Bush Administration Proposes Allowing Concealed Guns At Parks
The Bush administration proposed today to allow concealed weapons inside national parks, fulfilling a long-sought goal of the influential US gun lobby.
The plan put forward by the interior department, which supervises America’s 390 national parks and 548 wildlife refuges, would repeal a decades-old rule banning guns in the park system.
“The safety and protection of park and refuge visitors remains a top priority,” interior secretary Dirk Kempthorne said in a statement announcing the rules change.
Conservative politicians have joined the National Rifle Association, the largest gun-rights group in the country, to press for weapons in the parks before a new - and possibly Democratic - president takes office next year. Supporters of the ban argue that park visitors need protection from animals or criminal attacks.
Although threats to rangers in national parks have risen according to some independent research, the sites remain highly safe for visitors. The chance of becoming a crime victim in an official US refuge is 1 in more than 708,000, park service advocacy groups have noted.
Under the new rules, concealed weapons would remain prohibited in California, as well as other states that have passed separate laws against bringing guns into parks.
But that exception is prompting critics, such as Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein, to question what happens when one national park crosses a line between two states with two different laws.
“This sort of inconsistency would be an open invitation to poachers, would be almost impossible to enforce, and would seriously place public safety at risk,” Feinstein said.
The park service advocacy groups, representing rangers and frequent visitors to the scenic areas, have condemned the rule as a politically motivated sop to the right wing.
“This proposed regulation increases the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife rather than reducing it,” Bill Wade, chairman of the coalition of national parks retirees, said.
© 2008 The Guardian
Yeah, we need to be able to defend ourselves against those sneaky deer and racoons.
Humans have no right to be in the habitat of other species and put them at risk.
If they want forests, eliminate a few buildings and plant trees. Wild spaces are not for humans.
Typical humanity wanting their cake and eating it too.
Yippee, now when we see a guy carrying a base fiddle case in the Redwoods, we’ll know he’s one of the good guys.
If you’re too afraid to go into the woods unarmed perhaps you should stay home, or get Darth Cheney to accompany you with his shotgun.
Well, if this isn’t icing on the cake! Concealed guns in our national parks?!? There is no boundary to the sickness of our society and madness of our governance.
I suppose the concealed guns angle is in the public interest after reading all those horrible government reports about chipmunk attacks on people who openly display their guns.
Also heard that the Bush Administration (along with the NRA) is proposing a change in the requirements for becoming a Junior Park Ranger. Now, children would have to sign an oath to clear the forest of trees for timber and agree to shoot all wildlife at point blank. Junior Rangerd would receive special commendation for shooting endangered species.
Let’s see, concealed weapons in parks, rangers with tasers (http://yedies.blogspot.com/2007/12/us-forest-service-purchases-6000-tasers.html), unmanned aerial vehicles (http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=6089), privatization of our National Parks (http://www.npca.org/media_center/fact_sheets/privatization.html), underfunding parks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/16/AR2006041600612.html), rangers censored on geologic evolution (http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8861) and global warming (http://www.tothecenter.com/news.php?readmore=3467)?
So much for going to national parks to get away from it all.
Whatever is next from the Bush crowd is sure to be petty, mean spirited, dangerous, and be presented with the charisma and intelligence of Elmer Fudd.
Spreading more guns around has always been a good idea. Just look at Baghdad. Heston may be gone, but his cold, dead hand is still on the trigger.
Liberalism resists ordering ethical priorities but insists on ethical chaos and one of the results is the elevation of the privileged class’ pet priorities, e.g. the right to bear arms, above the universalist priorities of land, water, food rights for all people and protection of the biosphere.
Liberalism ties people’s hands behind their backs. People cannot advocate for people bcause liberalism allows class and privilege to be - just let it be.
Many of those who sincerely want to contribute to solutions that benefit all are lost in the liberal’s confusion. Which way to turn? Don’t ask the liberal, because theoretically according to him, whatever direction you are walking is the right direction by definition, even if you are headed off a cliff. Liberalism keeps the left unorganized - perfect!!
This is a FACT however. It is not safe to wander around in the National parks in California. ___ Really, there are warning signs posted to stay near the main roads. Mexican and South American drug lords have many marijuana plantations planted there and they shoot to kill anyone who comes near.
We can bomb Iraq and utterly destroy an entire country, and or threaten to do the same to Iran, but we cannot protect our National parks from foreign invaders who are well armed killers.
Guess our government wants us to arm ourselves and fight them off. I swear, I wonder if our entire congress is on mind altering drugs. ___ Really, this is nuts, insanity.
While the USA continues to claim that guns are good but cannabis is bad, the rest of the world will continue to view the USA as a dangerously psychotic and delusional nation.
Swell, just think of how much money Osama and Prince will save by housing and training their armies in our national parks. Is there a national park near the whitehouse?
whatfools asked: Is there a national park near the whitehouse?
Hunting season at the whitehouse is not yet open.
Game Warden is the most dangerous job in America even with all the laws and rules in place. Let’s turn Park Rangers into bullet catchers too!
Who is Prince?
if you knew what was good for ya, youd go and get yerself a permit AND a gun, just on principal. if guns are outlawed, only your oppressors will have guns. dont be skerd of cold, blue steal, cuz its your oppressors who are truly afraid of the masses with all their guns. wether you like it or not, America has the most privatly controlled firepower in the world (no joke!! its legal for you to own one!!) that can be used in defense of the people if so organized. so dont be skerd. protect yourself and your neighbor!!
I love it when long haul truckers blog here.
Good comment ~Power2thepedal~. What’s your 20?
Question for power2thepedal: Who are the “oppressors”? The Govt panders to the NRA and permits/encourages gun ownership, so the Govt cannot be the “oppressors”. Maybe it is because the Govt has a little bit more firepower than a bunch of citizens with pop guns?
Private firepower did not work for Jack Ruby or David Koresh. Don’t kid yourself that it will work for you.
I’ve yet to unravel the authoritarian “left”. They decry government torture, censorship, assaults on liberties, warrantless search, stun guns, etc. — but when it comes to firepower they advocate sole monopoly of it by the very entities they apparently don’t trust. Prior to the cold war, I’m unsure you can point to any other such example in human history — a “progressive” movement which believes that the citizenry should be disarmed?
Our political landscape has been basically flat/sterile for a century — nobody is really interested in maximizing liberty any more, just sock-puppets mindlessly echoing the authorities in their political camp. All about control.
People in cities fear gun-toting citizenry because there is little need of a gun in the city and most people carrying them are drug-dealers, gang members, a-holes and police. So many children and innocent people are killed and injured in the crossfire. City people are not well trained in gun safety.
City people have no experience with traditional rural gun use: the security of having a gun when you live in an isolated place, or have to keep the barn free from varmints, or need to hunt for food. I suppose there are also accidents and murders involving guns, but when the population is so spread out, it is less frequent and stranger related.
Lots of people want to own a gun as a way to preserve their freedom from government tyranny. I believe that is a bit outdated, but OK. Sometimes I too worry about being hauled away. But generally the government today uses softer methods of control. Probably better self-defense to turn off the TV and get to know your neighbors and co-workers.
This problem is easily solved with a little common sense.
First of all, nobody in the city or country needs assault weapons. That includes the police.
Second, nobody needs more than one or two guns per capita.
Third, guns can be marked at the point of manufacture and traced like dangerous drugs. That would help prevent criminal caches.
Fourth, ammunition sales could be limited and recorded.
For me, I wish for a world without guns and will not own one, unless I have to.
“For me, I wish for a world without guns and will not own one, unless I have to.”
And by the time that you realize that it is time that “you have to”, it will be too late and you will be unable to.
I say this and yet I do not even own a gun myself…Of course, I have the excuse that here in Canada it is far more difficult and expensive.
Jaguara
One of the most useless things, is an unloaded gun when someone is about to kill you or your family.
Register ammo sales? That’s exactly what the Neo-cons would love to see.
What are the odds of someone is going to kill you or your family? I dunno, but not very high I suspect in most places. There are exceptions of course.
I just don’t ever wish to see where the only ones who have guns are the crooks, madmen and the authorities.
Hmmmm, those three are all the same come to think of it.
National parks are some of the safest places in the world. According to the National Park Service, the probability of becoming a victim of a violent crime in a national park is 1 in 708,333, which is less likely than being struck by lighting during one’s lifetime.
The NRA is trying to fix something that is working well. Changing the current regulations would require a new and costly gun bureaucracy. State concealed gun laws vary dramatically, and some states are more permissive than a nearby restrictive state. Many states have reciprocity rules related to firearms, meaning they often recognize concealed weapons permits from other states. For those parks that have boundary lines in multiple states, this would create a very confusing situation for rangers as to which state gun law applies.
Here is a link to the proposed changes to firearm safety regulations: http://www.npca.org/media_center/pdf/Federal_register_notice042908.pdf
Here is a link for anyone wishing to comment on the regulations: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648053d497