The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 21, 2009, 04:09 PM   #26
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
Quote:
It is sort of like people who run red lights and ignore stop signs
I reject this entire specious argument. There is no equivalency between the right to self protection and reckless acts with a motor vehicle, careless consumption of booze, or the use of illegal pharmaceuticals.

Quote:
I am not speaking of Alaska. I only worry about the places I go.
You ARE speaking of Alaska (and every other state in the Union) since you stated that you wanted guns banned from National Parks. If you refuse to see the full ramifications of your desire that is YOUR issue not mine.

Quote:
People who worry about paying the Danegeld clearly aren't taking the viewpoint of the Danes.
I don't tend to get too concerned with the viewpoint of those trying to strongarm me into compliance for no reason other than an exercise of power.

Quote:
Is the fact that there might be armed people tramping around in the woods a reason to ignore the law.
Is the fact that some people "feel uncomfortable" a good reason to deny self-defense/safety tools to law abiding citizens?

Quote:
You must be assuming that all armed people are bad, yourself excluded.
Actually that seems to be YOUR argument since you are the one wishing to ban all armed people.

Quote:
Personally, I've never met a threatening person. And I've never seen anyone driving particularly dangerously along Skyline Drive either.
And because you've been lucky so far that leads you to conclude that there is no reason for anyone to be prepared for self defense? Do you also drive without seatbelts or other commonly accepted safety precautions?

Quote:
I have personally known about seven (lucky seven) people who died from gunshots, five of whom were related to me in various degrees. Undoubtedly that gets in the way of my thinking clearly; it gets in the way of reality somehow, I suppose.
Clearly, since you are concerned enough aobut the presence of firearms to want -all- armed people banned from the National Parks even though the law abiding are no threat and the criminals will ignore the bans along with any other inconvenient laws.

Quote:
And by the way, I was under the impression that the two women were murdered in their sleep.
I suppose the point you are trying to make is that the women would not have been able to defend themselves? Well seatbelts and airbags don't always save car wreck victims either so I suppose we should just get rid of them as well. No thanks, I'll hang onto my safety equipment. ALL of my safety equipment.

Quote:
I say again, if the park is so dangerous, stay out, just like you stay out of D.C. or California.
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that I consider parks to be an especially dangerous place. This is incorrect. However I do not have some Walt Disney fantasy that the interior of a park is a SAFER place than the rest of the world. I choose to have safety equipment INSIDE a park for the same reasons I have it OUTSIDE the park. Just like my seatbelts, airbags, first aid kit, and compass, my other safety equipment (firearm) doesn't just make me "feel" safer, it has a realistic chance of actually improving my safety should (Creator forbid) an emergency actually arise.

Last edited by ZeSpectre; January 21, 2009 at 06:33 PM.
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 04:10 PM   #27
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
I know this is not politically correct for this forum...

but I've been in the Whitehouse and on the grounds and that is the last place you would need to have a gun... if the need arose all you'd want to do is dig a real deep hole.... you don't want to know how many people there are there with guns... I dare to say most gun clubs during a good meet don't have as many... and most even though you can't see them are very very close.
blume357 is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 04:27 PM   #28
hammer4nc
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2000
Posts: 575
Another golden quote from the Association of National Park Rangers, which provides context for the value placed on civil rights (individual self defense) within their jurisdiction:

http://www.anpr.org/guns_in_parks.htm

Quote:
ANPR echoes U.S. society and existing legislation in believing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute in all locations nor at all times. Park units are sanctuaries for human and animal alike, and in some cases may be the only viable habitat for a specific species. Unlike some other private, state, and federal property, natural resources in National Parks are protected, unless specified differently in the park's enabling legislation. Because of this, humans do not have the right to kill an animal in a National Park in order to protect life or property. Allowing firearms in National Parks would increase the risk to animals, primarily predatory species, considerably.
IOW: The "experts" believe the Endangered Species Act supersedes the Bill of Rights.

To repeat, (as many argued in the soccer mom open carry thread), if the desires of gun owners must be subjugated to the wishes of the general public, to preserve harmony and avoid the appearance of fringe lunacy; its game/set/match.
hammer4nc is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 04:53 PM   #29
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammer4nc
Re: forum procedural question) This topic seems highly political!!! Seems like the de-facto standard is that we must not discuss these issues, unless an actual bill is proposed, and even at that, unless the bill has a lot of congressional co-sponsors, and thus stands a fair chance of making it out of committee. Under that standard, shouldn't this topic be off limits, likewise the brady campaign thread stickied at the top of the page? Request for a ruling, please?
The fundamental civil right to keep and bear arms for self defense purposes (Thank you Heller) is on topic.

The Federal regulation in this discussion is the equivalnet to and has the effect of legislated law. Again on topic.

The fact that some, think this regulation may be abrogated by an EO (another form of regulation) is on topic.

As stated in the "rules," political discussion should be peripheral to the discussion of Law and Civil Rights. I will be the first to admit that some political discussion will be greater than peripheral in some topics than others. This appears to be the case here.

This thread will close if the discussion turns completely away from the core discussion of National Parks and lawful concealed carry. As yet, I don't believe that point has been reached. There are 5 other moderators that are more than capable of overruling me.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 08:27 PM   #30
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,500
This may not be politically correct on this forum, but...

I am disappointed by the number of posts, both in this thread and on other forums, in which guns owners react to "news reports" that are misleading or, at best, poorly written. The information necessary to properly assess the news is readily available. Gun owners should be knowledgeable about the legal process if we are to protect our rights.

National Park carry was authorized by a federal regulation that became final on January 9, 2009. There is nothing pending about the regulation that the new administration can stop "by the stroke of a pen."

Final federal regulations cannot be changed by Executive Order. The process for changing federal regulations is detailed and explicit and is contained in the Administrative Procedure Act passed by Congress in 1946.

There are only four ways to change the new National Park carry regulation at this point:

1. The Congressional Review Act gives Congress 60 in-session days to review and reject any new federal regulation. Precisely one new federal regulation has been rejected since this process was enacted in 1966.

2. All federal regulations are based on underlying "enabling" legislation passed by Congress. Congress can amend the existing law to remove the basis for the regulation.

3. Federal regulations can be changed by going through the lengthly and somewhat arduous process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. If the new administration wants to change the new regulation, they can start the public and very transparent process for new rulemaking.

4. The courts can invalidate a federal regulation.

BTW, the new National Park carry regulation did not come about because the Secretary of the Interior had a deep and abiding love for gun owners. The change also did not come about because President Bush wanted to further firearms rights. Rather, a bipartisan majority of the Senate wrote a letter requesting the change - that is when the Secretary of the Interior took notice and things began happening.

Last edited by gc70; January 21, 2009 at 09:56 PM. Reason: rushed off to dinner before I got to item #4
gc70 is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 09:19 PM   #31
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Isn't the new Secretary of the Interior somewhat pro-gun rights?

Whatever his stance is on the issue could help or hurt the cause.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 09:48 PM   #32
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
I really don't know anything about the newly appointed Secretary, Ken Salazar. Hmmm, just googled him. He's no friend of gunnies, either.

I do know the outgoing Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, former Governor of Idaho and no friend of gun owners. Yet it was under his watch that this new regulation was put in place.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 11:10 PM   #33
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
I am disappointed by the number of posts, both in this thread and on other forums, in which guns owners react to "news reports" that are misleading or, at best, poorly written. The information necessary to properly assess the news is readily available. Gun owners should be knowledgeable about the legal process if we are to protect our rights.
It is a saddening reality these days. Every since Obama has been elected certain groups of gun owners have been shouting "the sky is falling."

How about we start dealing with what is really going on and stop shouting about every possible "doomsday scenario" that the far righties can dream up. I am going to heed the words of Reagan and "trust but verify" as far as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary. I will be the first to scream when he veers away from his promises, but I am not going to shout out every time someone is afraid he "might" do something.

Gun owners as a community are really at risk of becoming the proverbial "boy who cried wolf" these days. How many times will we yell with no true wolf in site before society as whole just stops listening to us altogether?
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 11:43 PM   #34
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Playboypenguin
I am going to heed the words of Reagan and "trust but verify" as far as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary.
Ya know... That was one of the reasons for making Bart's thread a sticky. So we could keep track of real stuff that comes up.

I think I should change it's name and do some pruning. Maybe folks will pay more attention... Nah, whatever am I thinking!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 04:41 AM   #35
kayakersteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2007
Location: Western NY
Posts: 924
Oh Boy..

Quote:
as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary.
- That's great.

You will just ignore his historical record pertaining to guns??? That's simply foolish!! He will deal with guns as he has in Illinois: He thinks that's what gun ownership should entail. If there is ever a time to cry wolf, it's now. IMHO
__________________
See Ya!
kayakersteve is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 01:06 PM   #36
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
You will just ignore his historical record pertaining to guns??? That's simply foolish!! He will deal with guns as he has in Illinois: He thinks that's what gun ownership should entail. If there is ever a time to cry wolf, it's now. IMHO
You can run around hysterically screaming about things that "may" happen if you choose to do so, but I am going to only deal with the things that are happening. People who do the former tend to get labeled as not being worth listening to by most people.

I love how one minute Obama has "almost no political experience" and the next he has this massive history of political gun grabbing. Which is it?

Also, getting worked up about what the Brady campaign has proposed and then acting out against Obama because of it is just unfair. Center your attacks on the Brady campaign. They are the ones "proposing" the legislation. Did you attack Bush when PETA was proposing legislation making it illegal eat beef? It is okay to prepare for these types of things and make your voices heard, but to attack Obama for something he has no hand in makes it seem like partisan rhetoric.

Last edited by Playboypenguin; January 22, 2009 at 01:13 PM.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 02:43 PM   #37
kayakersteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2007
Location: Western NY
Posts: 924
Playboy...Once again

You seem naive to his past record - You need to do more homework is this one!
__________________
See Ya!
kayakersteve is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 03:30 PM   #38
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
You seem naive to his past record - You need to do more homework is this one!
I have not extensively studied his record. I will admit that. I did however watch the piece on CNN about his record and when they compared it piece by piece to other conservative politicians he really had not done anything substantially more offensive as far as "gun grabbing" is concerned. A little pomp and circumstance and blustering for his base in IL, but beyond that no real offensive actions in any circumstances where his vote would have even mattered. Politicians will often vote quietly for something they do not personally believe in if they know there vote will not matter but could be later used against them if they voted against.

I am open to hearing what anti-gun legislation he has personally sponsored or pushed through in his career though.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 03:51 PM   #39
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Pres. Obama does have a history within the context as a State or Federal legislator. While the past may be (and often is) indicative of future actions, context is necessary. As the Chief Executive, we really have no baseline, other than what he might do.

That said, we are now getting deeply into the political and off topic. Let's bring it back around.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 03:52 PM   #40
sasquatch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2005
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,347
Quote:
I am open to hearing what anti-gun legislation he has personally sponsored or pushed through in his career though.
I would love to get involved in this discussion, however the moderator has threatened to close the thread if it strays from the original subject, and it seems to be doing just that.
__________________
Just my 2ยข.
sasquatch is offline  
Old January 23, 2009, 11:09 PM   #41
hammer4nc
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2000
Posts: 575
Legal

For the record, here's a link to the Brady lawsuit challenging the rule change, filed 12/30/08.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pd...-complaint.pdf

case# 1:08-cv-02243

I don't know how to track legal records, (pacer?) perhaps other knowledgeable members can post links to subsequent court filings/decisions as they accrue.

Assigned to Judge Colleen Kotar-Kotelly (A Bill Clinton appointee, who has slapped the Bush administration on at least a couple of occasions.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Kollar-Kotelly Is this pertinent?

Interesting, 2 of the 3 named defendants on this lawsuit are now gone (Kempthorne and Bomar). Replaced by Salazar, and another Obama appointee TBA. What happens when new administration's legal response is filed, essentially admitting to the malfeasance? Presumably only special interests like NRA, etc. will be left to file friends-briefs averring the charges.

Will that factor into the judge's decision?

How many of the 50-odd senators who signed the original letter requesting the change, are still in office?

The suit asks for reversal, and injunctive relief to block implementation. I'm assuming no decision (granting or denying the injunction) has yet been issued.

Scanning internet articles, it appears many forces are arraying against this rule change, including invoking the Congressional Review Act (undoing many of GWB's "midnight decisons") . Far fewer voices speaking up in favor. Time will tell, but I'd say it is quite foolish to dismiss concerns about this issue as chicken little doomsday crapola.
hammer4nc is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 12:00 AM   #42
cubsin2079
Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2008
Posts: 29
I am planning a trip Big Bend next month and was curious as to the status of this law. I was told "until said law is entered into the National Registry" it is not law and would not be recognized as such. Firearms are not permitted onto national park land. Firearms must be made inoperable when on national park land. If caught with operable firearms you could face federal felony charges and a lifetime ban from all national parks.
cubsin2079 is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 12:11 AM   #43
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,368
Not withstanding a change brought about by impending law suits, the Rule change took effect Jan 9th.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 12:16 AM   #44
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,500
Quote:
"until said law is entered into the National Registry"
The new concealed carry regulation was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2008, with an effective date of January 9, 2009.

Last edited by gc70; January 26, 2009 at 12:58 AM.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 04:35 PM   #45
useful_idiot
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3
Quote:
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods.
I bet the families of those two young ladies murdered in their tent in the Shenandoah National Park a couple years ago wish they had been able to defend themselves.

Other people's discomfiture with individuals concealed or open carrying for personal protection should never take precedence to the inalienable right to defend yourself and loved ones.
useful_idiot is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 04:51 PM   #46
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods.
How does it spoil the reason you go there? The guns are concealed, so you presumably don't even know who is armed, which incidentally has been the case all along.

Would you really make a case that individuals who can be trusted to CC with a license in an urban area are somehow unsafe with a gun in the wilderness?

With millions of open acres of land, and very little if any cell phone service, I can't think of a more appropriate place to take responsibility for one's own safety.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 06:18 PM   #47
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,031
hammer4nc quoted the following from the Association of National Park Rangers:
Quote:
ANPR echoes U.S. society and existing legislation in believing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute in all locations nor at all times. Park units are sanctuaries for human and animal alike, and in some cases may be the only viable habitat for a specific species. Unlike some other private, state, and federal property, natural resources in National Parks are protected, unless specified differently in the park's enabling legislation. Because of this, humans do not have the right to kill an animal in a National Park in order to protect life or property. Allowing firearms in National Parks would increase the risk to animals, primarily predatory species, considerably.
and commented:
Quote:
IOW: The "experts" believe the Endangered Species Act supersedes the Bill of Rights.
Actually, I think ANPR has a valid point here, and it's not about the Endangered Species Act. The animals in National Parks live there, and are protected because they do -- we don't live there, nor do we HAVE to go there. The purpose of National Parks isn't to let us get little "nature fixes" when we want them; it's to preserve some of the natural environment, including the animals that live there. So it's reasonable to prohibit behavior which puts those animals at risk. Whether CCW in parks does put them at risk is an empirical question, but it seems to me that it might. It would be nice if "No, sorry, it's illegal to kill animals within National Parks, no matter what," were enough to prevent people from killing them, but that's pretty hard to enforce, especially once you're talking about people going into the backcountry, where rangers are few and far between. I'm not talking about "wanton killing" here, which I assume isn't something any responsible gun owner is going to engage in -- I'm talking about someone shooting a bear, or a wolf, or even a moose, because they felt threatened by it; in a National Park, this isn't, and shouldn't be, OK to do.

I've done a fair amount of travelling in pretty remote places, canoeing in the Arctic and such, without feeling any need to cart a gun along. At the same time, if I go to a National Park, just knowing that some people may -- legally -- be packing isn't going to wreck the experience for me, or make me uncomfortable. But I do think that if their reason for carrying has anything to do with their "right of self-defense" against wildlife, that's sorta sad... better they should stay home if they're that uncomfortable outdoors, or at least take the trouble to find out how to coexist with whatever wildlife they're lucky enough to meet.
Vanya is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 06:20 PM   #48
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
So if you kill an animal in self defense in a NP, be prepared to pay a big fine. That seems reasonable to me. (I'd never thought about it before)
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 07:08 PM   #49
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,031
Yeah, I'd hope it'd be a big fine. But that there's a fine if you're caught won't necessarily deter someone who's way out in the backcountry...

And the new regulation will make it harder for the Park Service to catch poachers. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the original regulation, which requires firearms to be unloaded and inaccessible (e.g. in the trunk of the car) was to help prevent poaching within National Parks, where it's easy, as many animals have lost their fear of humans.
Vanya is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 07:14 PM   #50
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
And the new regulation will make it harder for the Park Service to catch poachers. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the original regulation, which requires firearms to be unloaded and inaccessible (e.g. in the trunk of the car) was to help prevent poaching within National Parks, where it's easy, as many animals have lost their fear of humans.
Just how does it make it harder to catch poachers? If someone is going to illegally poach animals, they are going to disregard the law about not carrying guns into the park in the first place. It is still not legal to discharge weapons in a national park without due reason. Any gunshots will still attract the same amount of attention.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14674 seconds with 7 queries