush and didn't return.
I have also been very fortunate not to have accidentally gotten myself between a mother and her cubs. I highly doubt that spray would help me much at that time. Nor would it help me in getting a mountain lion off my 5 year old child who, full of energy, might decide to run ahead down the trail a little bit. You do read about that sort of thing happening in California from time to time. I don't blame the mountain lion. We are on its land and it is just hunting for food. Though, I think I would take it a bit personally if it were MY child being hunted. A law or policy like the one that you are pursuing is stating that our and our children's lives are not worth protecting.
I enjoy the peacefulness and beauty of our great outdoors. And as I stated earlier, I've not run across an instance in which I needed to shoot an animal to survive - yet. And I hope I never do. I'm not a hunter. That is not a moral stance on my part. I'm simply too lazy to get out and do it, and I wasn't raised in a family that hunted. However, I have run across a few groups out in the middle of nowhere in which I chose to fade back into the brush and break or outright avoid contact because something really didn't feel right. To this day, I think that they would have done me harm if I hadn't made myself scarce. Bad people do show up even in the woods. I would like to be able to know that I can legally have the means of stacking the odds a little more favorably for me that I'll be able to go home in one piece and hold my wife and children. A criminal isn't going to be constrained by the law or policy. He or she is going to carry a gun if it is deemed to be an expedient means for their endeavors. Just because there are some bad folks out there who would do this is no excuse to pursue policy to infringe upon our civil rights.
As for the kind of person I am... I am 38, a family man with a Bachelor's degree from FSU. I am a health care professional and am currently pursuing my RN. I'm politically moderate with slight libertarian leanings.
Thank you for taking the time to read all this. I hope that it will provoke you into thinking a little more deeply on the matter. It may not change your mind, but I hope I have given you a little more insight as to many Americans' concerns.
Sincerely,
David904
