Legislation introduced by lame-duck Sen. George Allen, R-Va., would allow conceal-carry in national parks. The thinking is that gun-owning Americans ought not be less able to defend themselves on a mountain trail than on a city street. In response, the New York Times opined: “If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding, which has decayed steadily since the Bush administration took office.” Discuss.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Agnatha on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Agnatha on Let immigrants run
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
67 Comments
Even with increased funding, you can’t have a park ranger on every trail with eyes on every inch. Now I do agree, the parks need increased funding…if you’ve ever gone camping where a party is blaring nextdoor for hours on end with no patrol, you know there is a need.
But I would feel a WHOLE lot safer going hiking, or anyplace remote and isolated, with a gun.
I used to be very pro-gun restrictions and laws. I think more common sense laws would be good and I think the NRA blows it WAY out of proportion, but I’ve changed my opinion on being anti-conceal/carry.
I agree that being alone, or alone with your family, in the wilderness can be a security concern. But I also would not want to unintentionally aggravate our existing poaching problems. Hikers should be allowed to carry short-range defensive weapons but not high-powered rifles.
I can see it now…crazed drunks shooting at signs, wildlife, rock formations, ancient trees and each other.
Yep…sounds like a plan to me.
Uh…have there been a rash of attacks in National Parks that would warrant people being armed?
Uh actually yes. Organ Pipe is one park in particular that has seen huge numbers of incidents. A lot of the larger parks are being infested with pot growers, illegal alien smugglers, in addition to our run of the mill crime. The current bill would only legalize defensive guns in parks that are in states where that is legal. These states haven’t seen crazed drunks shooting at signs or the like – But Washington, DC has.
Yes there is nothing wrong with people being allowed to carry concealed weapons with them at a National Park. You should be able to defend yourself against strangers and animals if the need arises.
I see no problem with carrying a gun in the natonal parks but I want it also understood that whoever carries that gun is also responsible for whatever happens with that gun.
Concealed carry people wouldn’t be out drunk shooting at the monuments- at least, that’s why they’re supposed to be screened for the permit in the first place. Plus, what hiker would want to carry a high powered rifle? That makes no sense at all.
I’ve noticed hikers carrying weapons on Colorado hiking trails. The reason I’ve noticed? The weapons usually are not concealed, but secured to the person by a holster. The holster is easily seen.In addition to allowing hikers to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise (a rifle if they want to carry a rifle), hikers and others should (A) increase park funding (B) let the ranger station know your on/off trail times (C) sign the trail head marker ledger (D) pack out what is packed in.
I spent a week in Yellowstone national park.
I was SO happy on entering the park to see this signs forbidding firearms.
It is telling what an abscence of guns can do. In Yellowstone, you can walk within a few feet of a bison or elk. They are not afraid of people because people do not harm or threaten them.
It appears the kook George Allen wants to go out swinging. This legislation should not pass. I go to national parks for nature. If I want to run into hillbilly gun nuts I can walk around Wichita.
Um…
I would carry my firearm with me anyhow.
Guess what JR, you would never even know it.
I am glad that a mere sign saying guns are forbidden is enough to make you feel safe. Last I checked they had those no guns signs in front and all around schools too… well we all know how well that seems to work at stopping people from bringing guns into the school.
Thank you Nathan.
Nathan proves my point about SOME gun owners.
Nathan willfully breaks the law because……he wants to.
JR,
I said I WOULD break the law. I have not yet. I carry my firearm when I am out hiking around Kasnas. There are wild animals and things which I would rather be able to defend myself against if something were to happen.
That is sad that those who know the rules are so willing to break them. That’s ok, if he ever gets caught carrying where he’s not supposed to though, he’ll lose his conceal carry permit. Then he’ll really be in some trouble.
Wild animals in Kansas to protect yourself from? Is there some crazed jackrabbit who threatens you Nathan? Perhaps that 12 year old crossing guard can protect you on your outings if you are so scared of a potential run-in with a duck.
Agree that Doug!
What wild animal in Kansas are ya askeered of Nathan?
Sheesh Nathan you really landed on the carrier with that one!
I should have clearly stipulated that I WOULD carry my firearm into a national park to protect myself from wild animals.
I do carry my pistol with me around Kansas for protection though.
PM, I sometimes speed when I drive too, I am such an awful person, I know.
Do you carry your gun around the city to protect yourself from pigeons?
In Nathan’s defense, not like he needs it from me, you do now have a cougar (mountain lion) population in Kansas and in my hometown, they have proved to be quite dangerous to humans.
http://kdwp.blogspot.com/2006/04/mountain-lions-in-kansas.html
http://www.bakersfieldonline.us/newsarchives/june2004.php
Yes, I have had a dog killed by a mountain lion, and I wished that I had a gun at that point.
You referenced a website that said this, “The truth is that in modern times there has not been indisputable evidence of a wild Kansas mountain lion”
Nothing better than paranoid people carrying firearms. I suspect somebody’s dog will get shot by a gun nut. Funny how I would hike in Mt. McKinley Park every year where there were grizzly bears and other assorted animals but never needed to carry a gun. However with wild ducks and maybe a coyote people here need to pack an arsenal. I guess it says a lot about the need for clean underwear in Kansas.
Well, it appears that in 2003, a cougar was around the West Campus area of KU.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/dec/10/lab_confirms_droppings/
I grew up close to Joplin, and we DID have mountain lions there. It’s not too far of a stretch to believe they’re in Kansas too, unless you think that mountain lions just stop at the Kansas border.
I know a person that had some trouble out on his own farmland.Two men approach him while he was fishing on a river that runs thru his property acting all friendly.The next thing you know they try to drown him, but he had a handgun on him by coincidence because he heard that there was a mountain lion in the same area.He had managed to reach for his gun, wounded one and held the two of them until the authorities came.It turned out that the two men were on the run wanted in seven states for murders committed.They wanted to kill him, rob him for money and take his vehicle.He never thought that he would have to defend himself like this against two-legged predators out in the middle of normally quiet country, but I would say that his guardian angel was watching out for him.FYI, this all happen by Argonia, Kansas less than 10 yrs. ago and the mountain lion was killed by his neighbor.
I do wish however, that I would quit hearing about farmers killing the mountain lions.
We didn’t lose much cattle from them. And I rarely hear of a cougar actively seeking to kill humans. Take a gun to protect yourself, but other than that leave them alone.
Pmom -That farmer had a little .25, he wasn’t intending to kill, just scare it off.As for his neighbor, we didn’t think it was necessary too.
I’m just trying to figure out how to conceal my Ma Deuce under my jacket. The four and a half foot barrel is really cramping my style, and the handles stick out about six inches.
Not to mention the belt of ammunition.
All sarcasm aside, all the cute and fluffy animals can go directly to hell when they threaten my life, health, and safety. Even bipedal ones.
What, pray tell, is the ultraliberal response to being the victim of an animal attack or violent crime (I have been the victim of both, inadequately armed in both situations.) Yes, I survived, but not without trauma of both the physical and emotional sort. Now, I have a very large handgun. I used to be pro-gun-control until I was assaulted in my sleep.
Postal if the animal is about to attack you absolutely shoot it. But don’t just shoot it because it’s on your property.
The issue was allowing guns in our national parks.
I would imagine that many yahoos see the “no guns allowed” signs I saw when I was entering Yellowstone. They go “Aww shucks!” and take their popguns AND their mischief elsewhere. This should not be changed.
It is foolish to believe that those with complete disregard for the rule of law (aka criminals) are simply going to drop their guns and refrain from acts of violence just because you put up a sign that says “No Guns Allowed.” Neither are wild animals going to refrain from thinking of you as dinner simply because people aren’t regularly on their diet.
How out of touch with reality can you guys get?
Did it occur to anyone that “No guns allowed” in Nat’l. Parks might somewhat be for the safety of the animals? There are some people who would happily play target practice with squirrels and groundhogs.
I am just wondering…
If someone was going to “happily play taret practice with squirrel and groundhos” how putting up a sign that says no guns is stopping them?
Why not put up a sign that says do not harm the animals except in self defense?
I don’t know, Nathan. Maybe because the no-guns-in-parks thing is a law? Isn’t that what the thread is about?
I’ll agree that it probably doesn’t do any good, but I was hoping to add another dimension to the discussion.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I’m not anti-gun. Because of the many crazies in this fair nation, I’d rather have a few laws for oversight as to who will purchase a gun. (Note I said “purchase.” I’m fully aware that many guns are procured illegally.) As long as the law doesn’t say I am required to have a gun, I’m okay with it.
Nathan, would you truly approve of anyone and everyone owning a gun with no restrictions? Like the wild West days? Is that your idea of safety combined with freedom?
RD,
I think the laws in place are adequate.
I think owning an automatic weapon should be a bit easier.
I think the import restrictions on assualt weapons should be canceled.
Those are a couple of things off the top of my head.
I don’t think felons should be able to own a firearm unless they go through an extensive process exhonerating themselves except for certain types of felonies which should never be able to own a firearm.
However, that is not enough for most liberals. They ultimately want to ban gun ownership all together.
You need look no further than New York, Maryland, California, and other major cities like Washington DC and the like to see what the liberals want.
Your beloved Nancy Pelosi is one of the most vehemont anti gun people in the congress.
Nathan, it is absolutely untrue that most liberals want to ban guns altogether. That is just a sound bite slogan from the NRA.
This liberal has owned guns in the past, supports sporting gun activities even though I do not hunt, etc.
Reasonable gun control is necessary to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. Remember, the Columbine killers purchased some of the guns used in the massacre at a Denver Gun Show, without background checks.
Guns should receive the same level of regulation as automobiles. For the life of me, I cannot see how any reasonable gun owner could be in opposition to that requirement.
The point is, most liberals do not want to see the end of gun ownership.
There may be a few that do – but there are also gun advocates that think they should be allowed to purchase RPG launchers.
This liberal will support your right to own a gun – with reasonable regulation.
WSClark,
I appreciate that you support my owning a gun, but you are wrong about “most” liberals.
Once again, look at the cities and states where liberals are dominant and you will see the gun laws, restrictions, bans, and outright denial of ownership there.
The last time the Democrats had congress they and Bill Clinton spent there time trying to pass more gun laws.
It is no mere soundbite.
When has anyone tried to ban guns? I’m a liberal, I own a shotgun, I, along with all my other liberal friends have never supported a gun ban. Who is banning firearms?
Doug,
It is not firearms in general. I mean you can own a .22 caliber rifle with at least a 50 inch barrel, 25 pound trigger pull and only bolt action with no clip, painted bright neon orange, with registration and license, and annual police recertification, fines, fees, and whatnot…
It would be near political suicide to call for an outright ban, but boy oh boy they (liberals) will try to add as many restrictions and regulations and bans as they can.
So they treat guns like cars. Big deal. The way you say it it’s like they are trying to ban cars too. Face it, you were dishonest as conservatives tend to be.
Doug,
I was not dishonest. The truth is that many liberals do want to ban firearms ownership all together.
You won’t see someone run a campaign on it, but it doesn’t make it any less true.
Even your additude of it being no big deal proves my point.
Nathan,
Could you explain to me the advantages of having an automatic weapon and where you would use it? Also, the same for assault weapons. And what automatic/assault weapons are we talking about?
I’m asking out of curiosity, not for the same of argument.
And Pelosi is not my beloved. ;)
Nathan, it is my understanding that the ban on guns in Washington D.C. was lifted in 2004. Chicago has a gun ban. San Francisco had a gun ban, but CA state law overrides it.
If there are more that are actually in effect, I would need a website address.
Bill Clinton and the prior Democratic Congress advocated extending the ban on imported “assault type” weaponry.
To return to my original point, most liberals see “guns” as being a relative non-issue. Americans will continue to have the right to bear arms.
Washington D.C. and Chicago took extreme actions because of the level of violence on their streets. San Francisco – god love them – is always out on the far, far left edge of liberal politics.
I would like to see guns register in much the same way as automobiles. Most of the gun owners I know – and there are many – handle the responsibility of gun ownership properly.
No, you said guns were being banned, then you said they weren’t. You lied. It’s pretty simple that even you should be able to understand if you were honest.
Funny how I was able to walk into a store and buy a gun and walk out with it in just a couple minutes. That’s your banning for you. Perhaps if you had evidence of your claim you’d have some credibility. However asking you for evidence of anything these days and actually getting it are two different things.
Doug,
You remind me of someone else who I used to argue with here.
Are you sure you did not post here under a different name before?
RD,
What is the purpose of a Jet Ski?
I enjoy collecting, shooting, and competeing with firearms. I would like to have a fully automatic weapon, but at this time don’t feel like jumping through the amount of hoops and paperwork one as to, to be approved to own one.
WSClark,
A gun regesitry? Why? A gun regestry gives the government the exact whereabouts of who owns what type of guns.
It kind of defeats one of the two main reasons the 2nd Amendment was written for.
The word “assualt” is a term to demonize a weapon for no other purpose than to ban it. The only thing that makes a weapon an assualt weapon is that it has a 30 round clip, collapsable butt stock, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, pistol grip, and is semi-automatic.
You know what happens now? A company simply ships most of the parts over, an American company throws in one of its parts and they assemble it here… that is your import ban. All it created is a stupid inconvienence so a bunch of anti-gun liberals can feel good about themselves.
Same thing with the assualt weapons ban.
The only difference between my M4 I recently purchased and one under the so called assualt weapons ban is that now I have a bayonet lug, collapsable stock and flash suppressor. Otherwise the weapon is the exact same.
Between the CDC, Americans for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign, and the million mom march you are going to sit here and pretend like no one is antigun?
LOL
As a military man, Nathan, do you really think that the govenment is concern about citizens protecting themselves against the government?
Really?
What are you going to do? Fire your AK-47 at the F-15 after it cluster bombs your home?
The most powerful military in the world’s history has nothing to fear from an armed American populous. The American Armed Forces could destroy all of the world’s armies within six months – a few hundred thousand citizen with assault rifles would just be target practice.
Get real.
Don’t worry Nathan, I’ve always posted under the same name. It’s a shame my annoyance has been copied by others. Here I thought I was a unique pain in the ass.
I’m curious Nathan.
Just why do you think you need an automatic weapon?
Are you just a really lousy shot? Like to disatch wildlife en-masse?
?
See Nathan? I am not anti-gun. Very few people are anti-gun. But it is folks like you who want NO restrictions and who willfully flaunt the restrictions in place that worry me.
How do I know that you are just not plain nuts?
JR,
“Just why do you think you need an automatic weapon?”
I already stated why I would want one. I enjoy collecting, shooting, and the competition.
“Are you just a really lousy shot?”
Actually, I am a Marksmanship Instructor in the Marine Corps. I teach people how to shoot. On top of that firing a weapon on fully automatic makes your fire less accurate unless you are at extremely close ranges or have your weapon mounted.
“Like to disatch wildlife en-masse?”
I am also a Hunters Safety Instructor. I value the balance Hunters play in the wildlife populations and the responsibility we have. I wouldn’t want to kill wildlife enmasse nor would an automatic weapon afford me the opportunity to do so.
“But it is folks like you who want NO restrictions and who willfully flaunt the restrictions in place that worry me.”
I never said I wanted no restrictions. I just don’t want stupid ones which serve no purpose other than to make people like you who are afraid of guns feel better about yourselves.
“How do I know that you are just not plain nuts?”
How do I know that you are just not plain nuts?
“What is the purpose of a Jet Ski?”
Sorry, Nathan, I don’t know the answer to that one, either. I don’t have nor have I ever really wanted one. And just to make sure you think it’s because I’m not interested in watersports, I CAN waterski. I’ve just never been one who has to have bigger and better or to keep up with the Jones’s. Not saying you are, either.
Thanks for answering.
Very convincing arguement you got there in favor of automatic weapons Nathan,
“I enjoy collecting, shooting and the competition.”
Well perhaps the leaders of certain foreign nations might feel the same way about nuclear weaponry! Doesn’t meant their getting a nuke would be a good thing now does it? In fact our foreign policy seems directed at denying them the chance.
JR,
Figuring more people probably die from boating accidents in this country than by the hands of an assualt rifle I suppose we should get rid of all personal water crafts too.
And while we’re at it…
We SURE can’t have those incredibly accident-prone bathrooms anymore.
The jet ski arguement again?
Anybody ever attack another person with a jet ski?
That’s sorta funny to imagine.
I got no arguement with that actually.
The subject was National parks.Jet skis are loud and spew pollution. You can ban them and snowmobiles AND automatic weapons for all I care.
Nathan you KNOW that the more something is allowed, the greater license folks will take with it. Why can we not let the National parks be just one place where the sound of gunfire is not part of the ambience?
JR,
Was the sound of gunfire part of the ambience before?
I’m not familiar with that one either.I live within minutes of the Sequoia National Forest and a few hours from Yosemite. I’ve never heard of any hunting or gunfire in these areas. With the exception of an occassional shooting of a bear that was done by the forest service itself.
What I do find interesting is that that same people who want a ban on weapons of any kind are the same who believe the current administrations support of listening in on overseas phone calls to known terrorist groups will lead to the government listening in on their phone calls and whatever else.If the Bush administration is as evil as you think wouldn’t you want to have as many assault weapons as you could in your possession to fight off the Repbulicans when they come to get you?
No Nathan it was not. Sen. Allen is the one trying to change that.
This is part of the classic enact more restrictions on firearms when there was no problem…
I don’t ever recall gunfire in National Forests being a huge problem, small problem, or any problem at all.
Was there some preponderance of gun toting idiots causing trouble?
Was there constant gun fire in the National Parks?
Really, why do we need to ban firearms in National Parks? What is the point?
That is my question. Besides comforting JR’s gun fearing mentality, what is the purpose of this?
Oh, now that I look at this legislation it is to allow concealed carry permit holders the ability to carry in the parks.
These are people who have already jumped through the hoops to be approved to carry concealed and you are worried about them causing trouble in the parks?
Give me a break.
Automatic weapons are pretty pointless. If I thought I would ever need the capacity to shoot at a cyclic fire rate that high, I’d reconsider my lifestyle or move. A semi-automatic rifle, or an automatic handgun (which I’ve never understood why pistols were Autos and rifles were Semi-Autos, and this means the exact same thing) is more than adequate. A revolver is adequate, except for the 95 year old woman who was killed by police, who needed faster rate of fire, faster bullets, and more stopping power to prevent being killed by police home invaders. Too bad she didn’t use a .22 Hornet revolver… those go right through Kevlar. I’m sorry, but if you don’t announce yourself and you come into my home while I’m home, you stand a very good chance of catching a .40 S&W or two to center mass. #2 Buck, 3 inch Magnum shells if you’re really unlucky. Burglar or otherwise.
And, Pmom, don’t worry, I *don’t* kill animals. Don’t hunt. I’m nonviolent, and I figure Dillons will continue to have hamburger and chicken and pork in the shrinkwrapped packages, so there’s no need to go kill a random animal for food… yet. If it ever comes to that, I could always hunt for survival.
As for National Parks… well, I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t carry a gun, but keep all the punishments in place for illegal hunting. The right to self defense doesn’t disappear, and there’s some dangerous crap out there. There’s always this notion that “because you have it, you’ll use it.” Bastards will be bastards regardless of the laws. Litterbugs concern me more than guns in our parks and recreation areas.
Litterbugs concern me more than guns in our parks and recreation areas.Posted by: Postal | November 26, 2006 at 06:05 PM
This is an excellent point. I couldn’t agree more.
I figure Dillons will continue to have hamburger and chicken and pork in the shrinkwrapped packages, so there’s no need to go kill a random animal for foodPosted by: Postal | November 26, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Though whatever you get in the wild is a heck of a lot healthier.
I’m not anti-hunting, I’m just anti-ME-hunting.
I was not raised on wild game, and haven’t acquired the taste for it. I enjoy deer sausage and deer jerky, but that’s about the extent of it.
Postal, did I say anything against hunters, ever?
I come from a family of farmers and hunters. Although I don’t understand the thrill of hunting whatsoever, I don’t have issue with valid hunters who hunt for food. Sport hunters, not a problem as long as they’re eating what they kill and not doing it just for trophies. (ah-hem Cheney).
I have yet to find a hunter that would use any sort of automatic weapon- they find that to be poor sportsmanship.
Ya mean, the Eagle has ramped up the hysteria already???
CC doesn’t start here till Jan 1. Though the Eagle has dutifully started early, be patient; the Eagle’s full-blown hysteria will be appearing as the date arrives.
JR can begin fainting then. Not now, JR. Jan. 1. Faint now, you’ll miss Christmas.
Carry in national parks? I’m not concerned with the legal CC holder here, in my neighborhood. Why should I be concerned with the legal CC holder in national parks? The legal CC holder isn’t, and never has been, the problem.
I can tell you that in SOME parks, if you are going into the back country, I’d strongly advise a large caliber (.44 mag or larger) revolver or a good carbine. Da bears can be dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America_by_decade
I must be getting old – I remember when all we worried about in the back country was the four-legged critters. And I never particularly worried about bears; we just gave them a wide berth in the sierras.
PMom… no… you just made a comment that I shouldn’t kill the fuzzy animals just because they’re on my property. I wasn’t trying to be snarky, just stating that I’m not big into killing for any reason, but I will if threatened. I have a hard time killing mice in my garage, especially when I find the babies in my tools in a big wad of chewed up shop rags. They’re cute. Even the ones that ate the wiring harness on my motorcycle.
Rest assured GMC I am disquieted that such as you will be carrying concealed.
You have melted down many times for us here. You seem a volatile sort.
And Nathan was not even addressing the thread correctly. He DID correct himself.
National parks are a sanctuary. Let’s let then continue to be a sanctuary huh?
Legal point here.
I am not pleased by this. But I understand that some US national parks are regarded as world sanctuaries. Again, I am NOT pleased by this. But allowing guns into national parks may run afoul of the UN.
Please, JR.
What’s the abbreviation? ROTFLMAO? is that how it goes?
Yes, I’m laughing, JR. Yes, at you. You must be disquieted by a lot.
Shall we do the proverbial “bone dig?” Just who has “melted down” here? Something about the civil war coming, and get on with it, I think?
Do a little reading, dear readers, and discover who has “melted down” here. It ain’t me; it’s the ever-fainting, paranoia-suffering JR.
And run afoul of the UN? I don’t give a rat’s ass what the UN thinks on domestic issues. This is a domestic issue entirely, and outside of the UN’s highly questionable jurisdiction.
I can’t think of any good reason why the legal CC holder should not be permitted to carry in Nat. Parks? Can you?