Heading to a national park? Now you can pack heat

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090520/sc_mcclatchy/3237180

Heading to a national park? Now you can pack heat
By David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers David Lightman, Mcclatchy Newspapers – 2 hrs 59 mins ago

WASHINGTON — Here's a list of stuff the typical American family can legally carry into national parks this summer: sleeping bag, toothbrush, change of underwear . . . loaded guns.

Thanks to a 279-147 vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives , visitors to the nation's parks and wildlife refuges will be able to carry weapons there if they abide by state weapons laws.

The bill is on its way to President Barack Obama , who faces a dilemma: Gun rights advocates attached the provision to a sweeping overhaul of the credit card industry, an initiative Obama strongly supports, so he has little choice but to let the gun section become law.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only that Obama "looks forward" to signing the bill "as quickly as possible," and didn't mention the gun provision.

Gun control advocates howled Wednesday, but to little effect. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy , D- N.Y. , protested "the bill has been hijacked," and Rep. Maxine Waters , D- Calif. , maintained, "American taxpayers ought to be incensed."

Scot McElveen , the president of the Association of National Park Rangers , predicted that the measure would provoke problems at the parks.

"Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."

Nonetheless, the gun measure, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly earlier this month, had strong bipartisan support. In the House, 105 Democrats, most from Southern, Western and rural states, joined 174 Republicans in backing the measure.

Two Republicans, Reps. Michael Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois , and 145 Democrats voted no.

"This is one of those issues that breaks down regionally," explained Rep. Chris Van Hollen , D- Md. , assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D- Calif.

President Ronald Reagan first required guns to be stored or inoperable in national parks 25 years ago, but last December, just before leaving office, the Bush administration overturned that rule.

That began a game of legal Ping-Pong. In March, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the Bush rule, and the Obama administration said it wouldn't appeal.

That action spurred Sen. Tom Coburn , R- Okla. , to include the gun rule in the credit card bill. It wound up winning by an unexpectedly lopsided vote.

Coburn and his backers said that they didn't want, nor did they expect, people to be in danger of random shooters in national parks.

"It's really common sense," he said. "This is not about guns. What I want is gun rights. I want our constitutional rights to be protected."

Rep. Rob Bishop , R- Utah , said the measure was also a matter of self-defense.

"The real issue is that law-abiding Americans will no longer be treated as criminals" when they carry weapons, he said.

National Rifle Association officials argued that weapons are needed for protection in parks that are becoming increasingly dangerous. Asked why police couldn't handle criminal activity, Andrew Arulanandam , the NRA's director of public affairs, said, "At that moment when you're confronted by a criminal, it's between you and the criminal. Law enforcement cannot be there in position at any time."

Gun control groups said a new kind of danger would be lurking once the ban was overturned.

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke , the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He added that Obama "should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns."

Brady group spokesman David Vice suggested that Democrats were overreacting to gun rights advocates. Democrats still have bitter memories of losing congressional races in more conservative areas in the 1990s after being tagged as soft on guns.

Vice suggested that last year's results, in which Democrats won their biggest congressional majorities since the early 1990s, are evidence that those districts recognize the need for some limits on guns.

"We're trying to change that perception," he said, "but it's been difficult."

It's about time that got overturned.

It's about time that got overturned.

AK-47s aren't legal for civilian use even if you do have a license to carry. I hate when I see comments like this published in news media, since it can scare people into disagreeing with a policy using an example which is unrealistic. Even if you do have a license to carry, and possess a legal gun, it's still illegal to point it at someone if they're not threatening you.

They make the facts up in their head as they go along...kind of like a psychotic delusion.

This is crazy. I really wish they'd repeal the 2nd ammendment.

And if someone was going to threaten people with a gun, I'm sure he wouldn't have any problem with carrying them into a national park eiher...

This isn't exactly true; if you look at the assault weapons ban that was legislated back in the '80s, you'll find a little provision that allows any assault weapons assembled & sold before the ban's legislative date to be used for civilian use.
I could be mistaken due to the bill passed by Clinton, but this is what I remember from the original text - it's why you can still buy a minigun today.

However, an AK-47 is a specific variety of fully-automatic rifle, a proper assault weapon. Those have been illegal for private ownership in the United States without a special federal license for many decades. The weapons outlawed by the so-called "assault weapons ban" are merely those that look like real assault weapons - formerly-automatic rifles with the sear pins replaced to prevent full-auto functioning, or just those with large clips. (Technically, my policeman brother's service pistol is an "assault weapon", as its magazine holds 14 rounds and the limit under the ban was ten.)

Now, I'm not saying that the criminal element in this country hasn't fetishized AKs a bit - just as they've become fascinated with the Tec-9 submachine gun because it looks lethal, even though the Israeli Arms Uzi 9mm SMG is more efficient and reliable - but I doubt very much that criminals who might want to pack in national parks have ever been bothered by laws about it. That's why they're criminals, after all. (For instance, check the firearm-homicide rate in DC, where it's basically next to illegal to even think about owning a gun; compare per capita with the rate in Seattle, WA, where state law provides that to acquire a concealed-carry permit requires a seven-day application and review process. You may find that the criminals are in fact bolder about going armed when they're fairly certain no one else is.)

The problem is, while there is a reasoned and cogent argument in favor of severe limitations on private ownership of firearms (one with which I disagree, but that's another matter), said argument is hardly served by the sudden jump to hyperbole regarding weapons that are already illegal under other laws whenever a matter such as going armed in national parks is discussed.

its not really a proper trip to the park unless your packing a biscuit.




nb: biscuit is a slang word for gun

It's a good idea to bring a gun camping just like it's a good idea to bring a well stocked first aid kit and emergency supplies. Help can be a very long way off.

Repealing that ban has been a long time coming. Let's face it: the whole purpose of national parks is to preserve wild land and wild animals. Wild animals can be dangerous and unpredictable, and if you're going to allow humans into these areas, you need to allow them to defend themselves if something goes horribly wrong. It's not just animals you may need to defend against, either. Not all predators walk in 4 legs, if you get my meaning. If I go on a camping trip, I am armed. Period.

I'm happy it got tossed, but I never really payed any attention to this law anyway. I always figured that the risk of getting popped for the illegal carry in the middle of the woods was less likely than any of the scenarios that it might be handy to have a gun for, and simply played the odds. This is just like the hyperbole surrounding the rise in states offering "shall issue" carry permits, the anti-gun folks predicted blood in the streets and a return of the wild west, and instead violent crime hit a 30 year low. I'm not making John Lott's argument that there is a correlation there, just pointing out that these people were not only wrong but dead wrong. I certainly am not planning on packing my AK next time I go hiking, I mean the damn thing weighs about 10 lbs, but at least I won't have to worry about getting harassed by the park rangers if my revolver prints a bit.

This is one of the reasons I'm ashamed to be American - how easy it is to have guns including ones only the military should have. From my readings for a politician to propose allowing civilians to carry handguns in most European countries would be about as popular as lowering the age of sexual consent to 2. I don't want to live in a society where people can carry guns in public.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Perhaps you would like Europe better then?