The Park Service Will Now Listen to Your Concealed Weapons Tirade
The U.S. Department of thee Interior wants to hear what non-gun-nuts have to say about the proposed policy change that would allow people who live with unnatural fear to carry concealed weapons within national parks. They’ve opened a 60-day public comment period asking people what they think, and of course they’ve managed to make the commenting process not only needlessly complex but also very bizarre.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment–including your personal identifying information–may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
I’ll write an anti-gun rant and have the NRA team up with the Michigan Militia to hunt me down after the government publishes the location of my hideaway. Still, it’s probably worth it—I mean, those guys are looking for me anyway.
via Outside [Thanks Bryant]
By Rocky Thompson- rockythompson
This entry was posted on THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 - 10:08 A.M. and is filed under Story, Backpacking. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am
Yes because wanting to exercise your 2nd amendment automatically makes you a gun-nut.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:36 am
Finally I can protect my family from the crazy squirrels and tree huggers that loiter in our National Parks.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
What’s with the gun hate Rocky? They can be pretty useful in the “backcountry”. Stick to mocking useless products, not politics. You trying to make us all shop elsewhere?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Wanting to exercise your 2nd amendment rights doesn’t make you a gun nut, but expecting to do it on every single acre of land in the country does.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Man, can you say rabid, flaming liberal?
There is nothing wrong with allowing people to defend themselves… especially out in the middle of the unpopulated wilderness. No one is asking permission to hunt or shoot for fun in the parks. You should consider moving to NY, DC, CA, or IL… I’m sure that their endless constitutional rights violations will make you feel very “safe”… as demonstrated by their vast plagues of violent criminal activity.
The problem with pseudo-liberals of this nature is that they don’t want to get rid of all guns, they just want to limit their availability to cops and crooks… leaving the average, law-abiding citizens up fecal creek with no paddle. This too is demonstrated by constant political attacks against concealed carry permit holders… who just so happen to be some of the most law-abiding citizens in this country. Unfortunately, you don’t hear about CCW holders on the 6 o’clock news… you only hear about your so-called “gun-nuts” who likely already have a felony or two on tap.
The aforementioned d-bags do not represent the vast majority of gun owners in this country. Just like the jerks who drive drunk and destroy lives do not represent the vast majority of drivers. Your socialist logic would lead me to ban all driving of all cars for everyone because of a small group of people… BTW cars are far more deadly than guns (statistically speaking). So, if you are one of those people who talk on your cell while driving, we should not even be having this hypocritical conversation about guns.
In the end, the 2nd Amendment is not about self-defense against criminals or wild beasts. It is there to defend us from government tyranny. Virtually every totalitarian takeover in history started with the disarmament of the populous. Remember that fact every time you push to limit your own rights on this matter. None of us want the .gov to have total control… or do you?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:42 am
Sweetlick says “but expecting to do it on every single acre of land in the country does”
I understand not carrying in courts, jails, and mental institutions… but how does wanting to carry in the wilderness constitute “every single acre”?
Your emotionally-driven hippie logic makes no sense to us rational, level headed, so-called “gun nuts”.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:55 am
That’s the most unenforced law on the books.
They have no idea how many people carry and who have always carried and will continue to carry a sidearm into the BC.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
This is the same as concealed carry laws anywhere. People who want to hurt you and your family, and take things from you ARE ALREADY CARRYING GUNS and other deadly weapons, including vicious fighting skills learned on the mean streets of towns where NAFTA has taken away the decent jobs and left a “strong economy of 3,000,000 new jobs” (McJobs, no benefits). ( a little rant-y here, I know)
The only people not carrying guns now are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. In towns in Texas that have concealed carry laws, violent crime rates are absurdly lower than those without. The bad guys never know who’s packing! Might be grandma, might be the dentist, might be the 100 lb girl pouring your coffee.
And who are the first ones to cry ‘poor’ when it comes to being understaffed to skeleton crew levels? NATIONAL PARK RANGERS. I’ve been told at times there can be 1 ranger for every 2000 guests, or 10,000 acres. And the parks are full of a lot of people other than the dumpy Frumpwitz’s from Jersey. Believe it or not, there is a significant number of people who LIVE there, and NOT in their $280,000 Winnies. No, more like drifters, meth heads, and just about any homeless person who figured out it’s called ‘camping’ if you do it in a park, rather than in some downtown. You wouldn’t be as opposed to a businessman in Detroit packing as compared to him on vacation, but he’s likely to come across the same lower forms of life there, but with a LOT LESS law enforcement presence.
Oh yeah, and bears, too.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
What the hell? There was a great post here just a few minutes ago, where the hell did it go?
I’m thinking that the BC editors are not only against the 2nd amendment, but the 1st amendment as well.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Not that a sidearm will be terribly useful for self-defense from anything than another human in the BC, but I don’t see any reason why they should ban it as per current regulations. The BC is the one place in our society where we’re expected to be self-sufficient and to “fend for ourselves”, since there’s no infrastructure and little-to-none gov’tal services (ie police).
The current state of permitting guns in habitated areas and banning them in the National Park BC is plain ass-backwards. I can see it argued that you don’t need the right to carry guns in habitated/heavily policed areas, but will need that right in the absence of policing (not that I particularly support this argument, BTW). I can also see it argued that you need guns, period, and likewise the inverse argument that you don’t need guns anywhere. Any of these three arguments can stand up to reasonable debate.
Yet what you hear from the anti-guns-in-the-BC crowd is a complete sidestep of the issue-at-hand, something along the lines of “guns are useless in the BC”. While it might be true to some extent, it actually has no bearing on what I am allowed to to have, i.e. my rights. I have the right to bring along mostly-useless things (assuming there is no precedent for practical problems in the given context). If you want to persist in the “you don’t need guns in the BC” argument, understand that the logical conclusion of that line of debate is the eventual regulation of what you are allowed to have in the BC based on utility. The Park Service will tell you what brand of tents and bags, etc. that you are allowed to have.
Ironically, that last extreme argument is actually more justifiable than the “guns are useless in the BC argument,” as many more people have gotten into huge trouble in the BC because of inappropriate equipment choices (ie precedent for practical problems).
May 1st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I posted. Guns aren’t working. If they were, we, the most armed of all the advanced countries, would have the least crime. Japan (where I live now) is among the least armed and has the lowest crime.
Deal with it.
P.S. The last time the Michigan Militia tried to go after anyone, they got scared crossing the thumb and went back home to their hobbit holes.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Backcountry does not equal national parks, nor the inverse. I’m not against people arming themselves in the backcountry. One of the sheriffs not far from here chastises people who travel without them in his county. It is quite remote, and there are nutjobs around (Idaho). But there isn’t a whole lot of land in national parks anymore that seem to justify the need for arms. This potential change will apply to Yellowstone, Yosemite, and all the rinky-dink historical parks equally.
I agree with bryantp (maybe because I lived in Japan too). It doesn’t seem to be producing the results all the proponents try to justify it with. If I really feel the need to protect myself to that extent, why leave the house?
Now excuse me while I go back to bed with my helmet, cash and electrified bear fence.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
bryantp:
England is another of the least armed countries in the world, yet amongst the highest in crime rate, according to the EU in 2002.
Switzerland is a country where 100% of their citizenry is armed (with assault rifles, no less) with little to no restriction in firearms sales or possession. Yet their crime rates are so low that statistics don’t even need to be kept.
So there goes your argument. Oversimplify a multi-faceted issue (crime) and ignore factors (governance, economic condition, culture, etc.) and attribute it to a “cause” and prepare to have your battleship sunk.
For all intents and purposes, I can attribute the low crime rate of Japan to consumption of green tea and proclaim that the coffee is the root cause for criminality. I hope you can now see the preposterousness in trying to establish an oversimplified cause-and-effect relationship.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
japan may have the lowest crime rate, but there’s a social factor you’re not considering… that just isn’t present in the US.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Those Japanese like their coffee so much they drink it out of cans they buy from vending machines. Hot coffee in metal cans. There’s some dedication.
I see your point, however flawed it is. Switzerland has been an intentionally neutral country for years. When Americans pick up guns, it’s not to maintain their neutrality. Culture definitely plays a part, and informs many of the laws.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I don’t understand why an opponent would feel safer with a ban on the books. Those that want to carry will do so in any case because the (perceived or real) need to defend against robbery, rape, serious injury or death naturally outweighs the risk and penalty of being caught. If I am in the BC with my wife and kids, I will base my decision to carry on my desire to protect them and will eat the penalty if I have to. Those that would carry in order to do harm will not be abiding by any ban in the first place. So my question is: why criminalize or fine a group that has no evil intent? As to gun ownership and crime, there is no proven correlation between legitimate gun ownership levels and high gun crime levels. If anything, the opposite is true. Once guns are freely available, later disarming law abiding citizens does not make for a safer society.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
What about nunchucks and bowstaffs?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I always have and always will carry when in the backcountry. It is just another tool in the event that I need it, and there are even super lightweight versions for the ounce counters. Inside a national park, particularly the more developed ones, you could question the need, but I’m sure crazies and criminals both go to Yellowstone just like the rest of us, so the self defense argument (if you subscribe to that) is still fairly valid.
Like another poster said, this is the most unenforced, and in my opinion unenforceable, law the NPS has. As far as I’m concerned, they can ban it or they can allow it, and my use and carrying habits won’t change.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Rocky: One other point. If you read the proposed rule at the link you posted, you’ll see that the proposed rule only defers to state law ref concealed carry and also ability to carry on “analagous state lands”. It does not authorize the concealed carry of firearms per se.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
sorry about the delay on approving first time commenters. i was at the gun range with my left and right handguns blasting some silhouettes of backpackers.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
also, Mr Manimal: good point.
but can you name all the animals that Manimal could turn into during the half season that show was on TV?
May 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Booh to the hating on our gun rights. I would hope your post was tongue-in-cheek…but sadly I doubt it. You disappoint me. And yes, I have already written MY pro-gun right letter.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 am
I’ve worked in the backcountry of Yellowstone (off trail) out for up to a week at a time and never carried a gun, and never felt the need to. If you’re so insecure and paranoid about the wilderness that you feel you *need* to carry a gun, then maybe you shouldn’t be out there. I’ve never worried about a tweaker being around the corner 14 miles out, but shit maybe I need to! *rolls eyes*
Last time I read the Bill of Rights, I don’t remember seeing anything in the second amendment about protecting one’s family. It’s all about making sure government doesn’t over reach it’s boundaries. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you were planning an over throw, the National Parks wouldn’t be the place to start. And a gun or two isn’t going to do much against the military industrial complex anyway. So according to the constitution, if you want to keep a gun for when the revolution comes, fine, but leave it at home until. But I seriously doubt many would be willing to stand up militarily to the US, so stop hiding behind the 2nd amendment and come to terms with the fact that reason you own a gun (and want to carry it everywhere) is because you’re scared. It’s makes you feel more powerful and thus safer, and that’s all well and good, but it’s far from a right and don’t act surprised when people think that having less guns around decreases the amount of gun violence.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 am
Wow, talk about emotionally driven logic. Yes, anyone who is not cheerleading for guns is a hippie liberal.
As my follow up post states, I’m not talking only about the backcountry. Not all national parks have backcountry. You can pretty much do what you want in the backcountry because there are too few people out there to stop you– or to make much difference. But make sure you’re packing in those crowded parking lots. That’s where all the bad guys hang out.
I don’t necessarily feel safer with a ban in place. However, I don’t feel so unsafe that I think it is really important to override it either. Most of the supposedly scary things in the backcountry run away from me faster than I can draw. I go into the backcountry to get near those things.
You know, so I can give them a hug, share my free-range brown rice and have a pot-induced drum circle with them.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:42 am
Oh, I forgot to mention (is it 4:20 yet?), I think the consistency of laws is a much better argument than the danger danger danger! argument.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Maybe we should talk to NAMBLA and see what they have to say…
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Freddy H said… “reason you own a gun (and want to carry it everywhere) is because you’re scared”.
Actually my friend, I believe that it is you who is scared. You have an irrational fear of guns… likely the effect of watching too much TV.
Where I live… on Earth and in reality… it is far more likely that my life will be destroyed by some jerk-off cell phone driver than by a law-abiding (or not) gun owner. When I am driving to work and I see some idiot blabbing on their handset… that scares me. Crack heads and wild animals don’t.
So please spare us your informal psychiatric evaluations. Your hypothesis is way off.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
In response to Freddie_H. Protecting ones family is analagous to ensuring the government doesn’t overstep it’s boundaries. Your irrational fear of the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ (ooohh….you sound so educated…) clouds your judgement and interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The fact that the United States allows private citizens to bear arms is what makes this country different and better (yes…that’s right) The fact that you view the U.S. as a backwater, hillbilly country, doesn’t make your opinion correct or valid.
Firearms are tools of self-preservation. Your supposed time in the Yellowstone backcountry was uneventful, can you make that promise for the other several million who frequent the park? Do you have a problem with a backpacker in Forest Service land carrying? If he is in a National Park administered area, does the risk change?
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Sweetlick: Just because I don’t think something is needed, doesn’t mean I’m afraid of it.
I made no mention of driving being more or less likely to kill you, so I’m not exactly sure where you were coming from with that comment. I’d make the same argument about driving, if there are less cars that are on the road, there would be less accidents. You seem to be all for banning ‘jerk-off’s using cell phone while driving, is that a correct assumption?
If my hypothesis is way off, please enlighten me as to why you feel the need to carry a gun while in a National Park.
Jimbo: Let’s say an important family member of yours is jailed or taken away for whatever reason by the government, are you going to start an assault against the government to get her back? How exactly does protecting ones family have anything to do with ensuring the government doesn’t overstep it’s bounds (in a military sense)?
I haven’t explained my interpretation of the constitution (which includes the bill of rights, all one thing) but merely the 2nd amendment. I don’t live in fear of the Military (is that better for you?) and not sure what you’re basing ‘irrational’ on, but I think you’re insane if you think that a gun (or 50) would do anything if you had to ‘defend’ yourself against an industry that will spend $711 Billion in 2008. Read the Amendments after the 2nd, it’s obvious the authors were concerned about an over arcing military presence. If there have been Court decisions that go against that, so be it, but that’s the opinion of the court. I can have a different opinion and I believe that’s what makes this country different, not the fact that I can carry a weapon.
I’m glad you’ve summed up my view of the US (an assumed negative one) based on my irritation of people using the 2nd amendment as an excuse to carry guns.
If you’d like me to send you some photos to prove my ’supposed’ time in the backcountry, I can. Will that help you validate my opinion? If by uneventful, you mean I didn’t need or feel the need to use a gun, then sure it was uneventful. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t see some things that made me uneasy, or that nothing happened while I was back there. I can’t promise anything to anyone who goes into the backcountry, just the same way that you can’t promise someone(or something) won’t be accidentally shot. What I can say is that I was out there on and off for 4 months, and if you’re prepared and smart about what you’re doing then you increase your odds of not having anything happen where you’d need a gun. Does that mean nothing will ever happen, no.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
God knows I never let facts get in the way of a great opinion. England’s homicide rate is very low. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate. Weapons alone don’t make for high homicide rates…mental attitudes, cultural considerations, and other factors enter in. However, countries that successfully ban weapons have lower rates. Deal with it.
And, I’ve fired lots of weapons. I’m quite a good shot with both handguns and rifles. I even did my military time. But, I don’t own a weapon…unless you count my attack dachshund.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
news flash! Backcountry.com starts selling guns! Brilliant! Everyone is happy.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 am
bryantp:
You certainly don’t let facts get in the way of a great opinion. Everyone SHOULD check out your link, apparently the cornerstone of your great opinion, LOL. Should I help and submit a Wiki to fill that empty link?
Ireland, England and Estonia have the highest overall crime rates in the EU. (FYI, firearms can actually be used to commit more than just homicide, such as robbery and rape. Mind-blowing, isn’t it?) The EU International Crime Survey publishes reports on this every few years.
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/EUICS%20-%20The%20Burden%20of%20Crime%20in%20the%20EU.pdf
Feel free to study the entire report, although you can just skip to the bar graph on page 18 if you’re impatient.
“However, countries that successfully ban weapons have lower rates.”
Again, you certainly don’t let facts get in the way of a great opinion, LOL. Since England’s enactment of some of the strictest gun control legislation in the world (including the Firearms Act of 1997), the number of firearm-involved crime actually INCREASED by 55-74% (relative to pre-ban levels) in the years afterwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
If you don’t trust a Wiki, you can try the original report here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060623104106/http://www.firearmsafetyseminar.org.nz/_documents/Greenwood_Paper.pdf
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Some people seem to think that just because an issue isn’t important to them then it makes the issue not important. Our second amendment rights guarantee, among others, that our first amendment rights are not infringed. If you throw away one, the other is right behind. Guaranteed.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I know that no one has an issue with free speech in a national park, but it is after all the principle that is the issue here.
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ah, the second amendment…A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Naturally, calmer minds have prevailed since those heady days of muskets. Unconstitutionally, I am prohibited from owning a nuclear weapon. I can’t bring my M-16 to a presidential inauguration.
There are limits and controls on all freedoms.
We’re not discussing the right to protect your home. We’re discussing the right to bring weapons into a park. The democracy doesn’t fall if it’s controlled.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:15 am
This is amazing. 30-some comments and nobody even mentioned the sweet rack on the model on the right. Focus, people!
May 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Well, my home is where ever I am at the moment. If I am in a tent in a national park, that is my home. We don’t have a constitutional right to own neuclear weapons because they are offensive weapons. And FYI we can’t own M-16’s either (legally). Just for giggles though, one guy with an M-16 is still defensive in my opinion. A squad of guys with M-16’s?? Well….O.K. that is a suitable offensive force. And furthermore, the second amendment guarantees the right to a militia AND personal ownership (look it up!).
May 5th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Lets recap, here is where the line can be drawn:
Neuclear weapons, tanks, apache helicopters, rocket launchers, grenades, mines, machine guns (non M-16 which is not a full machine gun (select fire)) etc. + 1 guy = Offensive
Handguns, semi-automatic rifles (of any sort including AR-15’s), shotguns, chinese throwing stars, board with a nail in it etc. + 1 guy = Defensive
May 6th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
The problem is the definition of concealed. Having a pistol on your hip is not a concealment in the slightest sense. Having a loaded pistol in you pack whether your a hiker, biker, ATV rider or on horseback is however completely irresponsible. I find it incredulous that people think having a pistol in the woods is dangerous. As an avid horseback rider and backpacker I have seen some of the nicest, most helpful and most responsible people packing a pistol on their hip despite the technicalities of law. If my horse goes down and can’t be saved am I supposed to sit there and let it suffer until death? If I encounter a bear, wolf, coyote or cougar and do the right thing and try to back off but the animal charges me am I supposed to defend myself with a hatchet, shovel or pocket knife? And the most terrifying of all, what about a human who wants to rape, murder, kidnap your or those your with? (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/09/georgia.hiker/index.html) Those who wish to do harm do not care about whether it is legal or not to carry a weapon of any sort.
I am a jeffersonian-libertarian and I have NEVER supported the NRA. The second amendment is very clearly stated. To BEAR arms can only be defined as to carry, convey, have or display as a visible mark or feature. There shouldn’t even be an argument about this. The National Park system is accountable to the highest law in the land: The Constitution of The United States.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“If I encounter a bear, wolf, coyote or cougar and do the right thing and try to back off but the animal charges me am I supposed to defend myself with a hatchet, shovel or pocket knife?”
You seriously think that a coyote is going to attack you? They are scavengers. The same with wolves. How many cases have there been of a wolf attacking/killing someone? Unless it’s happened in the last couple years, none. So unless you’re moving in on it’s kill or harassing it, I think you’re okay. Also wolves there are only wolves in one National Park (unless they’ve moved up to Glacier), so you shouldn’t really ever encounter one anyway. With a cougar, backing off isn’t the right thing to do, as it will then perceive you as prey and you’ll encourage it to attack you. And if you’re doing the ‘right thing’ you probably won’t have time to pull your gun and shoot IF a bear attacks. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002948254_bear23.html The OTHER hunter shot the bear, so your horse better be packing. But odds are you won’t be attacked by a bear, esp if you are on a horse because they are noisy creatures.
In terms of people killing people, it’s always big news. How many people go hiking vs. people being killed by other people while hiking in a National Park? Pretty slim, I would argue not enough to justify increasing the number of firearms in our national parks.
So you’ve defined what bearing arms means, but you didn’t address why the 2nd amendment says you should bear arms.
The National Parks are accountable to the Constitution, but it’s also (or at least should) accountable to nature as well, which isn’t addressed. Are more innocent animals going to be killed because someone *thinks* a wolf is going to attack them (which it won’t). Insert whatever animal in there. Plus what about the safety of the Rangers? Will more people having guns make them safer as well? I doubt it.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
And those attack rabbits…what will you do when they come for you? Actually, I think most folks odds of defending themselves with a shovel are better than with a gun. Cops think so too but what do they know about guns? Want to learn something about guns…ask a redneck! Where do you put the gun? Carry it in your hand…just hoping a fiece spotted owl goes for your throat? No…put it in your backpack. Hold on, Mr. Killer-Rapist while I dig past my Clif Bars… I’m more afraid of the folks carrying guns to defend themselves.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Guns don’t kill people. BPA in Nalgenes kill people.