Comments: 25
1. KEN BARNES September 11, 2008 2:52 PM
Unbelieveable! The reason to carry firearms into National Parks is to protect against violent crime. Doesn't our representatives realize that most violent crime comes as a result of the use of firearms? It again appears taht MONEY wins over common sense. One of the reasons I have always enjoyed hiking in National Parks is that i KNEW that I would not be mamed or killed as a result of some person with a firearm. Not all things change.
2. Freedom4All September 11, 2008 3:47 PM
I guess it's not enough for Democrats to sponsor a bill that would repeal D.C.'s gun laws beyond the requirements of the Heller decision (including legalizing the open carry of assault weapons in public in the city). They had to round out their week by approving this latest insane proposal from the NRA. With all their talk about "standing up to special interests," the question is quickly becoming - What is the difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to doing the bidding of the gun lobby, even when they know it is endangering the lives of their constituents? I'm not sure I can tell anymore...
3. Nancy Coppock September 11, 2008 5:06 PM
Ken, I wonder how you were able to "know" that you would never have been a victim of a violent crime before people were legally allowed to have guns in our national parks? Under your logic, D.C. should have been the safest city in the country. Bears go where there are pic a nic baskets, Boo Boo. Killers go where there are defenseless people. I get the creeps when I see the "defenseless people inside" sign.
4. rick September 11, 2008 5:11 PM
the next step i suppose is to expand the D.C. gun law to every state that allows gun ownership. using our 'representatives' logic that would 'take a bite' out of violent crime! who needs police when we have the nra and congress. being as we are, supposedly, going to send a 'freshman' president to the white house, why not do some homework and send a freshman congress and senate too! can't get much worse! peace to all.
5. Brendan September 11, 2008 6:35 PM
I've never had my car searched driving into a national park. If you're going to be sleeping in a tent in a campground full of people you don't know, you may as well be allowed to pack, because who knows if your neighbor is. Gun laws don't prevent violent crime. All they do is make sure that law-abiding, responsible citizens are unarmed.
6. whistle September 11, 2008 11:08 PM
People ought to be free.
7. Rob September 11, 2008 11:51 PM
"Doesn't our representatives realize that most violent crime comes as a result of the use of firearms?" "One of the reasons I have always enjoyed hiking in National Parks is that i KNEW that I would not be maimed or killed as a result of some person with a firearm." The fundamental flaw in your argument is that a criminal, who isn't law-abiding by nature, is suddenly going to give up the life of crime because there's a firearm restriction on a national park. Don't get me wrong, you seem like a genuinely nice person. There are people out there, however, that know you're not packing. They'll treat you like an ATM, where a gun is their debit card and your wallet is their money. The laws that you believe protect your safety are a signal to a criminal that parks are open hunting on taxpaying citizens. Guess what? You now have the right to protect yourself. You're not going to stop criminals from being criminals. But there will always be more honest citizens than criminals. Once you know that, you should take comfort knowing that one criminal with a gun doesn't stand a chance against a well-armed militia standing up for the rights of the honest citizen. That, my friend, is the point of the second amendment.
8. Stu Strickler September 12, 2008 2:23 AM
Criminals always carry firearms or other weapons. Only the law abiding obey these ignorant "Gun Free Zones". I carry a firearm 24/7, because cops are to heavy and I can't throw rocks 1,100 feet per second. Anyone who believes they are unarmed and safe, has their head in the sand. A National Park has a bunch of unarmed, easy targets.
9. G-Man September 12, 2008 2:40 AM
It's about damn time we citizens are "allowed" to use the God given right to self defense in National Parks. Some of the intellectually challenged see this as "an insane proposal from the NRA." To freedom loving Americans, it means that if some meth head wants to kill you for interrupting his cooking operation, at least now we will have a fighting chance. Think all is peace and love in National Parks? Only if you are an idiot. Do some research on how many violent crimes like rape and murder have been committed in the parks. It is not the liberal, rose colored glasses Utopia that you dream of.
10. Mountaincrab September 12, 2008 4:44 AM
About time the loony tunes, Kool-Aid drinking, left wing gun bans and irrational concealed carry laws imposed by the Democrats were overturned. If one needs an example of what happens when law-abiding citizens get free reign to own and carry heat is Florida. Thugs are leaving the state because it's residents can now confront them and guess what? Crime is going down.
11. Justin September 12, 2008 4:55 AM
If people want to poach, they'll just poach whether the laws are in place or not. It's not like there are telescreens on every tree, watching to make sure a law isn't violated. In any event, I applaud this decision... just as one of the other posters said, I know I would feel a lot more secure if I was allowed to have nmy SIG with my, if I were surrounded by people I don't know, in the wilderness. And don't worry; no increased poaching risk comes with this... I'm pretty sure the rangers will be able to tell the difference between someone carrying a pistol for defense, versus someone with a scoped .30-06 w/hunting supplies. Quit crying, the sky isn't falling.
12. jlbraun September 12, 2008 8:35 AM
Good for them, and good for us. I've avoided going to National Parks for years because of this. I can legally carry a firearm for defense (As a Buddhist, I don't hunt, as it violates ahimsa) in a National Forest bordering a national park, but if I take the trail that crosses into the park and out again within 100 meters, I'm a felon. The rules made no sense and I'm glad it got overturned. How long do you think it takes 911 to get to the address "12 miles in off the King's Lake trailhead, 200 yards off the trail to the right"? This ruling is a logical step towards recognizing the right of people to defend themselves.
13. Carl in Chicago September 12, 2008 9:28 AM
Ken Barnes said: "One of the reasons I have always enjoyed hiking in National Parks is that i KNEW that I would not be mamed or killed as a result of some person with a firearm. " Dear Ken: With all due respect, do you realize how naive that statement is? You never know you will not come upon harm, and you are not guaranteed by anyone or anything to be safe anywhere you are. That is simply life itself. But you do have a right to defend yourself from potential harm and that right is guaranteed by the second amendment. This difference between a false right to be safe and a true right to defense is fundamental. I trust you will think about it a little more. At any rate, our second amendment rights are finally seeing significance again. Civil rights for African-Americans and women took a long, long time to realize and are still being developed. Our rights of speech and search/seizure took a long time to develop. So too will our right to defense and arms. It is coming, and it's a good thing. Remember this - the right to arms fulfills the human right to defense. It is a right to lawful and reasonable defense, but never a right to offense. I have heard it said that the second amendment protects the right to kill others, or even, protects the rights of criminals to conduct their business. Hyperbole and untruth. The second amendment only guarantees that the right to arms is not infringed by government. The history and context of that right regards legitimate and lawful purposes. And defensive carry in a national park, just like in your own home, is a legitimate and lawful purpose.
14. Michael September 12, 2008 11:06 AM
"the next step i suppose is to expand the D.C. gun law to every state that allows gun ownership. using our 'representatives' logic that would 'take a bite' out of violent crime! who needs police when we have the nra and congress." I admit I'm having trouble reading your tone, but I'd just like to make sure you understand something: the terms of Congress's bill don't give some bizarre, unprecedented access to guns; they bring DC a big step closer to the gun laws that exist in almost all the rest of the country. Current DC law bans the posession of common semiautomatic handguns and rifles (legal everywhere else in the US except Chicago) while perplexingly calling them "machine guns", and their zoning policies are structured to make it impossible for DC residents to buy handguns even though they're legal (federal law prevents you from buying a handgun outside your home state, and DC blocks the establishment of gun shops), de facto disobeying the Supreme Court's order. The bill before Congress would make DC's laws similar to the ones in my home state, the very anti-gun New Jersey. -- The great majority of US states (about 40 out of 50) allow all trustworthy, law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns in public--Congress's bill doesn't go anywhere _near_ that level of deregulation.
15. Jeff Burris September 12, 2008 12:37 PM
The next two sentences are for all of the people that can't make a logical deduction: Laws are for and obeyed by law abiding citizens.Guns do not cause crime-people do!! Criminals do not care about laws and do not obey them!! Every law abiding citizen should take the responsibility of his/her safety. We should have the choice to carry a weapon or not. Guns are legal in every state and are the best option for self defense.
16. nogoodnamesrleft September 12, 2008 12:44 PM
A poacher is already carrying a gun. Why would it be more dangerous if law abiding people were carrying guns? There is no logic in the no guns in national parks arguement. Don't live your life by feelings, use some sense and make decisions based in fact.
17. Chris Meissen September 12, 2008 12:58 PM
Only yesterday, I read that a man was sentenced to 12 years for kidnapping and raping a women who was hiking the Appalachian Trail National Park. The 12 year prison sentence may punish him but she remains raped. Had she been armed there's a good chance she'd have not been victimized at all. People who claim there is no need for self-defense are ignoring the many cases such as this woman and that's no right. After all, if it can save just one life... People should not have to give up Constitutionally guaranteed rights just to enter Federal property or to enjoy the outdoors. It's past time this bill was passed in both chambers of Congress although I expect it to die when the Senate recesses Sept. 26.
18. Mike September 12, 2008 1:55 PM
Uhh, what exactly is a poacher going to do, carry a rifle into a park, kill a Bull Elk or a Bear, and smuggle it's head out in a backpack?
Get real folks, criminals will continue to be criminals, no matter what laws are in place. They don't follow them, that's why they are called criminals.
No one is forcing you to carry, and you should be darn happy that some fellow hikers and campers are carrying unbeknownst to you...because it's also going to be unbeknownst to the criminals, which at the very least, may make them think twice about their intentions.
If you don't think being armed in the outdoors make sense, here's some reading for you. Please don't just glance past these. Honor these people by educating yourself to not become a victim. Even a cell phone isn't going to save you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenner,_California_double-murder_of_2004
http://www.truecrimeweblog.com/2008/05/unsolved-keddie-murders.html
http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/hilton.htm
I could go on, but I get sick thinking about what happened to these people. Rest assured I will do everything within my power, to include legal firearms possession, to make sure that it does not happen to myself, my loved one, or other innocents in society. It may be one in 15 million odds, or more, but I'm not willing to bet mine or others lives on it thank you. Now I won't be forced to.
19. Todd September 12, 2008 2:11 PM
Speaking as a regular user of several Nat'l Parks as well as a currently active volunteer in parks and an employee in law enforcement, I must hail this as a triumph for personal liberty and security. I have many times seen people in back country areas that were probably insane and on some occasions had to deal with quite dangerous people. It can happen in an instant and nuts and bad guys already had guns, knives or even bare hands and ill-will. Trust me, the bad guys do not obey any laws especially anti-gun laws. If they did, we would have never heard of gun-crime in the first place would we? Carry permit holders are not suddenly too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm because they cross over a National Park boundary.
20. MaineiacinAK September 12, 2008 9:51 PM
You guys are funny. In Alaska, there are animals that have been known to actually eat people. Although, usually, all they do is knock them around, bite and scratch them, and sit on them. Then they walk away a few feet to see if the person will move again. If they move, they come back and do it some more. In the lower 48, they have more dangerous things. Two legged animals, who rape women and kill people, for fun. They don't kill to eat, or defend themselves or their loved ones, children. If they were doing that, you might be able to at least understand and respect it, even if you disagreed. I think a person should have an absolute right to defend themselves against any sort of attack, be the attacker four legged and furry, or two legged and scummy. I feel worse when the four legged furry ones get killed. They're just being four legged and furry, and sometimes don't understand the poor tourists was just trying to take a picture of the kid... cub. Maybe pat him...
When the two legged scummy ones get killed, I cheer. It makes me happy. Somebody worth going home is going home, and somebody worthless is not going to ever hurt anybody again. Some of you can't make a distinction. That indicates your judgment is very flawed and shouldn't be trusted.
21. RetiredRanger47 September 13, 2008 7:20 AM
Very Interesting Posts To Read and Reflect upon: Ranging from the nieve who prance through life ignoring the violent history of mankind and believe that a dysfunctional earthly government will protect them at all times to a group of thinking individualists who realize that you are most protected when self-reliant and least protected when dependent upon the government to watch over you, hoping that lone ranger with thousands of acres/miles to patrol will deter the very worst examples of humankind who are not restricted to our full prison system, not in any way turned from their violence upon the obviously unarmed and vulnerable. Yes, I often think of the many innocent victims of the carnage I have seen in the past, such as the examples posted above, to realized that the greatest prevention of personal harm, as characterized in all of American History, is in the personal, knowledgeable use and possession of weapons to first deter and finally to stop the one who intends only to harm. Yes, this discussion is not only very interesting, but in my experience, reinforces the desire to uphold the laws and real intentions of our founding fathers, who saw what legislation from despots can do. Keep packing, ready to use only to exercise your God-given right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!
22. Hankster September 14, 2008 1:00 AM
Funny how these type of folks seem to abhorr guns so.....yet who do they call when threatened, but a guy with a gun!! Now before you come back with that "but they are trained" line of crap....do a quick search online of how many shootings in SCHOOLS have taken place, by cops lecturing, and "accidentally" discharging thier guns!!! So much for that "professional" nonsense!! Ask a cop how often he qualifies with his weapon.... then ask a Concealed carry person how often HE/SHE shoots!! The answers may SHOCK you.... When you are out there all alone, you have only one person you can count on in a bad situation... YOU!
23. common sense September 14, 2008 4:40 AM
Gun control disarms victims
24. Scrap5000 September 15, 2008 4:16 PM
Thank God for some common sense, finally! Criminals will ALWAYS be criminals and will NEVER obey the laws, and anyone who thinks differently is mentally challenged! Hopefully law abiding, honest, good people will be able to finally defend ourselves against the scummy predators of this world!
25. Freesense September 16, 2008 10:18 PM
This is why I cannot vote for Obama. Obama wants to disarm citizens and do away with concealed carry.
