National Parks Gun Ban Unconstitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.

beaucoup ammo

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
1,216
Location
San Antonio
Editorial from today's San Antonio Express News:

Jerry Patterson: National parks gun ban unconstitutional

Web Posted: 05/27/2008 11:34 PM CDT

Special to the San Antonio Express-News
Recent displays of my Second Amendment rights have earned some harsh words from editorial writers at some of Texas' big city newspapers, including the San Antonio Express-News.

I've been criticized for acknowledging I carried a concealed handgun, as is my right, on recent visits to Big Bend National Park. A National Park Service rule prohibits carrying a loaded, concealed handgun.

“Evidently, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson was absent from school the day the Constitution was covered,” wrote the San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board.

While that's an awfully cute jab, the reality is I've learned the Constitution over the course of a lifetime – not just one day. I've taken oaths to uphold and protect our Constitution – as a U.S. Marine and as a state elected official.

So look at the facts.

The ban on loaded firearms in National Park is not a law. It is a rule enacted by unelected bureaucrats of the National Park Service. There was no legislative process — these bureaucrats arbitrarily terminated this Constitutional right.

Fortunately, the clearly unconstitutional National Park Service rules on possessing firearms in federal parks are changing. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne recently proposed new rules that would respect state firearm laws and the Second Amendment.

Nonetheless, some editorial boards oppose allowing citizens the right to self-defense. Law-abiding Texans, they say, can't be trusted with guns and don't need them in the park, anyway, because no one else can have a gun.

On a recent hike in Big Bend, I found two expended 9mm shell casings, along with a discarded pack of Mexican cigarettes. The Texas Department of Public Safety ballistics lab confirmed two different weapons fired these casings. How could this be? There are no guns in Big Bend, because that's the rule, right?

Tell that to the rafters who were ambushed and killed several years ago in an area adjacent to the Big Bend known as Colorado Canyon. Tell that to the woman whose body, suffering from blunt force trauma to the head, was found floating in five feet of water at Amistad National Recreation Area.

In 2006, the most recent year available for statistics, the National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks. That includes 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults.

With the increasingly violent criminal activity along the Texas-Mexico border, carrying a firearm in remote areas along the border, including Big Bend National Park, is a choice every citizen should have.

Express-News editorial writers assert the current proposal to rescind the ban on lawfully carried firearms in national parks is a “solution in search of a problem.” But the problem is very real.

Americans are guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms. That right is unassailable and inviolate. To rescind that right when one crosses an arbitrary boundary into a national park is an unconstitutional act no different than rescinding our Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.

As an elected official, I take an oath that I will “to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.”

I do not regard such affirmations as anachronistic formalities. I guess you can call me an old-fashioned believer in the wisdom of those who penned the Bill of Rights and not much of a believer in the wisdom of editorial boards."
 


Jerry Patterson, while a Texas State Senator, lead the fight that finally got us the right to carry a concealed handgun. He's refused to sell the feds Christmas Mountain area until the National Park Service changes its rule. I'd prefer to see Congress enact a law making firearms possession legal, either open or concealed.
 
Makes me wonder if a Floridian sneakin' into Tejas to vote for that guy would be considered an 'illegal'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
"With the increasingly violent criminal activity along the Texas-Mexico border, carrying a firearm in remote areas along the border, including Big Bend National Park, is a choice every citizen should have."

Truer words were never spoken. It is genuinely dangerous to be in the middle of nowhere in the vast expanse of scrub and back roads near the border here in South Texas.

Ranching, photo shoots, whatever your reason for being in this neck of the woods unarmed is unadvisable.
 
God bless Texas. I keep hoping he'll run for governor and get Rick (never met a Trans Texas Corridor I didn't like) Perry out next time.

Springmom
 
Jerry Patterson for Thomas Sowell's VP! (See other thread re: Thomas Sowell).

I'll make sure to vote for Mr. Patterson whenever he runs for office.
 
The ban on loaded firearms in National Park is not a law. It is a rule enacted by unelected bureaucrats of the National Park Service. There was no legislative process — these bureaucrats arbitrarily terminated this Constitutional right.

So what is the penalty for violating this "rule?" What can they really do to you if caught by a ranger in the park with a loaded gun in your car?
 
If one would take the Constitution literally and in its original intent, there would be no National Parks. Article I, Section 8 lists the only pieces of property that fall under Federal jurisdiction and parks are not mentioned. Per the 10th Amendment, National Parks should be State Parks.
 


colinthepilot said:
So what is the penalty for violating this "rule?" What can they really do to you if caught by a ranger in the park with a loaded gun in your car?

Federal "rules" are treated as having the force of law. You can be arrested, charged and convicted. Congress has wimped out with several areas such as the National Park Service, Postal Service*, etc, and given them the authority to make rules which are then treated as law.

*CFRs are where the "rules" are listed.
 
Congress has wimped out with several areas such as the National Park Service, Postal Service*, etc, and given them the authority to make rules which are then treated as law.
Actually, I believe all federal agencies are given the authority by Congress to make necessary rules and regulations to carry out their mandate. State agencies operate the same way.
 
Family members and survivors of those murdered or hurt by criminals should be able to sue the state for removing their rights to protect themselves.
 
Actually, carrying in National Parks should be applauded; so long as the
person holds a valid CCW license from his/her state of residence and has
passed the N.R.A. Handgun Safety Course. I know my vote don't really
matter; but I offer as an example the following received from a hiker
recently hiking in The Great Smokey Mountains National Park near
Gatlinburg, Tennessee. He told me he was deep into the woods, not
far from Clingmans Dome fly fishing when he encountered a big four
legged cat; believed too be a black panther. He had caught several
fish, and the large cat was attracted to his catch. Luckily, he was
armed with small Walther P-22; and was able to dispatch the big
cat as he came near his point. Too his knowledge, no one ever
heard the weapon discharge; and NO U.S. Park Ranger came to
the scene. If he had not had his weapon with him, no one knows
for sure what the outcome may have been~? :scrutiny: ;)

Another example from the same area, many years ago a local police
officer was a suspect in the disappearance of his girl-friend and her
five year old daughter. As the story goes, the trio traveled to The
Great Smokey Mountains National Park where the girl-friend and
the baby vanished without a trace~! The officer was interviewed
several times over by various agencies; but was never charged
with a crime. Now, just suppose an idiot that had criminal intent
rolled into your camp; the perp arrives too dispose of a body, but
instead encounters you. Are you going too be his next victim~?
I think not~! As the ole' saying goes, "Its better too be tried by
12, than carried by 6.
 
Federal "rules" are treated as having the force of law. You can be arrested, charged and convicted. Congress has wimped out with several areas such as the National Park Service, Postal Service*, etc, and given them the authority to make rules which are then treated as law.

The Federal Aviation Regulations are also listed in the CFR's. They only carry administrative penalties, i.e. suspension or revokation of your Airman's Certificate (Pilot license). I wasn't sure if Smokey the Bear could actually arrest you or just kick you out of his park.
 
I like this guy, too, but he sure does have some big brass ones to openly admit carrying in a national park in a newspaper. Someone needs to have told him that even though they are just "rules", they can be federally enforced by law as csmkersh pointed out.
 
Interesting story about the big cat. As a mountain biker, I am keenly aware of the risk of cougars/mountain lions particularly if you are habitual about your hobby (ride the same trail at the same time every day etc.).

However I don't think it was a "black panther", since those most likely do not exist in North America and even if they do, they most likely cannot be easily stopped with a .22. I guess if you fired a P22 point blank into the animal's head you may kill it. From wikipedia:

"This "black couguar" was most likely a margay or ocelot, which are under forty pounds in weight, live in trees, and occur in a melanistic phase."

a 40 lb Ocelot could be much more easily dispatched with a P22. An adult cougar is 100-150 lb and would be tough to stop with a P99 even if you could hit it.

It's a good point though. The four-legged variety of risk in national parks is likely just as prevalent and reason enough to carry in a national park. I am not sure I'd want to be in Big Bend without a pistol.
 
An adult cougar is 100-150 lb and would be tough to stop with a P99 even if you could hit it.

Wow. I would hope that I could hit it. And if all I had was a .22, I would still try.

The funniest thing about what you said up there? Guys I know that have hunted cougars, have shot them with .22 rifles to avoid messing up the pelt with a bigger caliber. Still killed them. Not that big a deal.
 
Ala Dan,

Actually, carrying in National Parks should be applauded; so long as the
person holds a valid CCW license from his/her state of residence and has
passed the N.R.A. Handgun Safety Course.

Herein lies the problem. Living in Los Angeles CA It's nearly impossible to get a "valid CCW license from his/her state of residence ". I do have avalid Utah and Florida permit. The allow me to carry legally in 2/3 of the US. CCW fine but to be "residential" issue is an issue with me. I'm still by your definition excluded.
 
I do not regard such affirmations as anachronistic formalities. I guess you can call me an old-fashioned believer in the wisdom of those who penned the Bill of Rights and not much of a believer in the wisdom of editorial boards.

Amen, except there's nothing old-fashioned about believing the English language means what it says.
 
see, i actually dont like this law... and here is why...

why do we keep letting the states have jurisdiction over a law that should be the exclusive domain of the federal government???

so far as i have read, there are NO mentions of national parks in the constitution... so why is it ok for states to restrict the FEDERAL constitution in them.... and we see this as a victory???


what we need is a government that will stand up and say "the bill of rights is an absolute federal doctrine, you states DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to make ANY laws regarding them"

im all for states rights... but only in cases where the people and the federal government arent already specifically mentioned... and to me, possession and carrying of guns is a protected right OF THE PEOPLE!!!

and rights of the people should be held valid no matter what state they are in... there is already a law that deals with national parks and guns...
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.

and it is quite clear
 
"so why is it ok for states to restrict the FEDERAL constitution in them"

I don't know what you mean, mekender. You do realize we are talking about a federal rule, not a state law, don't you? Texas has no ability to make it "legal" to carry in a National Park. The federal agency made this rule, and did not ask Texas. Texas is not restricting the Second Amendment in this case, the Park Service is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top