Defenseless in National Parks — Again

Thanks to the gun control lobby, people who might be attacked while visiting any of our vast and often remote national park areas have once again been rendered largely defenseless. A ruling March 19th by a federal judge in Washington, DC, has at least temporarily overturned a rule issued in December by the Bush Administration. The ruling by the Bush Interior Department would have allowed campers, hikers and other persons travelling through or in any of our national park areas, to possess a loaded firearm to defend themselves, so long as they complied with the firearms laws of the state in which the federal park was located. Now, thanks to the judge’s ruling, a person may only possess that firearm if it is unloaded and packed away where it is not readily accessible. In other words, now you can only possess a firearm for self defense while hiking in a national park if the gun is kept somewhere and in such condition that it is not available to defend yourself!

The judge’s ruling is based not on facts, laws or policies that are even remotely relevant to consideration of the right of self-defense or any other legitimate interpretation of federal power. Rather, the judge pegged her ridiculous ruling on the fact that the Bush Interior Department had failed to conduct an extensive environmental impact assessment of the new rule’s effect before implementing it. An environmental impact assessment! In other words, according to the judge’s “reasoning,” even though the pre-existing rule (which is now once again the current rule) allowed a person to carry a firearm in a national park so long as it was unloaded and packed away, and the proposed rule would simply have permitted that very same firearm to be carried loaded rather than unloaded, the administration should nonetheless have engaged in a lengthy and costly environmental impact study — a process likely to have continued for years.

Once again, we are seeing the environmental laws, enacted initially in the 1970s, applied to matters and situations not remotely contemplated to have been covered by those laws, in order to thwart a rule from being implemented because a liberal interest group — in this case, the Brady gun control organization — doesn’t like the policy to be implemented. The National Rifle Association has filed suit to overturn the judge’s ruling.

Even though some Park Rangers have praised the ruling, the real beneficiaries of the ruling are criminals who prey on defenseless campers and hikers — people like Gary Hilton, who has been linked to, charged with, or confessed to several murders in national park areas.


127 comments Add your comment

Copyleft

March 30th, 2009
8:38 am

Here’s a thought to ponder, Mr. Barr:

You want to defend yourself against armed lunatics? So do we. And it’s the gun-fanatics who are the “armed lunatics” in question. We’re defending ourselves through legislation, keeping as many of these nuts disarmed as possible.

Nan

March 30th, 2009
8:38 am

Given that gun owners are twice as likely as non-gun owners to die from gunshot wounds, I’ve never quite figured out just who the gun nuts are defending themselves from — each other?

Joe

March 30th, 2009
8:51 am

Copyleft…Your legislation will only keep law abiding gun owners like myself from protecting ourselves. A criminal on the prowl does not care one iota about gun laws.

Sugar

March 30th, 2009
8:57 am

Slowly, one by one, our rights are being taken away from us. When do we stand up to this government that is supposed to be working for us? When did WE start working for the government.

When does it stop? When all the woman are wearing burkas and not allowed to leave the house?

David S

March 30th, 2009
9:01 am

The premise of all gun control laws is that criminals (people who break the law) will obey the law. Copyleft and Nan, please explain this logic.

clyde

March 30th, 2009
9:02 am

Nan—Where did you get you information from?

David

March 30th, 2009
9:03 am

I never have understood the rationale that arming citizens is a panacea for stopping or reducing gun violence. In south Alabama the man killed 10 and then himself before the armed law enforcement professionals could stop him (seems like an awful lot of these rampage perpetrators kill themselves). In Atlanta Brian Nichols killed two law enforcement officers – at least one of them armed – before surrendering. In Oakland last week four police officers were shot to death in pursuit of an armed suspect. Sometimes I think people like Mr. Barr as a kid watched too much of Matt Dillon and Little Joe Cartwright, i.e, “just put a gun in my hands and I’ll take care of any situation”; unrealistic fantasies that appeal to some testosterone-laden males. Actually, I think, if people start carrying guns in the federal parks, it won’t deter those who mean harm; the perpetrators will just shoot from ambush rather than chance confronting an armed citizen face-to-face.

zeke

March 30th, 2009
9:10 am

RIDICULOUS GROUPS LIKE BRADY AND PEOPLE LIKE COPYLEFT ARE SIMPLY SIGNS OF OUR COUNTRIES DEMISE! IF, IF, THE ACLU HAD ANY CREDIBILITY OR INTEGRITY, THEY WOULD SUE THESE GROUPS, AND, THE VARIOUS LIBERAL JUDGES WHO MAKE THESE ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS RULINGS! THE SUPREME COURT, IF, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PACKED ONTO THE BENCH BY LIBERALS RULED WITH ANY COMMON SENSE, WOULD THROW OUT ALL THESE UNAMERICAN SUITS AND GROUPS! IT IS NOT THOSE WHO HAVE CARRY PERMITS WHO ARE THE PROBLEM! IT IS THE CRIMINALS WHO OBEY NO LAWS AND GROUPS LIKE BRADY! CHECK THE FBI STATISTICS! IN ALL THE YEARS SINCE CWP’S CAME INTO EFFECT, THERE HAS BEEN ONE, ONE INCIDENT OF A CWP HOLDER DOING SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIS WEAPON!!! AND THOUSANDS WHERE A CWP HOLDER HAD PREVENTED A RAPE, ASSAULT OR MURDER BY HAVING HIS WEAPON!!!

Turkey Slayer

March 30th, 2009
9:12 am

We have a simple solution to this problem. Arm yourselves and defend yourselves even if it means breaking the law. I would rather be alive and a law breaker than a dead law abiding citizen.

Road Scholar

March 30th, 2009
9:18 am

While the premise of needing an EIS for the gun law is ludicrous, the more important issue is why would anyone go out of their way to go to a Federal Park to shoot someone! Is this using the same database from GA on election fraud?(I support voter ID, but have never heard of a specific related crime at a polling station in GA.)

There are trained Park Rangers who can be contacted to assist the people if they are threatened. Otherwise it would be the wild west.

ESR

March 30th, 2009
9:18 am

Copyleft, are you insane? It’s not law-abidding citizens you see on the news daily robbing places and shooting innocent and hardworking store clerks daily in this city. The only way to protect yourself from the out-of-control crime these days is to self protect with a legal and permitted gun. Crazy people like the man that killed the innocent people at the nursimg home should be shot dead on the spot, just like the two thugs that shot the store clerk last week. I bet those two guys were hard working, upstanding young men, yeah right. Face it, this is Atlanta, a city full of thugs running around with hoodies on looking for a victim. I for one may be a victim someday, you never know what will happen but I won’t go down without a fight.

Davo

March 30th, 2009
9:34 am

Copyleft and Nan obviously have very little regard for their fellow citizens. To them that neighbor down the street with the NRA bumpersticker is the one to watch out for…not the transient raking leaves for a hit of crack. But I digress…protect yourself as you see fit. Just allow me (under the Constitution, btw) to do the same.

David S

March 30th, 2009
9:40 am

Turkey Slayer – The proper phrase is “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” Yes, being alive to defend your right to be alive is superior to being dead and the government wiping their hands of any complicity through their rights-violating legislation.

Saul Good

March 30th, 2009
9:43 am

I’ve hiked thousands of miles over the years in both State and Federal forests… never have I needed a gun. Nor will I ever. I’ve seen bears before and they’ve entered my campsite. Know what happened? Nothing. You are more likely to get killed or shot going to a gas station compared to going camping or hiking. Know what statistic you left out Bob? More people are killed in our state and national parks by hunters every year (accident shaxident…just ask Dick Chency)…then have been killed by murderers or wildlife in over the past 20 years.

Want to keep our parks safe? Ban hunting in them. Hunters kill people.

David S

March 30th, 2009
9:49 am

Road Scholar – What is the phone number for the ranger? and how long do you think it will take him/her to come file the report on your death?

If all of you folks are too afraid of yourselves or of guns to protect yourself, then fine. What gives you the right to take away my right to keep myself alive? Since when did you become god, or the elected officials you cheer on? You fail to realize that you too benefit from thousands of individuals carrying legally in society. When a criminal knows that anyone might be carrying, it is an implicit deterent, even if you don’t have a gun. Yes, you can come up with a million ways in which a criminal can still kill you even if you have a gun. It just becomes THAT much easier to do if he knows you are a law abiding citizen and definitely don’t have one.

Again, please explain how my carrying a gun in any way violates your rights. And please do explain by what right do you believe it is ok to take away might right to preserve or defend my life??? By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled very clearly that it is NOT the reponsibility of law enforcement to protect me in any way.

Jimbo

March 30th, 2009
9:51 am

@Copyleft
Claiming that more people people who own guns die from gunshot wounds is ridiculous. YES it’s true, but it’s because suicide is the highest cause of gun related deaths in the nation. You should also note that many more people commit suicide in the US than are murdered. Your little factoid is taken out of context and is completely irrelevant. Or, if you really wanted to save lives you might try taking the money devoted to anti-gun lobbying and devote it to treating depression. If you guys did that then the NRA would disappear and their money could go to curing cancer or something else that’s actually useful. The fact is that out of 2.4 MILLION deaths in 2005 (the last year where stats are given by the CDC) guns killed less than 30,000 people total and wounded under 70,000 (That includes all uses both legitimate and criminal, so when a cop shoots a bad guy it’s included in those statistics). That sounds like a lot, except cancer killed hundred of thousands and cirrhosis killed tens of thousands. Cars killed almost 50,000 and wounded over a million people. If you want to talk about things that kill people, guns are pretty low in the list. In 1994 (the time such a study was done) 110,000 crimes were stopped by armed citizens, that number isn’t from some lobby group, that number is from the DoJ. 1994 was the last year crime rose in our country before falling sharply. By the way, crime continued to fall sharply even as more than a million new guns were purchased every year and concealed laws proliferated across our country.

I guess what I’m saying is that you’re an idiot who hasn’t done their research and likes the convenient easy to chew sound bites you get off the brady campaign to end gun ownership (because it doesn’t stop gun violence) website.

@David
It’s not a panacea, it’s a chance you won’t have if you’re not armed. You said it yourself, law enforcement response times are long and getting longer as city and state government reduce police services. At the same time crime goes up because of the deteriorating economic situation. Why don’t you mention Pearl, Mississippi? You know, where a vice principal recovered his gun from his car and stopped the rampage? Why don’t you mention the numerous articles here in the AJC where a person defend their home or person from criminals? How about the fact that most cops I’ve met are appreciative of the fact that I carry a gun and support the carry rights of citizens? I don’t think anyone who carries believes they can simply carry a gun and everything will be ok, that shows ignorance on your part. It takes training, knowledge, and maturity to carry a gun and use it properly. It’s not for everyone and I’m ok with that, but I don’t think it’s right for you to decide that it’s not right for me either. I’d rather have the chance and take the risk than not. You rely on the police, I’ll rely on myself.

Copyleft

March 30th, 2009
9:55 am

I see the confusion continues about some imaginary distinction between “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” They’re the exact same people, folks. Even the same color, hard as that may be to believe.

The biggest gun-related risk to a typical suburban resident is his armed neighbor, friend, or family member–not a mythical “career criminal who ignores gun laws and seeks out middle-class suburbanites to rob and victimize and violate the wimminfolk, bwa-ha-ha-ha!”

So yes, the neighbor with the pickup and gun rack and NRA sticker IS a more serious threat than the homeless guy raking leaves. Because everyone carrying a gun is school, church, or mall shooting spree just waiting to happen.

The line between “law abiding gun owners” and “deranged mass-murderers and career criminals” doesn’t exist. They’re YOU.

Jay Dubbe

March 30th, 2009
10:05 am

I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. Take yourself as the example. If I gave you a gun, would you feel compelled to go shoot someone just because you possess the means to do so? Of course not. You could fill Philips Arena with 20,000 responsible people, all carrying guns, and not have one incident.

Why is so hard to understand that evil people will perform evil acts, be it with a gun, knife, a 2×4? If evil is ingrained within some, and they cannot be reasoned with, then by all means, give us the means to defend ourselves.

Joe

March 30th, 2009
10:09 am

WOW copyleft…do you want to go ahead and put a match to the Constitution? There is a very real distinction to criminals and law abiding citizens. I suppose we should castrate all men because there is no distinction between law abiding citizens and the criminal pediphile? Wake up! You can not just toss out the constitution because you don’t want the ability to protect yourself and your family…I will put my families safety in my own care before I push it off on someone else.

Copyleft

March 30th, 2009
10:17 am

Joe: Tell me what’s unconstitional about this… given that the Supreme Court has upheld our right to regulate gun ownership (a “well regulated militia,” remember?) every single time it’s been challenged.

Regulating gun ownership is the epitome of Constitutional process.

Jimbo

March 30th, 2009
10:31 am

Dear Copyleft,

Please provide the statistics that support your argument. There isn’t any evidence that you’re correct when I review the CDC mortality statistics on the subject unless you’re counting suicides. All told, police shootings included there are around 30,000 gun related deaths in a year. That sounds like a lot, but we’re a nation of 300 million people and two and a half million of us die every year. Over half of those deaths are suicides, less than 10% are accidents and the rest are homicides. The number of homicides include legitimate shootings by cops which are just a few hundred. In the grand scheme of things you’re more like to die of cirrhosis of the liver than a gunshot wound.

You fail to point out that there are as many guns in this country as there are people and that something like 40-50 million households own guns. So the people you speak of as “lunatics” are actually a larger demographic than some minorities. You also fail to point out that the assault weapons ban (which I’m sure you would say reduced crimes with assault weapons by 40%, just like the brady campaign talking point says) only reduced overall gun crime by 2% according to the DoJ and that in the year before its enactment crime began a freefall that continued to 2005, which it hit its lowest point in almost 40 years. During this span of time concealed carry laws proliferated across the nation and now only a handful of states deny qualified citizens the right to carry. The truth is Copyleft, that we’re all around you.. carrying every day. The best information I can find on Georgia carry permits indicates that there are tend of thousands of applicants every year and many years applications for concealed carry permits exceed 100,000. That means with years of permits being issued there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people with concealed carry permits in Georgia alone. Tell me, copyleft, where is the gun fueled holocaust? Oh right, you just repeat the statistics you’re fed without any real understanding of the facts.

a

March 30th, 2009
10:40 am

Copyleft is cracking me up and he obviously is a product of the public/government school system (say you’re a female, or that you’ve stepped foot into a private school, and I’ll call you a liar!)!!! Too funny, his “interpretation!” OOOOoooooohhhh…..legislation! THAT will REALLY scare murderers and rapists who use the north Ga. trails such as the north Ga. mountains and the Silver Comet Trail to find female victims! According to CopyLeft, if Meredith or the woman who died on the SCT had had guns on them, THEY would have been the dangerous ones! Oh, please tell me you didn’t go to school in Georgia!!

Umm, Nan, you’ve been asked to come up with your source….hiding??

Road Scholar – Have you come up with that handy-dandy number we can all use to contact our friendly, 5-mile away park ranger while being attacked?? And if the attacker has our phone, or doesn’t give us a 3-minute time-out to call the friendly park ranger while being attacked, do you have any advice for us regarding what to do?

Do any of you think Meredith might be alive if she had had a gun? Or are you saying it is her fault for not giving the attacker a time-out and calling a magic number to get a park ranger beamed down to her spot where she was ultimately decapitated?

Seriously? Copyleft and Road Scholar and Nan? You don’t think Meredith should have been allowed to have a gun? You are all saying (esp CL) that Meredith would have been dangerous if she had had a gun?

Thank you to all of you who are literate, who know how to read the Constitution, and who work several jobs so that your kids don’t have to attend CopyLeft’s government school.

Joe

March 30th, 2009
10:43 am

Copyleft…the Constitution says a well regulated militia, the very next line says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

a

March 30th, 2009
10:49 am

Nan said: “Given that gun owners are twice as likely as non-gun owners to die from gunshot wounds, I’ve never quite figured out just who the gun nuts are defending themselves from — each other?”

So, if Meredith had had a gun on her park trail, she would have been a gun nut, and she would have been dangerous?

Road Scholar said: “There are trained Park Rangers who can be contacted to assist the people if they are threatened. Otherwise it would be the wild west.”

So Meredith should have called the Park Ranger?

Copyleft said: “I see the confusion continues about some imaginary distinction between “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” They’re the exact same people, folks.”

So, if the law had allowed Meredith to have a gun, you would have eyed her as a criminal? This quote of yours is perhaps the most laughable of all.

Copyleft said: “The line between “law abiding gun owners” and “deranged mass-murderers and career criminals” doesn’t exist.”

Ask anyone who knew Meredith, or Jennifer Ewing, and they’ll tell you differently, I bet.

GTchemE

March 30th, 2009
10:49 am

You all ask why anybody would actually need a gun in a national park. I’ll admit that one in a million people would never actually need one. However, just remember that man who killed God-knows how many people on hiking trails in North Georgia over many years time. I’m sure one of his victims would have loved to have been armed.

John

March 30th, 2009
10:58 am

I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. I bought my gun under the assumption that I’ll never have to use it. I want it to sit and collect dust. However, if the day does come where my life or my family is put in danger I will be happy knowing that I have the greatest possible advantage to protect them. Ask yourself this…if someone invades your home and you’re tied up watching your wife being raped I can promise you that the thought of you having a gun will enter your head. You won’t just sit and passively accept it.

rogsmith66

March 30th, 2009
11:07 am

I am not worried about Legal gun carrying citizens having a gun in our parks. The ones you need to worry about are the bad guys who have no regard to laws. I was almost mugged one time. If it were not for my handgun, eith my wife or myself may have been hurt or worse. I welcome the sight of a person open carrying a handgun. He will be your friend. A person who is up to no good will always try to hide his intentions.

David S

March 30th, 2009
11:09 am

I think these responses make it very clear who in our society is the REAL threat to our personal safety – Road Scholar, Copyleft, Nan, and Saul Good (and everyone like them). We would still be living under a British thumb if it were up to them.

Again, by what right do you get to decide whether I live or die?

Who made you people god?

The constitution is in plain english. The Declaration of Independence is written in the same clear english. My rights are inalienable. They are mine because I exist. They do not come from government, they come from my creator (whomever or whatever that might be). First among them is LIFE. That does not negate my personal responsibility. Once I step over that line and violate YOUR rights, then fine. Up until that point, keep your “divine” wisdom away from MY RIGHT TO LIFE!

ESR

March 30th, 2009
11:11 am

Are we going to ban knives too? After reading how the nutcase in MA decapitated his sister after stabbing his other sister to death, perhaps we should move to ban knives too. Had someone had a gun at that scene, perhaps two innocent people would still be alive today and a gravedigger would have a job to do today. The ciminals running around today pick their targets. They’re much less likely to run up to a pickup truck with an older while male who has an NRA sticker and a Support the Troops decal; they know we’ll blast them to hell and back and still be home for supper.

Emily

March 30th, 2009
11:18 am

Gun control means hitting your target. I think everyone should have the right to be armed and ready to blow someones head off if threatened and in danger. If more people carried weapons think of all the criminals we could knock off and not end up having to pay more taxes to keep them fed and watered in jail.

KUERG

March 30th, 2009
11:20 am

BETTER TO BE TRIED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6

JJ

March 30th, 2009
11:20 am

I’m a proud gun owner. I am armed, and I know how to use it, and I will. I carry it just about everywhere I go.

David S

March 30th, 2009
11:25 am

What I find most amuzing about the anti-gun croud is that they personally don’t want to be in a position to have to kill or injure someone in order to defend their lives, but they are more than happy to be paying someone else to do their killing for them. They are not pacifists nor do they even pretend to follow such a principled journey through life.

They are the same folks who condemn Hitler’s violent actions, but conveniently ignore the fact that two of his first laws were to ban private schooling and gun ownership. Just aske the jews in the Warsaw ghetto how successful they would have been if not for their conscious and willful refusal to obey when told to disarm.

Just look at the violent crime rate in both England and Australia since virtually every gun was “banned” in those countries. Sky high.

There is no point in arguing with these types. They do not care about the constitution. They do not care about your life. They are comfortable with their complicit subservience to the authorities for the so-called promise of safety. Time and time again history has shown their type to be on the receiving end of everything bad. But then how would a wolf survive without sheep to feed on?

GA Gun Toter

March 30th, 2009
11:25 am

All of you people who rely on law enforcement to keep you safe should remember a few things (1) the cop carries a gun for his (or her) protection, not yours; (2) people licensed to carry a firearm are statistically more law abiding than the rest of the general public and law enforcment officers (didn’t 3 rogue APD officers MURDER an innocent, law abiding citizen a couple of years ago?), and (3) when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Your Founding Fathers sought to protect your right to bear arms and defend yourself. They had a reason. Wake up people.

bob

March 30th, 2009
11:26 am

i have a winter handgun and a summer handgun depending on how i need to dress to conceal the weapon. i take it everywhere regardless of the law – SEE KUERG, 11:20AM

Mafuta54

March 30th, 2009
11:33 am

I have fire insurance on my house, yet I hope I never need to use that insurance. Does that make me a pyromaniac just waiting to burn my house as well as yours? If my house ever catches fire, I will be glad that I have insurance! I hope to never have to use my gun either, but if the need arises, I will be glad that I have it as well.

JJ

March 30th, 2009
11:45 am

If Meredith had a gun, and knew how to use it, she would be alive today, and the deadbeat who killed her would be taking a dirt nap.

I’m all for gun ownership. Especially in these times!!!! I’m also for gun education.

Jefferson

March 30th, 2009
11:45 am

Cats and dogs.

matt

March 30th, 2009
11:46 am

Copyleft and Nan – Try to be a little more self sufficient. Do not rely on the government to step in and save you. You’re a human being; not a passive, submissive Paris Hilton style dog. I hope you never confront evil or insanity, because if you ever do- you’ll surely wish you were armed and not the pushover that you are.

tommcginnis

March 30th, 2009
11:51 am

What an astounding array of ignorance displayed here, in those wishing to quash the self-responsible right to bear a firearm in protection of self, family, and society. Horrendous, really. But to return to the National Park System and the associated firearms ban as the primary subject: please remember three things: 1) the “ban” was/is not that old; 2) the effect on NPS crime was/is nil 3) the only for-sure, concrete result was the ridiculous criminalization of those exercising their self-responsible right to bear a firearm, even while in transit as for example, while traveling the Blue Ridge Parkway or Rt 441 through the Smokys, hopscotching across NPS lands often without designating signs.

D-Rock Sizzle

March 30th, 2009
11:52 am

I just purchased my first firearm at the Eastman Gun Show in Savannah this weekend. I’ve been properly trained and do not take the responsibility of owning a gun lightly. I’m very glad that I have a S&W .40 to confront home invaders rather than a baseball bat. If you liberals are so afraid of me having a weapon for self defense, then don’t invade my home and you won’t get shot!

Dan

March 30th, 2009
11:55 am

My Guns have still killed less people than Ted Kennedy’s car. My Guns: 0 Ted Kennedy’s Car: 2

Anti-Gun Extremist Liberals are delusional as you can see from the facts..

ESR

March 30th, 2009
11:57 am

The anti-guns zealots must not think we ever watch the local news in Atlanta. They must not realize that we know that cops are having to send emails to people saying that whole parts of Atlanta is not safe (thank you Queen Shirley for running such a safe city!) even when walking to or from your vehicles to your doors or talking to a neighbor in your own yard. I suppose this way of life is the norm to them. They must not realize we know that the leaders of most of the metro area continually fail in regards to keeping us safe. They want us to roll over and play politically correct. We’re not stupid, we know what’s going on on the streets and although we can’t for sure say we won’t ever be a victim, my locked and loaded Sig 9 mm in my truck and my pump 12 gague in the home makes my chances a little less than that of Copyleft.

Dan

March 30th, 2009
12:06 pm

Gun manufacturers should stop selling to guns & ammo to Police departments in liberal districts, since they hate guns so much. Because, you know, we wouldn’t want to encroach on their liberal values. I for one see this country balkanizing eventually. That will be a good thing, because that would leave the liberals (like Copyleft) to their own devices. After they self destruct by killing each other with whatever sharp objects they can get their hands on, after their socialist utopia collapses & everyone is starving & robbing each other, we can move back in & use the land & resources for something positive..

DDT

March 30th, 2009
12:06 pm

Jay Dubbe

March 30th, 2009
10:05 am
I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. Take yourself as the example. If I gave you a gun, would you feel compelled to go shoot someone just because you possess the means to do so? Of course not. You could fill Philips Arena with 20,000 responsible people, all carrying guns, and not have one incident.

Do they sell beer in Phillips? If so, think again Jay Dubbe.

DDT

March 30th, 2009
12:17 pm

How many “law abiding” citizens are buying guns that wind up in Mexico? Obviously quite a few. But then they couldn’t really be considered “law abiding” could they. And how many of these “law abiding” citizens have been involved in all these rampages we’ve seen recently? Again, kind of cloudy as to how “law abiding” they really were all along. More than likely if any of you wannabe gunfighters have to have your peice pried from your cold dead fingers, it will probably be another “law abiding” wacko that took you out. Remember the “law abiding” wacko in Florida that went inside and got his gun to straighten out his neighbor for too many bags of garbage out at the curb. Wasn’t this “law abiding” citizen just that right up to the time he blew his neighbor away over garbage bags? You guys sure like to throw around that “law abiding” line knowing full well that most shootings and almost all shootings involving household incidents or accident are perpetrated by who? “Law abiding” citizens, that’s who.

My Gun/My Right

March 30th, 2009
12:18 pm

Copyleft, I hope that you have recently slipped, fallen and hit your head, as your comments are more than ignorant. I hope that you do not one day find yourself in a situation where you need a firearm for self defense, because I am afraid that you just might try to throw it at your assailant. But in case you do one day pull your head out of the sand and decide to lawfully defend yourself, the barrel of the gun is to be pointed at your attacker. Oh, and read the Constitution, and ALL of its amendments when you have time.

Saul Good

March 30th, 2009
12:19 pm

I love how some of you gun “owners” cite the 2nd Amendment. As if you even understood what it means. To be honest… the “right to bear arms” means that if I have the means to afford one… I should be able to protect myself with a small nuclear weapon…perhaps a few missile launchers as well. If those are the “arms” I choose to “protect” myself and my family… you show me where it says anywhere in our constitution or any of our amendments where I can not have those things.

What part of “well regulated militia” do the majority of you not understand. Want to go to the woods? Leave your guns at home. As I stated above…I’ve hiked thousands of miles and never had the need for one. Yet not ONE of you has responded to what I said above…the MAJORITY of people that have been killed in our nations parks…have been killed by HUNTERS. Dare you now prove me wrong. You can’t. All statistics point to what I just wrote as being both true and factual.

Dan

March 30th, 2009
12:21 pm

I think we all agree that guns & more than a small amount of alcohol don’t mix.. In other words the same laws that apply to drinking & driving should apply to handling a firearm. I don’t know one legally carrying firearms owner that would disagree with that.

Liberals try to paint us as the nuts, when in fact their party’s constituents make up most of the U.S. prison population..

Jonesy

March 30th, 2009
12:24 pm

The one thing I keep noticing that is missing is this important distinction: The law was written allowing those that ALREADY HAD A CCW to CONTINUE carrying in national parks located in that state. It did NOT give the normal non-licensed individual the right to suddenly carry a loaded weapon.

Now the crux of the reversal is as Mr. Barr described it. A loaded weapon is no different than an unloaded one (as complying with the existing old law-unloaded and ammo separate) as far as environmental impact. So the reversal on the new ruling is just a bogus loophole someone decided to use to stall the ruling by saying the Bush admin didn’t ‘check’ the box. And I’ll bet anyone a round that it wasn’t checked for the old rule either.

Now for my friends Copyleft, Nan, etc…..please….lighten up. You can hate guns all you want, you can use stereotyping, insults and all other rhetoric to describe folks who own guns…whatever, it’s your right to feel that way and say what you want. You can choose which rights you do or do not excercise. I choose to exercise the 2A, and it’s my right to own and carry a firearm if I so feel inclined. So please respect others’ rights. You do as you want, but please leave me to do as I see fit.

Do the people around you know that you have so little trust in them? I’ll bet that they would definately see a distinction between them and career criminals/mass murderers. I know there’s a huge one between myself and people like those: I’ve never been arrested. Can you say the same? I wonder who you think the “good guys” really are….