National Parks Concealed Carry Blocked

[ryoder 1,398]

Here is a link that talks about some of the background of the ban:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2008/2008-05-01-10.asp

Quote

Firearms were first banned in national parks in the 1930s in a bid to curb poaching. The current rules, implemented under President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, allow visitors to national parks and refuges to possess firearms so long as they are "rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use."

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The implicit contention (from TI, not you) then appears to be "seized power is equivalent to entrusted power," and, further "privately held power is equivalent to entrusted government power." Once you make those leaps, it's easy to characterize any exercise of power (even disposal or use of private property) as "corruption"--you simply have to decide that this or that private actor is large or scary or bad enough to be called a government.

I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean. Best speculation is … maybe you’re defining it so that any exercise of government authority is “corruption.” Don't think that's it tho'.

I highly doubt that TI would concur with your assertion that “seized power” is “equivalent to “entrusted power,” i.e., see the cases of Denmark and Sweden. TI defines corruption as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.”

It’s not hard to see a failed/failing state (absence of meaningful government, closest nation-state to anarchy in today’s world) as absence of government or a toletarian state (complete autocratic control by a state’s government) as two ends of a spectrum. That the two of those are most corrupt suggests that correlations put forth:

Quote

The only way to stop that shit, outside a pipe dream, is to take that power out of the hands of government. Limiting governments reach is really the _only_ option for stopping corruption, influence peddling, or whatever you want to call it.

and

Quote

it's funny how that statement is pretty much what everybody says - unless they are a fanatic, or serving in one of 2 or 3 branches of government

are false. That the least corrupt states, e.g., Denmark and Sweden, are not limited governments (relative to the US) also suggests the correlation does not hold.

They are empirically falsified by the US data and by the global data. That’s it. It doesn’t suggest anything about any other correlations.

Another set of data on “control of corruption” (& other indicators of governance) is available from the World Bank, which aggregates data from other data sets. Somalia and Myanmar (nee Burma) are still at the bottom as most corrupt states.

Not pushing another correlation or causation … just showing that those initial correlations don’t hold regardless of what a whole bunch of people think (most of the populace of DPRK thinks the US used biological weapons during the Korean War, that isn’t true either). The false correlation here is not unlike the asserted correlations regarding increases in crime and private gun ownership (they don’t hold either ... bringing it back on original topic for John
/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I was going to enjoy being a legal hiker this Summer because of this legislation. Looks like the whiny little gun haters are going into extra innings on this one. They sure must love criminals.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4634

[walking on eggs; bowing deeply, Japanese-style]
I agree that a person with a CCW permit is no more likely to use a gun unlawfully in a park than anywhere else, and that permitting CCW in parks probably won't increase poaching (much). (Although some people might be tempted to target-shoot and recklessly risk an accident.) I also agree that a person with a CCW need not justify "why" he desires to carry on any given day; it's simply his right to do so. Fine so far.

What I don't understand is why not carrying a concealed gun on one's person makes the activity of recreationally hiking in a park somehow less enjoyable than if the hiker is carrying a concealed gun on one's person.
[returning to upright position]

[JohnMitchell 14]

Your phrasing of that last sentence had me reading it several times to understand your question.

There are predators in the woods, two legged and four legged. Although I am statistically unlikely to end up a victim of either, it does happen. I feel, as a free citizen, I should be allowed to protect myself from both. The most effective protection for either is a firearm. The fact that this legal action was brought by the Brady bunch, not the Sierra Club, shows that it has nothing to do with the enviroment and everything to do with banning possession of firearms by law abiding citizens. It will do nothing to stop crime.

[cliffwhite 0]

to carry on any given day; it's simply his right to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Andy, do you believe that it is a persons' right to carry concealed fire arms without the governments' permision slip?
Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[Andy9o8 0]

Sigh. Not the point of this thread; not the point of my post.
Can't really walk on eggs about this subject, can one? Nah.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean.

What I'm saying is that I disagree with the underlying methodology that TI uses to generate their "corruption" statistic.

I believe that in order for corruption to occur, there must be an "entrusting" element to the government power.

In a "failed state" scenario, or in a non-consensual governance scenario, there is no "entrusting." Therefore, I do not believe it's fair to describe those situations as "corrupt." They're not good, sure, but I think that the word "corruption" as defined by TI does not apply to those situations.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What I don't understand is why not carrying a concealed gun on one's person makes the activity of recreationally hiking in a park somehow less enjoyable than if the hiker is carrying a concealed gun on one's person.

I don't think anyone is saying that. What we're saying is that we want to be able to carry to protect ourselves from danger. There have been plenty of murders in National Parks. Women, especially, when hiking alone, are vulnerable. Because of the remoteness of such locations, calling 9-1-1 isn't an option that is going to help you - cell phones don't even work in many places - you need to be able to protect yourself.

I spend a lot of time in southwest Texas border areas, in wilderness with lions, bears, illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. I don't like doing that unarmed. I shouldn't have to.

Attached: Canoeing the Rio Grande River, last month, on the border with Mexico.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

What I don't understand is why not carrying a concealed gun on one's person makes the activity of recreationally hiking in a park somehow less enjoyable than if the hiker is carrying a concealed gun on one's person.

I don't think anyone is saying that. What we're saying is that we want to be able to carry to protect ourselves from danger. There have been plenty of murders in National Parks. Women, especially, when hiking alone, are vulnerable. Because of the remoteness of such locations, calling 9-1-1 isn't an option that is going to help you - cell phones don't even work in many places - you need to be able to protect yourself.

I spend a lot of time in southwest Texas border areas, in wilderness with lions, bears, illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. I don't like doing that unarmed. I shouldn't have to.

Attached: Canoeing the Rio Grande River, last month, on the border with Mexico.

You're damned right, John! Especially in the part of the country you're referring to! I wouldn't think of hiking, camping, rafting or anything else without carrying a pistol. Some of those folks on the other side of the Rio Grande DO like to take pot-shots at rafters... or anyone else.


Chuck

[gravitysurfer 0]

Quote

There have been plenty of murders in National Parks. Women, especially, when hiking alone, are vulnerable. Because of the remoteness of such locations, calling 9-1-1 isn't an option that is going to help you - cell phones don't even work in many places - you need to be able to protect yourself.

Unfortunately risk is not neccesarily isolated to remote areas.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009902020352

aloha.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Thanks for the great example. That's exactly the kind of occurrence that makes me want to pack heat. If all the law abiding citizens that could carry had been armed, that criminal would not have been able to inflict the injuries he did, and would not have had a chance to escape.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Your phrasing of that last sentence had me reading it several times to understand your question.

My head damn near exploded composing it.

[steve1 5]

It might be good to remember that what most people carry for concealed carry may not work very well on bigger animals like a grizzly.

I've packed my little 9mm in places that have black bear, mountain lion, and wolves, but I'd want something much bigger for big bears. Even a 357 is marginal on Grizzly.

We picked up some back packers, several years back, in Denali Park in Alaska. All of them were unarmed. It was against the law to pack a weapon. They had one bear encounter after another. I'd never try something like that without some kind of gun.....

I think I'd be tempted to put a 44 magnum in with my gear and not tell anyone.....I wonder how often that is done....

I've been in bear country a lot. Never had any real problems, but it sure can happen. I'm not willing to risk being lunch for a bear.

We had our camp raided once by a wolverine. He came back late at night for more food. Our dog chased it off. That's about the only incident that I've had.

My Dad had his camped raided by a grizzly when he was back in the Bob Marshal. He lost all of his food, that afternoon. He was out fishing when it happened.

He always carried a Winchester 30/30 as a saddle gun. This would be a marginal grizzly gun, but it would be a whole lot better than nothing.....It pays to keep a clean camp. Bears can smell food a long ways off.

[ryoder 1,398]

Quote

I think I'd be tempted to put a 44 magnum in with my gear and not tell anyone.....I wonder how often that is done....

A story I read about a guy who was out in the remote backwoods somewhere in a U.S Park, wearing an open holster on his hip...when he encountered a Park Ranger:

Ranger: "Don't you know it's against the law to carry a firearm here!"

Guy (sheepishly): "Uh...yeah, I do."

Ranger: "Well...can't you hide it or something?"

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Unfortunately risk is not neccesarily isolated to remote areas.

Indeed. It can happen anywhere. But the anti-gun folks think that in parks, for some reason we should all be unarmed. They would apparently rather see people die violent deaths, then have people armed for self defense.

Two women murdered on the Appalachian Trail:
http://www.aldha.org/arrest02.htm

Murder of park rangers:
http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=8
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin081602.asp

Three murdered in Yosemite:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/14/us/national-briefing-west-california-death-for-yosemite-killer.html

Murderer caught in park:
http://www.nationalparksgallery.com/park_news/7674

There are bad guys in parks, just like everywhere else.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

Indeed. It can happen anywhere. But the anti-gun folks think that in parks, for some reason we should all be unarmed.

Hey, you know this better than I, John. They think we should be disarmed all the time. They're just doing it any place they can.

Quote

They would apparently rather see people die violent deaths, then have people armed for self defense.

I suspect most of them have gun phobias. Many are milquetoasts that want others to protect them. Some are just misinformed, and think that criminals will respect gun bans. And quite a few think that just possessing a gun will warp one's soul into becoming a criminal.

Remember, when seconds count, the cops will be there in minutes.

[coreyangel 0]

Quote

They failed to file an environmental impact report on the topic, which is required by federal law.

OK, an environmental impact studi? Are you serious? That has got to be the dumbest thing I heard. Think about it...
1) People who get legal consealed carry permits do so for protection.

2) No one refers to the findings of an enviornmental impact study when deciding weather or not to use deadly force. It just doesn't make sence.

Learn from others' mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all yourself.
POPS 10672

[JohnRich 4]

Update:

Guns in parks rule reaches one-year anniversary

One year ago today, on February 22, 2010, the National Park Service lifted the ban on carrying concealed weapons in the parks for those who have permits to do so.

At the time, critics predicted that the new rule would frighten families away from the parks, and that the number of animals shot by gun owners in the parks would increase exponentially.

So what actually happened?

Not much at all, noted David Barna, spokesperson for the National Park Service, in an email. There was “really almost no impact,” he wrote...

There’s also no evidence to suggest that families avoided the parks in the seasons following the new gun rule. Visitation to national parks including Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Yosemite, Grand Canyon and Rocky Mountain—and 183 other National Park Service properties—all increased in 2010.

If the policy continues to be free of major incidents, we may wonder one day what all the vitriol was about.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/national-parks-in-national/guns-parks-rule-reaches-one-year-anniversary

Once again, the anti-gun folks were incorrect with their dire predictions. My oh my, what a surprise.

[JohnMitchell 14]

No news is great news.
Yep, not too amazing when you consider that CPL license holders are one of the most law-abiding groups in our country, way more so than the "average" citizen.

It was to read thru this old thread. Andy908, when you coming out to the gun range with us?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

One year ago today, on February 22, 2010, the National Park Service lifted the ban on carrying concealed weapons in the parks for those who have permits to do so.

So are all legal gun owners deemed to have a permit in Yellowstone with the new rules in Wyoming? I would think so, but no doubt there will be a fight.

[ryoder 1,398]

Quote

No news is great news.

Those parks are really big.
They may just not yet have found the sites of the big gun battles.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

One year ago today, on February 22, 2010, the National Park Service lifted the ban on carrying concealed weapons in the parks for those who have permits to do so.

So are all legal gun owners deemed to have a permit in Yellowstone with the new rules in Wyoming? I would think so, but no doubt there will be a fight.

found this:
http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm
WYOMING:

Open Carry Allowed
Handgun = Yes
Rifle = Yes
In Vehicle = Yes
Age Requirement = None

Concealed Carry Allowed - Permit Required
Person = Yes
Vehicle = Yes
State Reciprocity = 23 states
Age Requirement = 21 years of age
this was last updated before the recent WY law change.

Open carry was allowed without a permit even before this. Unless the NPS policies (not this informational page) specifically refer to allowing concealed carry by those with a license to carry concealed in that state, I'd think that NPS would allow it. I don't see where there will be a fight, considering anyone could already open carry in the park.

--
Rob

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

They may just not yet have found the sites of the big gun battles.

I guess they could just follow the circling vultures.

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

What I don't understand is why not carrying a concealed gun on one's person makes the activity of recreationally hiking in a park somehow less enjoyable than if the hiker is carrying a concealed gun on one's person.

I don't think anyone is saying that. What we're saying is that we want to be able to carry to protect ourselves from danger. There have been plenty of murders in National Parks. Women, especially, when hiking alone, are vulnerable. Because of the remoteness of such locations, calling 9-1-1 isn't an option that is going to help you - cell phones don't even work in many places - you need to be able to protect yourself.

I spend a lot of time in southwest Texas border areas, in wilderness with lions, bears, illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. I don't like doing that unarmed. I shouldn't have to.

Attached: Canoeing the Rio Grande River, last month, on the border with Mexico.

You don't look a day above 55, congrats.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I spend a lot of time in southwest Texas border areas, in wilderness with lions, bears, illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. I don't like doing that unarmed. I shouldn't have to.

This year I went to Big Bend National Park for the third time. It is more fun every time I go. This time, my friends, wife and I did the Boquellas Canyon trail. On the trail we were confronted with two Mexican Nationals standing on the US side of the river, blocking the trail while their "boss" sat on a rock on the Mexican side of the river. The "boss" was watching us through binoculars, telling us we had to buy something from his "friends." They had some touristy crap (painted walking sticks, bent wire figurines and necklaces) that they were selling.

I did not brandish a weapon, but was able to convince the "boss" to have his "friends" leave us alone. The two Mexican Nationals crossed the river back to the Mexico side (one using a horse, the other a canoe).

Talking to the Rangers, I found out that some people have been accosted when they refused to purchase from Mexican Nationals illegally on the US side of the river, selling the touristy crap.

The most dangerous animal I saw on this trip was a bunch of Javelinas, but out of four separate trips to two different National Parks, this was the situation in which there was a possibility of real danger.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."