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

Make Guns Illegal

March 30th, 2009
4:24 pm

I would love for guns to be illegal – a complete ban on every firearm of every caliber for every person. We all know that a ban like this would work because we can look at the “war” on drugs for our evidence. Cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. are all illegal and billions are spent to keep them out of our country. See how effective this has been? Did I just say that out loud? Crap, I’d better run down to the corner and get me a dime bag and smoke this one off.

David S

March 30th, 2009
4:24 pm

Some quotes from the people who drafted and approved the Bill of Rights:

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in ‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

for more: http://www.uhuh.com/guns/2ndquotes.htm

MojaveGreen

March 30th, 2009
4:27 pm

BTW I view guns like I would a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher. As I have all three in my house and in my Jeep.My feelings are this. I would rather have one and not need it. Than to need it and not have it…. It’s your life, protect it the way you want to. I will protect mine the way I want to..

David S

March 30th, 2009
4:27 pm

The second amendment has always been about giving the citizens the right to protect themselves against tyrranical government, not about hunting, target shooting, or even about crime prevention. But since you can’t pick and choose when the citizenry might need to exercise that right, you can’t deny it ever.

Daniel

March 30th, 2009
4:36 pm

I wonder how many of this anti gun people has a Home Security system, Locked their doors when they leave home and go to sleep or owns all kinds of insurance policy? If they are so confident that everything is Ok if only guns are taken away, they should take off the doors in their homes and stop using all this services that they use to protect their family and self otherwise they are just bunch of Hypocrites. Guns are the last line of defense for gun owner.

Bodacious

March 30th, 2009
4:36 pm

God I love it when you guys are right, MGI; hold on brother I’m right behind you!, got a light?

Eric

March 30th, 2009
4:37 pm

For those railing against liberals, slow yourself down there pardner. There is a diverse universe of liberals. I for one vote liberal but I own guns. The current stance by the Democratic party doesn’t make me happy, but I also know that they can only take it so far – political will against gun bans is too great in this country, thus it is very unlikely to happen. For a host of reasons (abortion rights, separation of church and state, select social programs), I find that the liberal/progressive approach is more appealing. For gun rights, the conservatives have the right idea. Just be careful about generalizations. There is very little that is black and white in this world. For intelligent folks, the existence of nuance can be easily appreciated.

BJ Peppers

March 30th, 2009
4:46 pm

It’s so sad that all these people are so anti gun! I think all the follow up to these wacko anti gunners has been addressed here. I just want to ask Road Scholar about his comment “Give them what they want, then aggressively contact the police.” Are you out of you mind? You trust some thug to POINT a gun at you while you give them all of your possessions more than you trust me (the smiling guy with my wife and kids) concealing a handgun for our safety? CRAZY! First of all what if I don’t want to give them what they want? What if I actually want to keep my stuff? Second, since guns are SO dangerous don’t you think a mistake would most likely be made in a situation where the creep is putting a gun in your face? Third, what if the a-hole decides that he doesn’t like the way you look and shoots you? Lastly, AGRESSIVELY CALL THE POLICE? That makes me laugh. He has a .45 in your face and when he robs you and runs away never to be caught you are going to AGRESSIVELY CALL THE POLICE? LOL! That’s a good one. You go ahead and do that so they can come quickly and photograph your body.

BJ Peppers

March 30th, 2009
4:54 pm

These must have been some CRAZY CRIMINALS because they think like me??

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
— Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796

The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe,
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” —George Washington

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.” —Patrick Henry

These People must have been WACKO right? What do side did they sound like they were on. Of course they were just criminals anyway because there’s not much difference…IDIOTS!

paul S&W

March 30th, 2009
5:05 pm

I wonder if copyleft, nan and others who feel the need to attack our right/duty to protect our loved ones with a conceled carry weapon while visiting our Nationl parks could pass a ccw bockground check? One should not overlook what there real motivation is.

Sam S.

March 30th, 2009
5:58 pm

Moron Mark, I’m sure that not all gunowners have concealed carry permits. Good try though at cherry picking a small portion of the populace to make your point. Now tell us wise guy. How many gun crimes and crimes of let’s say passion were committed by those gun owners. Plenty I bet. From seeing you in Badies blog the other day spouting off your your Aryan Army delusion/fantasy, you are the last person that needs a gun. You’re dumber than a box of rocks.

Sam S.

March 30th, 2009
6:03 pm

Enter your comments here

AA

March 30th, 2009
6:06 pm

Drink a beer. Bust a few caps. Drink another beer, blast away some more. Drink another beer, belch, fire a few more rounds. Is that all you Barney Fifes think about. I know it’s your entire life, but damn…..

Kim

March 30th, 2009
6:26 pm

Another ridiculous statistic trotted out for idiots’ consumption: gun owners are (your number) as likely to injure or kill themselves than those who do not have a firearm in the home. So, does owning a gun make you a danger to yourself OR do YOU make owning a gun a dangerous thing?

Does owning more than one or two guns make you more dangerous than someone owning one gun? What about REAL gun-nuts like ME, who own 25, thirty (Lord help me, I’ve lost count). This logic reminds me of Dr. Suess’s ‘Green Eggs & Ham’. Every silly scenario presented by Sam is just as laughable as the gun control freaks’ imaginations: More guns, less guns, no guns, pop-guns!

JenNeva

March 30th, 2009
6:33 pm

David, you must be a real wimp, and I take offense to your statement that only ‘testosterone-laden males’ have any interest in guns or defending themselves/families/other innocent people. For your information, I am a woman, a USAF veteran, who legally carries a gun and values her 2nd ammendment rights to do so, and I know alot of other women who either have guns and/or carry them for protection. My baby sister just got HER ccw. And, if you have a clue what is going on right now, you would know that guns and ammo retailers are seeing an influx of WOMEN buying guns and ammo, even ‘old ladies’. So take your 1950’s views and shove ‘em, you’re obviously a male chauvinist pig. Guys like you make me sick.

JenNeva

March 30th, 2009
6:38 pm

Georgia Redneck, honey, I hate to tell you, but it’s not just rednecks that own guns anymore dear. You must have had a very misinformed upbringing, and obviously your parents, probably your father, set a great example for you, since you grew up to be a prejudicial, idiotic bigot of a person.

ConservativeAnchor

March 30th, 2009
6:42 pm

Just get a subcompact .40 S&W.

Then blame someone else and hide the gun.

I still don’t like Bob “Northern Arc” Barr.

Second Amendment

March 31st, 2009
11:05 am

First lets put everything into perspective. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Okay, can’t hunt in national parks because of that bad old lead ammo. Well, the only people I heard of that ate lead paint were usually low IQ inner city YUFFs. In my neighborhood we typically don’t eat lead paint atleat not without barbecue sauce. Okay, lead is to be made illegal just as CO2 is to be. Okay, lets take lead out of the nuclear reactors that are located near these urban welfare centers. CO2 is used by plants to convert to oxygen. Last time I looked Oxygen is a good thing. Obvious not enough oxygen got to the brains of Hillary and Kerry. Okay Hillary and Kerry let’s look at their life experience. Hillary dodge sniper fire in Bosnia, she also avidly hunted ducks with her grandfather. Kerry came to OHIO and baited geese and supposedly shot one. Kerry also went up the Makong delta into cambodia. Okay, to much lead in their food atleast based on their thought. Guns should be allowed in parks because people hunt and their are bears, and actually there are brazen homosexuals who try to assault innocent park dwellers. Well liberalism is a mental disease right Hillary and Kerry.

Secondamender

March 31st, 2009
12:00 pm

It is so easy to tell Anti rights people, They all state lies and mistruths instead of facts because they can not do research on their own. They follow like sheep when they are themselves elitists and hypocrytes who think they are better than the rest of society.
Copyleft & Nan for example have no facts just insinuations. When the briliant men who founded the Constitution and this great country had more brains in their small toe than Copyleft or Nan have combined.
At the time the Bill Of Rights was written the meaning of (Regulated) meant supplied or stocked. Theirfore (A well supplied militia)was the intent of the time. Our society is going to hell because of the likes of Copyleft and Nan for they are so dependant on government they would love Chavez or Hitler.

Copyleft

March 31st, 2009
12:39 pm

Let’s get everything into perspective.

First of all: Regulation of gun ownership IS constitutional</I, and there’s not a dang thing you can do about it. So quit whining about some insane fringe, absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and accept what it ACTUALLY means here in the real world: regulation means regulation, period.

Second: Facts include things like ALL the Supreme Court cases I’ve cited on this very point, as well as hundreds more that address this same issue. Regulation of gun ownership was, is, and always will be Constitutional barring a new amendment.

You really can’t do anything about it, gun nuts. Your rights DO have limits, and those limits DO stand up in court. Quit acting like spoiled babies and start looking for ways to make your case a bit better.

Our society is doing just fine, thank you, and getting better the more often we can put liberal officials in office to move us forward, rather than back to the jungle (or bunker, in your case).

Have a great day! I know I will (grin).

Copyleft

March 31st, 2009
12:40 pm

Hmmm… forgot to close the bracket. Oh well.

Dave R

March 31st, 2009
12:54 pm

The LAST thing you need to believe is a liberal telling you what the Framers of the Constitution meant.

Mark

March 31st, 2009
2:15 pm

Sam S. Sense you can’t refute my argument you resort to name calling? I have no idea what ‘Badies blog’ is and I assure I am NOT an Aryan! My point was that everyone who is against this rule seems to think it would allow just ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon; it applies ONLY to those who have passed the requirements to be granted a carry permit. As a subset of ‘gun owners,’ concealed carry licsencees are WAY more law abiding than just about any other group of people, including law enforcement officers! Look up any States’ statistics on revocations and you’ll see something on the order of 0.05 to 0.08% of CHLs granted are revolked for any sort of criminal misbehavior. For your information, the process to receive a permit includes an FBI level background check, training by a certified instructor, authorized examination of your medical history for any mental health, alcohol or drug addiction issues, and any other various state requirements.
Road Scholar, you said “Well, you could dial 911 or the number posted at the entrance to the park or your entrance pass to the park!” Excuse me, but there are LARGE sections of National Parks with absolutely NO cell phone coverage. Also, if it took you several hours to get from the park entrance to where you are, then it will take a Park Ranger about that same ammount of time to find you!

Copyleft

March 31st, 2009
2:56 pm

Dave R: Sorry, you still flunk Constitutional law. You see, they don’t need to take “a liberal’s word” for what the Constitution means.

What they have to take is what the Supreme Court says it means.

Dave R

March 31st, 2009
4:10 pm

Yes, copylefty, and that can change with a single ruling. When, and if, that happens, there will be a new precedent set.

The problem, as I have articulated for you loser lefty’s over on Bookman’s blog, is that you and your Socialist buddies have corrupted the Constitution over the years with liberal loopholes and torturous interpretations to where the ORIGINAL INTENT has been DEFILED by the law.

We talk raw, plain-spoken Constitution here, son, not your ba$tardized version of the Constitution through the eyes of liberal judges. Take your lack of law degree elsewhere.

Barry Soetoro

March 31st, 2009
4:33 pm

The judge overturned it because the Bush Administration didn’t do an assessment? These are the same anti-gun people that want to pass rediculous gun control laws without doing assessments. But now since it is pro-gun now they want an assessment? These liberals don’t assess their useless anti-gun laws because they know that if they did that America would see that they are counter-productive to making Americans more safe. Oh and NAN and COPYLEFT and the rest of that ilk, to help you out with your argument: only paranoid people need to own guns. The muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers don’t own guns and don’t carry guns because they are not allowed to by law, and we all know how well criminals obey the law. Guns pull their own triggers, cars cause accidents and kill people, pencils are the cause of spelling errors not the people using them. So as long as we throw logic and common sense out the window we can understand people like NAN, COPYLEFT, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd. There is a difference between somebody who is armed that is a criminal, and someone who is armed legally, i.e. LAW ABIDING citizens. You anti-gun ilk need to stop confusing us LAW ABIDING citizens with the criminals.

Barry Soetoro

March 31st, 2009
4:43 pm

The judge overturned it because the Bush Administration didn’t do an assessment? These are the same anti-gun people that want to pass rediculous gun control laws without doing assessments. But now since it is pro-gun now they want an assessment? These liberals don’t assess their useless anti-gun laws because they know that if they did that America would see that they are counter-productive to making Americans more safe. Oh and NAN and COPYLEFT and the rest of that ilk, to help you out with your argument: only paranoid people need to own guns. The muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers don’t own guns and don’t carry guns because they are not allowed to by law, and we all know how well criminals obey the law. Guns pull their own triggers, cars cause accidents and kill people, pencils are the cause of spelling errors not the people using them. So as long as we throw logic and common sense out the window we can understand people like NAN, COPYLEFT, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd. There is a difference between somebody who is armed that is a criminal, and someone who is armed legally, i.e. LAW ABIDING citizens. You anti-gunners need to stop confusing us LAW ABIDING citizens with the criminals.