View Full Version : No more CCW in parks for now
Littlelebowski
03-20-09, 09:18
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031902801.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates and environmental groups. The Justice Department had sought to block the injunction against the controversial rule.
The three groups that brought the suit -- the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees -- argued that the Bush action violated several laws.
In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the government's process had been "astoundingly flawed."
She noted that the government justified its decision to forgo an environmental analysis on the grounds that the rule does not "authorize" environmental impacts. Calling this a "tautology," she wrote that officials "abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation" to evaluate environmental impacts and "ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts" of the rule.
ad_icon
Interior Department spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the department could not comment because of "ongoing litigation."
The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allowed visitors to carry loaded, concealed guns into national parks and wildlife refuges if state laws there allowed it in public places. In most cases, a state permit would be required to carry a concealed weapon into a national park.
In the past, guns had been allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded, stored or dismantled; gun rights advocates said they saw no reason to be denied the right to carry concealed weapons in parks when they could in other public places.
Bryan Faehner, associate director for park uses at the National Parks Conservation Association, said his group is "extremely pleased" with both the court decision and the fact that Interior is now conducting an internal review of the rule's environmental impact. "This decision by the courts reaffirms our concerns, and the concerns of park rangers across the country, that this new regulation . . . has serious impacts on the parks and increases the risk of opportunistic poaching of wildlife in the parks, and increases the risk to park visitors," Faehner said.
Cretins...so much for going to the NP's with the kidlets now...will have to make do with the TX state parks.
Gee, didn't take the new Admin long to find a pet judge for this injunction, nor long to reverse the Pilots-Can-Carry program either...
It's gonna be a LONG 4 yrs.
CarlosDJackal
03-20-09, 09:27
So carrying a concealed handgun for self-defense affects the environmental how? :mad:
Littlelebowski
03-20-09, 09:30
I've noticed that if a woman has a "-" in her name, she's more than likely a liberal.
Littlelebowski
03-20-09, 09:38
So carrying a concealed handgun for self-defense affects the environmental how? :mad:
Yeah, it seems that environmental impact studies can be used to block anything.
Gutshot John
03-20-09, 09:42
Yeah, it seems that environmental impact studies can be used to block anything.
Actually I think that's where she messed up and where this can be overturned.
There is no environmental study, they're simply saying one hasn't been done, but that's exactly a "tautology" because you can't do one, if there is no permission to CCW.
This has test-case written all over it. As a bow hunter who often hunts around bear/moose, I'd more than volunteer.
I've noticed that if a woman has a "-" in her name, she's more than likely a liberal.
You noticed that too! Likely a liberal and likely a beeeaaach.
ChristopherM4
03-20-09, 10:02
I've noticed that if a woman has a "-" in her name, she's more than likely a liberal.
Yeah that's so true. So what do you call a guy that takes a liberals maiden name? Is that a "Librals Bitch" or something? We have one of these types at work.
Topher
Yeah that's so true. So what do you call a guy that takes a liberals maiden name? Is that a "Librals Bitch" or something? We have one of these types at work.
Topher
That seems strange to me.
Littlelebowski
03-20-09, 10:16
It happens. There's also the ones that combine their last names to form a new one.
There are lots of women who hyphenate their names and are not liberal, nor bitches. Or liberal, but not bitches. Or bitches, but not liberal.
This site isn't AR15.com, or Glocktalk, or anywhere else. There are plenty of things to discuss without misogynistic mouth breathing.
So cut it out. :)
Nathan_Bell
03-20-09, 12:18
There are lots of women who hyphenate their names and are not liberal, nor bitches. Or liberal, but not bitches. Or bitches, but not liberal.
This site isn't AR15.com, or Glocktalk, or anywhere else. There are plenty of things to discuss without misogynistic mouth breathing.
So cut it out. :)
Ok, but ...
Yeah that's so true. So what do you call a guy that takes a liberals maiden name? Is that a "Librals Bitch" or something? We have one of these types at work.
Topher
Someone who does that is someones bitch. :eek: We agree on that?
As a ranger myself, I am mixed on this ruling. I think that CCW should be allowed as long as they are properly defined as being just that......weapons that are concealed on one's person for the purpose of bodily defense. Past problems have been visitors entering parks/preserves with rifles, shotguns, and scoped handguns and using the personal protection defense as to why they are carrying it.....when in fact the whole reason they were in the park is to poach. There are approximately 100-300 plant and animal poachers for every Federal ranger in the US. In the Great Smoky Mountains alone there the sale of poached goods on the black market is estimated to be approximately 1.5 million annually.
From my understanding, the court ruling that allows weapons in the parks was not specific enough in regards to a CCW. The Federal parks want to allow CCW, but they don't want to use the loose state terms which define them as a wide range of concealable weapon types depending on the state.
As a ranger myself, I am mixed on this ruling. I think that CCW should be allowed as long as they are properly defined as being just that......weapons that are concealed on one's person for the purpose of bodily defense. Past problems have been visitors entering parks/preserves with rifles, shotguns, and scoped handguns and using the personal protection defense as to why they are carrying it.....when in fact the whole reason they were in the park is to poach. There are approximately 100-300 plant and animal poachers for every Federal ranger in the US. In the Great Smoky Mountains alone there the sale of poached goods on the black market is estimated to be approximately 1.5 million annually.
From my understanding, the court ruling that allows weapons in the parks was not specific enough in regards to a CCW. The Federal parks want to allow CCW, but they don't want to use the loose state terms which define them as a wide range of concealable weapon types depending on the state.
So once again law abiding citizens should be restricted on what they can do because of criminals? Brilliant! :rolleyes:
So once again law abiding citizens should be restricted on what they can do because of criminals? Brilliant! :rolleyes:
Ability to manage a liability comes with a certain degree of regulation. CCW does not include the carry of a RPG, so it is a managed permit system even though technically that is a restriction on the ability to keep and bear arms. There is absolutely a necessity to descriminate between what is appropriate to be carried around and what is not depending on the environment and situation.
If you don't use logical arguements when approaching complex managment issues, then you get what happened here........2nd Ammendment rights were thrown out. Pick your battles wisely and with a high degree of common sense......otherwise we run the risk losing many more 2nd Ammendement cases. The use of law in the right amounts for the right scenario makes everyone more free.
"Without Law, there can be no Freedom" -Socrates 469-399 BC
fruitjacket
03-20-09, 13:44
Great, so the 2nd Amendment applies, but not when on Federal Parks.
WTF....
Great, so the 2nd Amendment applies, but not when on Federal Parks.
WTF....
Might as well eliminate the 5th Amendment in federal courtrooms and 1st Amendment speech on the Washington National Mall.
I bet we win this one. The Brady Bunch found the perfect rubber stamp judge for their case. Both the injunction appeal and any appeal of the final ruling by this judge would go to the same Appeals court that ruled in favor of Heller.
The NRA , SCI , and other organizations are already on the case.
LittleRedToyota
03-20-09, 17:33
As a ranger myself, I am mixed on this ruling. I think that CCW should be allowed as long as they are properly defined as being just that......weapons that are concealed on one's person for the purpose of bodily defense. Past problems have been visitors entering parks/preserves with rifles, shotguns, and scoped handguns and using the personal protection defense as to why they are carrying it.....when in fact the whole reason they were in the park is to poach. There are approximately 100-300 plant and animal poachers for every Federal ranger in the US. In the Great Smoky Mountains alone there the sale of poached goods on the black market is estimated to be approximately 1.5 million annually.
From my understanding, the court ruling that allows weapons in the parks was not specific enough in regards to a CCW. The Federal parks want to allow CCW, but they don't want to use the loose state terms which define them as a wide range of concealable weapon types depending on the state.
so why does following state law seem to work just fine for national forests?
if it works fine for national forests, why won't it work for national parks?
seems to me the idea has already been tested...and proven sound.
Apparently the thought of CHL holders leaving dead bodies lying around the parks was too much for the huggers to handle…
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-20-09, 18:16
I guess it would be interesting to see how they are filled out now. Obviously, the envornmental impact should be zero. But if they start to say that people are going to poach more, or there will be more lead (really, how many grams per square mile?), or some other example of someone breaking the law while they are taking advantage of concealed carry.
On the whole hyphen thing, its either lib or East Coast mentality and neither is good. I'm against is because when two of those people get married, whose names get whacked? Single surnames have worked just fine for a long time.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-20-09, 18:25
Anyone else getting double posts?
As a ranger myself, I am mixed on this ruling. I think that CCW should be allowed as long as they are properly defined as being just that......weapons that are concealed on one's person for the purpose of bodily defense. Past problems have been visitors entering parks/preserves with rifles, shotguns, and scoped handguns and using the personal protection defense as to why they are carrying it.....when in fact the whole reason they were in the park is to poach. There are approximately 100-300 plant and animal poachers for every Federal ranger in the US. In the Great Smoky Mountains alone there the sale of poached goods on the black market is estimated to be approximately 1.5 million annually.
From my understanding, the court ruling that allows weapons in the parks was not specific enough in regards to a CCW. The Federal parks want to allow CCW, but they don't want to use the loose state terms which define them as a wide range of concealable weapon types depending on the state.
Honestly I do see your point, but I prefer a rifle for self defense, especially for threats such as bear.........or meth cooks. Though if it is not for hunting and it is simply for self defense, glass is not really necessary, irons would do just fine.
dwhitehorne
03-20-09, 18:53
This is interesting. I wonder if the US Park Police command has any input on this when I get back to work on Sunday. It would be interesting to see the wording or the court record on the ruling. A lot of times these Federal Judge rulings are only valid in the District that they are presiding over until all the other Districts adopt the practice.
The original Code of Federal Regulation change took a year to enact. It is funny that no one had a problem with any of this during the 6 month comment period it sat on the Federal Registry, but after the regulation changed now all the uproar. Typical. David
exkc135driver
03-20-09, 20:06
As a ranger myself, I am mixed on this ruling. I think that CCW should be allowed as long as they are properly defined as being just that......weapons that are concealed on one's person for the purpose of bodily defense. Past problems have been visitors entering parks/preserves with rifles, shotguns, and scoped handguns and using the personal protection defense as to why they are carrying it.....when in fact the whole reason they were in the park is to poach. There are approximately 100-300 plant and animal poachers for every Federal ranger in the US. In the Great Smoky Mountains alone there the sale of poached goods on the black market is estimated to be approximately 1.5 million annually.
From my understanding, the court ruling that allows weapons in the parks was not specific enough in regards to a CCW. The Federal parks want to allow CCW, but they don't want to use the loose state terms which define them as a wide range of concealable weapon types depending on the state.
As a non-park ranger and non-NPS employee, I too am mixed on this ruling. I daresay that the vast majority of CHL holders carry so that they can protect themselves from those common two-legged predators, Homo criminalis and Scumbagus horribilis. The Appalachian Trail, which traverses six national parks, has had its share of violent crime. (For example: PEARISBURG, Va. — A convicted murderer is suspected of shooting and wounding two men on the Appalachian Trail a few miles from the spot where he killed two hikers in 1981, authorities said. To read the entire article, go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354705,00.html)
So yeah, there are good reasons to carry in national parks. But there are also good reasons why the NPS should be concerned about carrying. There are numerous man-bear incidents in the parks (especially the very popular ones like Great Smoky Mountains and Yosemite), most of which are the fault of the man, not the bear. How many bears are going to get shot because some dumfuk finds a bear rummaging through his cooler, or his tent, and decides to shoot Mr. Bear? You may be a responsible CHL holder, and I like to think I am, but some aren't.
As a matter of fact, while camping in Yosemite Valley in the early 1970s, I came back to my tent to find a bear rummaging through my pack. It was totally my fault as I had left a Kendall Mint Cake in the pack. Like a total dumbass I started yelling and screaming at the bear (I don't think the folks in the other campsites appreciated my language) instead of walking away and letting him finish. As it happens, the bear just sauntered away. But how many people in that situation would shoot the bear? One would hope that none would, but I suspect otherwise.
I'm not saying that carrying in the national park system should not be allowed, but I think that there are many interests to be balanced here.
If you think that not being able to carry in the national parks infringes on your Second Amendment rights, let me clue you in to something: there are limitations on those rights; they are not absolute. Just as (to use the oft-quoted example) First Amendment "freedom of speech" does not give you the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, there are limitations on ALL of your constitutional rights. (Or do you think that you should have the right to carry in a courthouse? Your state capitol? The White House?)
Heavy Metal
03-20-09, 20:10
Honestly I do see your point, but I prefer a rifle for self defense, especially for threats such as bear.........or meth cooks. Though if it is not for hunting and it is simply for self defense, glass is not really necessary, irons would do just fine.
To me, the evidence of poaching is a dead and processed animal carcas.
LittleRedToyota
03-20-09, 20:32
If you think that not being able to carry in the national parks infringes on your Second Amendment rights, let me clue you in to something: there are limitations on those rights; they are not absolute.
let me clue you in on something.
"shall not be infringed" is absolute.
the 2nd does not say, for example, "shall not be unreasonably infringed". there is no reasonableness standard as there is, for example, in the 4th.
this is one of several areas where the courts plain and simply ignore what the constitution actually says...and, in so doing, fail america.
Just as (to use the oft-quoted example) First Amendment "freedom of speech" does not give you the right to yell "fire!"
this is a flawed analogy. people need to go and actually read the supreme court case which gave rise to this notion.
first, it is not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. if, for example, there really is a fire, it is quite acceptable (and, of course, legal) to yell FIRE!
it is, rather, illegal to recklessly endanger others...whether you do it with words, with a gun, with a car, whatever.
second, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is not a fire is not analgous to carrying a gun. rather, it is analgous to actually pointing the gun at someone. simply carrying a gun would be analogous only to carrying your voice into the theater.
Or do you think that you should have the right to carry in a courthouse? Your state capitol? The White House?)
unless your right to keep and bear arms has been taken away via due process, the constitution simply forbids the federal government from prohibiting you from bearing arms in those places (or any others).
the 2nd says what it says (and it does so very clearly and emphatically)...and does not say what it does not say--regardless of how much our legal system likes to pretend otherwise.
exkc135driver
03-20-09, 23:01
first, it is not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. if, for example, there really is a fire, it is quite acceptable (and, of course, legal) to yell FIRE!
I debated whether to point that out but decided not to because I thought it was obvious. I guess that it is not obvious to everyone.
unless your right to keep and bear arms has been taken away via due process, the constitution simply forbids the federal government from prohibiting you from bearing arms in those places (or any others).
So -- you think that you could carry a weapon into your local courthouse -- or your state capitol -- or the White House -- and that at the trial following your arrest, a defense based on your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would be successful? If that were so, it would allow CHL holders to carry anywhere ... if, indeed, a CHL would even be required to carry concealed after such a landmark ruling. So if you really think that is the case, why don't you go ahead and try it yourself?
the 2nd says what it says (and it does so very clearly and emphatically)...and does not say what it does not say--regardless of how much our legal system likes to pretend otherwise.
Enough arguing. My meager understanding of the Constitution must yield to your clearly superior Constitutional scholarship. G'night.
this ruling has no meaning to me. I will CCW to protect my family anywhere I feel it necessary, period.
LittleRedToyota
03-20-09, 23:53
So -- you think that you could carry a weapon into your local courthouse -- or your state capitol -- or the White House -- and that at the trial following your arrest, a defense based on your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would be successful? If that were so, it would allow CHL holders to carry anywhere ... if, indeed, a CHL would even be required to carry concealed after such a landmark ruling. So if you really think that is the case, why don't you go ahead and try it yourself?
of course i would be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.
all unconstitionally...by definition...regardless of what the courts say.
Enough arguing. My meager understanding of the Constitution must yield to your clearly superior Constitutional scholarship. G'night.
words do have meaning...even the ones in the 2nd amendment. it's got nothing to do with any kind of constitutional scholarship. it has to do only with applying intellectual honest in reading the actual words--which, of course, is what SCOTUS should, but does not, do.
anyway, good night.
To those who feel that they can devine the political leanings of U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly based upon her hyphenated last name, I should point out that a more reliable indicator is the fact that she was appointed to the federal bench in 1997 by President Bill Clinton.
No, the fact that Clinton appointed her is not definite proof that she is a Liberal, but it would be a good bet.
Ability to manage a liability comes with a certain degree of regulation. CCW does not include the carry of a RPG, so it is a managed permit system even though technically that is a restriction on the ability to keep and bear arms. There is absolutely a necessity to descriminate between what is appropriate to be carried around and what is not depending on the environment and situation.
If you don't use logical arguements when approaching complex managment issues, then you get what happened here........2nd Ammendment rights were thrown out. Pick your battles wisely and with a high degree of common sense......otherwise we run the risk losing many more 2nd Ammendement cases. The use of law in the right amounts for the right scenario makes everyone more free.
"Without Law, there can be no Freedom" -Socrates 469-399 BC
The 2A says "Shall not be infringed", NOT 'shall not be infringed unless its convenient for a complex management issue'
You dont keep rights by allowing them to be violated or 'choosing our battles' thats what got us here in the first place, pansy bottomed alledged 'pro gun' ers who compromise and sell out for convenience etc;
And in case you missed it, allowing rights to be infringed on some, does NOT save that right, its just allows it to be infringed further down the road
These discussions always remind me of the history of CCW laws.
Objective issue criteria ( "Shall issue ") CCW laws have been a growing and very successful trend for around 25 years.
www.wikipedia.com
Type in: Concealed Carry in the United States (Case sensitive).
Take a look at the animated map.
As "Shall Issue" swept thru the country , some organizations and individuals kept saying: "Vermont carry or nothing!"
That's exactly what they got.
The 2A says "Shall not be infringed", NOT 'shall not be infringed unless its convenient for a complex management issue'
You dont keep rights by allowing them to be violated or 'choosing our battles' thats what got us here in the first place, pansy bottomed alledged 'pro gun' ers who compromise and sell out for convenience etc;
And in case you missed it, allowing rights to be infringed on some, does NOT save that right, its just allows it to be infringed further down the road
I'm sorry, but if you think there comes a point where it isn't not feasible for a citizen to put land mines in their yard, walk into a bank with a assault rifle, or purchase a guided missile......then you have right there admitted to a common sense balance on the 2nd Ammendement. There is absolutely a point where we draw the line on what is an acceptable risk to the general public for arms ownership and day to day carry. In fact, by 1792 almost all of the colonial states had put in place carry laws for firearms in public places. Pistols were allowed to be carried openly, but muskets/rifles/blunderbuss were to be left at home and not carried around in public view. Obviously, more powerful arms such as cannons were not to be wheeled around the public. Later in the west, by 1889 most towns and cities also had carry restrictions on what was considered "proper" to be hauled around town. Pistols were often allowed, but rifles and shotguns were to be secured on your rig, secured in your house/hotel room, or left at the local sheriff's office until you left town.
You're not going to get anywhere in this country, or in this world with promoting our gun rights if you do not admit that there comes a point when certain "arms" are not acceptable for common civilian ownership and there is a common sense boundary on day to day carry. Our problem right now with a possible AWB on the horizon is that we do not properly define what is reasonable and what is proper for defending your home and carrying on your person. Thus, we often lose the arguement because we are almost always confronted with the question of if we think it's okay for a civilian to own a dirty bomb, a RPG, or a fully armed tank. When we say "no", then we have admitted that the 2nd Ammendment is not properly defined and we'd better have a logical way of defining our terms if we want to win the debate......if we say "yes" then we seem like unreasonable kooks who should be locked away or have our guns taken away from us because we are crazy. The "all or nothing" approach has probably done more to harm our rights than improve them. CCWs have a measurable, proven track record of detering crime across the US.......thus, it is one of those instances where we have logical arguement with lots of concrete data to back it up.
Apparently the thought of CHL holders leaving dead bodies lying around the parks was too much for the huggers to handle…
But, officer, at least I used a lead-free bullet for "environmental" reasons!
Historically , the National Park Service has used firearms for animal culling.
I wonder if Her Honor , Judge Whats-Her-Name , connected the dots on that picture.
;)
Bet we win this one.
:D
Gutshot John
03-21-09, 15:04
I'm sorry, but if you think there comes a point where it isn't not feasible for a citizen to put land mines in their yard, walk into a bank with a assault rifle, or purchase a guided missile......then you have right there admitted to a common sense balance on the 2nd Ammendement.
Straw man. No one mentioned landmines or rocket launchers so the above argument seems just a bit silly.
There is absolutely a point where we draw the line on what is an acceptable risk to the general public for arms ownership and day to day carry. In fact, by 1792 almost all of the colonial states had put in place carry laws for firearms in public places.
Source please.
Pistols were allowed to be carried openly, but muskets/rifles/blunderbuss were to be left at home and not carried around in public view.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Muskets were militia arms and they would be required at musters. Even if not, they were still used for hunting.
Obviously, more powerful arms such as cannons were not to be wheeled around the public.
If a rifle cost the average person about a years salary in the 18th century (equivalent to buying a car today), I doubt very much you had private ownership of artillery, so you've got another straw man proposition.
Later in the west, by 1889 most towns and cities also had carry restrictions on what was considered "proper" to be hauled around town. Pistols were often allowed, but rifles and shotguns were to be secured on your rig, secured in your house/hotel room, or left at the local sheriff's office until you left town.
Source please, even still municipalities varied greatly so drawing any such conclusion is problematic.
You're not going to get anywhere in this country, or in this world with promoting our gun rights if you do not admit that there comes a point when certain "arms" are not acceptable for common civilian ownership and there is a common sense boundary on day to day carry.
The issue is whether a person who has a right/permit to carry in his or her state can be denied that right if on Federal land within that state. Since the Federal government doesn't issue CCW, your argument above is flawed.
The "all or nothing" approach has probably done more to harm our rights than improve them.
Again you're the only one talking about "all or nothing".
CCWs have a measurable, proven track record of detering crime across the US.......thus, it is one of those instances where we have logical arguement with lots of concrete data to back it up.
So what's your problem with anything the above person said.
Straw man. No one mentioned landmines or rocket launchers so the above argument seems just a bit silly.
Hrmm....."staw man"....."a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." Obviously you made little attempted to understand the meaning of my example. I listed several types of arms as examples of what a broad based "to keep and bear arms" definition of the 2nd Ammendment would encompass. Most common sense citizens would not approve of the free ownership of such devices. This means that there is indeed a limit, a dividing line between what is appropriate for civilian ownership and what is not. The poster I was addressing kept touting that the right to keep arms shall not be infringed and he did not seem to understand this concept. He wants it all.....without having thought the issue over very carefully.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Muskets were militia arms and they would be required at musters. Even if not, they were still used for hunting.
Alexander DeConde goes over this extensively in his book Gun Violence in America. There are also references to the restriction of carrying "military arms" in cities in towns in his book. Firearm sales were also often restricted to who were members of a militia, or property owners. Militias were not allowed to assemble in town/city limits unless during conscriptment or civil defense. One of the most notible instances would be the New Hampshire Moses Ham militia of the early 1770s in the town of Wolfeborough. Ammunition for the militia was kept in the garison armory and was only accessible to officers. Benjamin Franklin Parker also covers this in his book, "History of the Town of Wolfeborough New Hampshire".
Source please, even still municipalities varied greatly so drawing any such conclusion is problematic.
You're right, there were towns such as Tombstone, Phoenix, San Francisco, and many other that had an outright ban on bringing firearms into town. Then we get cities like Amarillo, Santa Fe, and Denver that allowed the carry of anything you wanted.
The issue is whether a person who has a right/permit to carry in his or her state can be denied that right if on Federal land within that state. Since the Federal government doesn't issue CCW, your argument above is flawed.
The Federal Govt issues a wide variety of permits based on whether or not the state already issues one. In many cases, the state mandate holds priority over the Federal mandate. The Park Service issues hunting AND firearm carry permits in a number of parks with concurrent state approval. So you obviously are not informed on the powers for the Federal govt which can indeed issue CCW permits to visitors.
So what's your problem with anything the above person said.
It seems that some of you are too obtuse to understand my point. The CCW ruling was thrown out by those serving the Park Service's interests because it does not limit what weapons may be carried, and it does not allow for the some areas to be restricted to carry. The Park Service manages land on a number of restricted properties for homeland security protection, several prisons, and several banks. The CCW ruling was a broad based carry law that did not take into account this sensitive areas. I suppose it is okay to visit uncle John in prison with your 1911 at your side........ :rolleyes:
Gutshot John
03-21-09, 16:25
Hrmm....."staw man"....."a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." Obviously you made little attempted to understand the meaning of my example.
You misrepresented the other position as saying that the uninfringed RKBA meant that one had the right to land-mines and rocket launchers. Something no one claimed. You set up a straw man fallacy in order to knock it down.
Alexander DeConde goes over this extensively in his book Gun Violence in America. There are also references to the restriction of carrying "military arms" in cities in towns in his book.
As a historian I've not heard of Alexander DeConde, nor am I familiar with his credentials or his work. That said in looking up peer reviews of the work in question reveal him to be a gun-control advocate, whose history is flawed at best. I'd recommend JSTOR if you have access.
I'm sorry but you're cherry picking your sources to the exclusion of others. In short he is an anti-gun partisan. Nice try though.
For more...please see the following link.
http://www.jstor.org.authenticate.library.duq.edu/stable/3092503?seq=2&Search=yes&term=Gun&term=America&term=Violence&term=Alexander&term=deConde%2C&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DdeConde%252C%2BAlexander%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3DGun%2BViolence%2Bin%2BAmerica%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26re%3Don%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=1&ttl=4&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doAdvancedResultsFromArticle
One of the most notible instances would be the New Hampshire Moses Ham militia of the early 1770s in the town of Wolfeborough. Ammunition for the militia was kept in the garison armory and was only accessible to officers. Benjamin Franklin Parker also covers this in his book, "History of the Town of Wolfeborough New Hampshire".
Incorrect. Ammunition for the militia is procured by the militia and may have been kept in stores/armories, but this has nothing at all to do with gun control, merely to have available ammunition for the militia in case it is needed. Your argument is additionally flawed in that you're ignoring personal use, which discredit your argument. The above statement implying that ALL ammunition (powder and ball) were only available to officers is flat wrong. Either you're incapable of understanding the difference or you're trying to obfuscate the conclusion. Either way your argument is wrong.
The Federal Govt issues a wide variety of permits based on whether or not the state already issues one. In many cases, the state mandate holds priority over the Federal mandate. The Park Service issues hunting AND firearm carry permits in a number of parks with concurrent state approval. So you obviously are not informed on the powers for the Federal govt which can indeed issue CCW permits to visitors.
Ehhh...I'm sorry try again. You do know what a "state police power" is? Please tell us where we can get these "Federal" CCW licenses.
It seems that some of you are too obtuse to understand my point.
No it seems that you are too obtuse to make your point clear without engaging in logical fallacies. That's your problem, not mine for questioning it.
The CCW ruling was thrown out by those serving the Park Service's interests because it does not limit what weapons may be carried, and it does not allow for the some areas to be restricted to carry. The Park Service manages land on a number of restricted properties for homeland security protection, several prisons, and several banks. The CCW ruling was a broad based carry law that did not take into account this sensitive areas. I suppose it is okay to visit uncle John in prison with your 1911 at your side........ :rolleyes:
Yet another straw man argument. We're not talking about a "prison" we're talking about PUBLIC lands. BIG, HUGE, GIANT, ENORMOUS difference.
Please let me know when you have some actual facts to back up your statements, rather than relying on simplistic interpretations of historians that you don't even understand.
Bluster is a poor substitute for understanding.
You can not make a logical case for "reasonable" restrictions on bearing arms, by pointing out cases where government entities historically usurped the rights of the people. It's circular and self-indulgent. The presented premise in that sort of circular logic is that because the government entities over time have eroded the peoples' rights, then it's perfectly Ok for the government to continue to erode our rights.
The towns wanted to keep pistols out because the outlaws carried guns to fight. Which they did. The problem was, the outlaws carried guns anyway, and the law abiding citizens honored the law, leaving their guns with the Sheriff or barkeep or hotel proprietor.
Similar to what is going on in National Parks, you have criminals and predators who will arm themselves with guns, knives, axes, etc and prey on the innocent who are abiding by the laws. Or worse, you have natural predators to contend with, who know no rule of man -- and will kill you deader than a doornail.
If poaching is a concern in National Parks, then setup poaching stings to catch them. As a game warden would do, where rifles and scoped handguns are 100% legal. A lack of creativity in preventing the crime of poaching should not be the basis for stopping someone from carrying a rifle, camp carbine, brush gun, shotgun or large bore pistol for defense.
Gutshot John
03-21-09, 16:41
The Review can be found in the "Journal of American History" December 2002 authored by Dr. Joel Best of the University of Delaware.
The upshot is that while people like Bellesiles committed overt academic fraud, deConde committed the second worst sin in historic analysis. He tried to make evidence conform to a conclusion, rather than the other way around.
Dr. Best basically dismantles deConde's methodology and research. In so doing he discredits any subsequent conclusion.
I think that some of US here need to remember that the Gov't does not give us anything. We have some rights that are endowed upon us by our Creator. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights simply outlines what the limits of the federal gov't are (or rather should be).
Every time I hear these silly arguments about "unrestricted" rights in particular when it is referenced to the 2nd Amendment we must remember that we have restrictions in place now because over the years we have continually acquiesced on this issue and we have allowed the gov't to step in where common sense should prevail. No, I do not think that everyone or for that matter anyone should have land mines, rocket launchers, etc...at their disposal. But, common small arms are an entirely different matter. Restricting a persons right to possess a firearm especially in the outdoors is ignorant and in this matter it is simply malicious.
Those who would clamp down on the 2nd Amendment are solidly opposed to any restrictions on the 1st Amendment (especially as it applies to them) and constantly remind us of their agenda.
Wait a minute:
.... ( Snip for brevity).....
It seems that some of you are too obtuse to understand my point. The CCW ruling was thrown out by those serving the Park Service's interests because it does not limit what weapons may be carried, and it does not allow for the some areas to be restricted to carry. The Park Service manages land on a number of restricted properties for homeland security protection, several prisons, and several banks. The CCW ruling was a broad based carry law that did not take into account this sensitive areas. I suppose it is okay to visit uncle John in prison with your 1911 at your side........ :rolleyes:
The change process for the new NP CCW rules took around a year. Over fifty Senators asked for the changes, including the current Sec of the Interior. The Park Service went through the whole rule changing drill , even extended the public comments period.
We are talking about Park Service rules developed by the NPS & DI. Ken Salazar's name is listed as defendant based on his SecIn job.
Also , the info in the quoted post is not germane to the case or the injunction.
More to follow.
ETA:
The Brady Bunch lawsuit and the injunction on based on two points ( total BS , but there it is):
1. The lack of an environmental impact study/statement , tied into lead & other pollution issues around firing rounds in self defense.
:confused:
2. The fear factor caused by legal CCW inside the parks and the bad impact of that fear on visitors' enjoyment of the parks.
:eek:
Here's a couple blinding flashes of the obvious based mostly on Acadia NP in Maine:
1.The Park Service has used firearms to cull animals in the parks in the past. Also , Park LEO's (sometimes?) carry guns .There's the environmental impact model. Big parks , little bullets.
2. Forty- eight states have provisions for legal CCW on the books. Around thirty-eight have objective criteria ( Shall Issue ) laws. Why legal CCW inside the parks is so terrifying , but at least tolerable just outside the gate and during the trip to the park remains unclear.
The last time that gun-grabbers had an attack of pathological delusions of adequacy to this extreme was when they appealed the Heller v DC Appeals Court ruling to SCOTUS.
Most of the people on the forum are likely to have fond memories of that landmark judicial spanking.
Wait a second. Today as it stands with the prohibitive laws and somewhat prohibitive price of firearms, I don't feel felons, illegal aliens, and/or, the mentally unstable should be allowed to own firearms. This is the slippery slope we have allowed. I shouldn't need to explain that further.
If the 2 issues above were not realities (and the price issue wouldn't be if there weren't such a demand for particular weapons created by the reality of or fear of law(s) ) and the court system was understanding to issues of self defense in a manner that wouldn't frighten those needing to defend themselves into becoming sheep, then I would have no issue with the 3 groups I mentioned owning firearms. If they did, and I did, and the laws were clear... What do I have to fear? Less than I do today I can assure you.
My background, to the outsider, would make it seem easy for me of all people to have the least amount of faith in the human race and it's ability to remain civil etc. Which is the concern in the landmines and rocket launchers arguments am I right? Part of our issue today, in my opinion, stems from the general populous lack of fear of being held accountable for their actions and words.
I've said it before and my personal experience holds it true. The bad guy will NOT rob the burger king were he knows LE congregate. It's not the uniform, it's not the badge, it's not the cars..... it's the gun and the knowledge that we are supported by the law in using it. A line full of open carrying responsible citizens will deter the bg from pricing his life at the $50 that is in the register more often than not.
Now, reimplementing something like that today.. Christ. Nightmare cubed. We are too far departed, as a group, from the idea of responsibility for our actions. I don't have an answer for today. Just sharing my thoughts. As far as a history lessons is concerned for those of you who are arguing over it. Point out an instance were gun controlled solved violence. That is the primary lesson to be learned.
Lastly, it is my opinion that free market, by itself, would largely limit the purchasing of cannons, rocket launchers, landmines, and tanks. Group buy on RPGs anyone? :cool:
exkc135driver
03-22-09, 00:54
Wait a second. Today as it stands with the prohibitive laws and somewhat prohibitive price of firearms, I don't feel felons, illegal aliens, and/or, the mentally unstable should be allowed to own firearms. This is the slippery slope we have allowed. I shouldn't need to explain that further.
As the law now stands, felons, illegal aliens, and the mentally unstable may not legally purchase or possess firearms. So, what's your point?
...national parks...
What was the origin of these national parks?...
Are they for general use by the nation then?
I'm sure there must be a use for national parks...let's see, what could that be...?
...hmmm...
I wrote a much longer smart-ass post but thought better of it...
If a job holds too much risk for someone, perhaps they should just consider another job...
Making over the world to suit ones' taste for safety at the expense of others isn't the answer...it's a problem...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
As the law now stands, felons, illegal aliens, and the mentally unstable may not legally purchase or possess firearms. So, what's your point?
I'm familiar with the law. You didn't understand my post. Let me help.
I was stating that due to the fact other gun laws that affect you and I, and the fickle nature of the courts in the upholding of ones right to self defense; I want those "restrictions of the 2nd amendment" as it serves to lower my chance of running into said groups carrying a firearm. This is coming from a "shall not be infringed" camper. Bad guys are bad guys and they will get their weapons regardless of the law but the non bad guy - bad guys, such as the mentally unstable citizen and/or the average illegal farm hand being restricted from walking into the local pawn shop and purchasing a firearm might help lower the chance of that firearm finding its way into the hands of the real bad guys. Before you react: That is the exact same argument anti-gunners use. Thus my comment about the slippery slope. Make sense? That entire line of thought is a giant black hole.
To the important part:
Reading on in my post, you will hopefully ultimately be able to infer what my actual desires entail given I would be allowed my utopia. Also, you will notice I stated that I don't have the answer as the issue is larger than we sometimes make it out to be. No one here can say that tomorrow the USA would be a better place if all restrictions concerning firearms were listed. I believe ultimately that would be the best plan but the growing pains, needed because of our current sad state of humanity, would be far to much for most to weather. My post was observational.
You can not make a logical case for "reasonable" restrictions on bearing arms, by pointing out cases where government entities historically usurped the rights of the people. It's circular and self-indulgent. The presented premise in that sort of circular logic is that because the government entities over time have eroded the peoples' rights, then it's perfectly Ok for the government to continue to erode our rights.
The towns wanted to keep pistols out because the outlaws carried guns to fight. Which they did. The problem was, the outlaws carried guns anyway, and the law abiding citizens honored the law, leaving their guns with the Sheriff or barkeep or hotel proprietor.
Similar to what is going on in National Parks, you have criminals and predators who will arm themselves with guns, knives, axes, etc and prey on the innocent who are abiding by the laws. Or worse, you have natural predators to contend with, who know no rule of man -- and will kill you deader than a doornail.
If poaching is a concern in National Parks, then setup poaching stings to catch them. As a game warden would do, where rifles and scoped handguns are 100% legal. A lack of creativity in preventing the crime of poaching should not be the basis for stopping someone from carrying a rifle, camp carbine, brush gun, shotgun or large bore pistol for defense.VERY well said!
I have little time for those that would restrict everyone's rights based on the actions of a few criminals/jerks/idiots:mad:
But in addition to that twisted logic
Where I live, we are very close to RMNP. When hiking, climbing, backpacking it is very easy to cross a little line on a map and suddenly have the laws ( and your legal status) change
How does that make sense?
There is also a state highway running through the park, so someone that is totally legal on either side becomes a criminal simply by crossing those same lines
And lastly, the stupid woman in charge of the national forest has tried to use the prohibition in Nat. Parks to push her agenda to have firearms outlawed in the Nat Forest
exkc135driver
03-23-09, 12:59
You didn't understand my post.
Thank you for the clarification. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
I have little time for those that would restrict everyone's rights based on the actions of a few criminals/jerks/idiots.
I completely agree.
Where I live, we are very close to RMNP. When hiking, climbing, backpacking it is very easy to cross a little line on a map and suddenly have the laws (and your legal status) change.
How does that make sense?
There are thousands of examples where actions that are legal here where I stand become illegal if I move 50 feet that-a-way, because I will have crossed a state line or other boundary. If you are at the western edge of a county in west Georgia, you may play with your SBR to your heart’s content … but stray a few feet to the west into a county in eastern Alabama, and you’re no longer legal. You may legally be hunting in a national forest which abuts a national park (assuming proper license, season, weapon, etc.), but if you cross over the unmarked boundary into the national park, you’re no longer hunting … you’re poaching.
It is your job to know where you are, not the government’s job to paint yellow lines throughout the wilderness marking boundaries between this and that.
No boundaries would be necessary if all the laws were uniform everywhere. But whose laws? Those of the People's Democratic Republic of New Jersey or those of a more firearm-friendly place like Wyoming or Nevada or Georgia? If I got to make the choice, no problem. But somehow I think that people like Mr Bloomberg and Mrs Pelosi would have more influence in deciding on the issue than I would.
Some 2nd Amdt-my-way-or-no-way-at-all folks may disagree, but I prefer the patchwork of laws we now have. It sucks (from a gunowner’s perspective) to live in PDRNJ or Kalifornistan, but if you feel strongly enough about the issue you can move. If the laws in all the states were uniformly like those in the PDRNJ, what would you be able to do? You couldn’t move unless you could find somewhere outside the US to move to where the local laws respect your gun rights. There aren’t many choices out there.
(Although I have heard that people in Afghanistan believe in, support, and frequently exercise their right to own weapons of all sorts, up to and including RPGs. You could always move there.):D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.