Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Washington Post

A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates and environmental groups. The Justice Department had sought to block the injunction against the controversial rule.

The three groups that brought the suit -- the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees -- argued that the Bush action violated several laws.

In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the government's process had been "astoundingly flawed."

She noted that the government justified its decision to forgo an environmental analysis on the grounds that the rule does not "authorize" environmental impacts. Calling this a "tautology," she wrote that officials "abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation" to evaluate environmental impacts and "ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts" of the rule.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031902801.html?hpid=moreheadlines

---

Damn! What environmental impacts? If the gun is not fired there's no damn environmental impact IMHO!

[rhett o rick]

1. I approve of this decision. We need some gun-free zones. nm

[Renew Deal]

3. Maybe, but this was decided on a technicality

Not on whether there should be gun free zones.

[rhett o rick]

5. That's not how I see it. The National Parks have been gun free until bush's

idiots strong armed a change thru. The judge said that they didn't follow proper procedures.

[paulsby]

9. they have never been gun free

guns have been banned (except for certain personnel duly authorized).

that's the silly canard here.

that a gun ban = a gun free zone.

last i checked, murder is also illegal in the USA. is this a "murder free" zone?

lol

[rhett o rick]

12. I understand that people break the law. What's your point? Not have the laws? nm

[paulsby]

16. the point is your language is disingenuous AT BEST

US parks are not a gun free zone.

they have been a gun BAN zone.

there is a huge difference.

for example, most courthouses are much closer to gun free zones, since not only are all but on duty LEO's prohibited from carrying, but nobody ENTERS without being checked for weapons.

whereas national parks do not check people upon entering for weapons, and thus the people in there carrying are either authorized or NOT authorized and plenty carry illegally into the national parks.

fwiw, i have carried dozens of times in national parks, not illegally of course

[rhett o rick]

19. I do apologize. I meant gun banned zone. Which is the best I can hope for. nm

[paulsby]

24. cheers

that is at least accurate.

i would of course not hope for such a zone, because it violates people's civil rights, but at least a gun banned zone is accurate

[Bette Noir]

15. Hunting rifles are allowed at Devil's Postpile, because you have to go through the national park

to get to the forest where hunting is allowed. Said rifles have to be unloaded, broken down, and carried openly while crossing the park.

I was horrifed that Bush and his acolytes thought it was a good idea to have unlimited concealed weapons in the national parks. Just what we need, a bunch of armed yahoos shooting off steam around vacationing families.

[paulsby]

21. lol. what rubbish

the same crap was proposed that if florida allowed CCW we would have all sorts of road rage shootings, and people recklessly using their firearms.

and of course it never happened. and HCI slunk away after yet another bogus scare

what is so magical about national parks that would cause CCW'ers to start shootin' off their guns recklessly?

nothing.

they don't do it OUTSIDE the national parks, but apparently there is a magical psychotropic drug that infects people upon entering a national park, causing them to become "armed yahoos".

it's prejudiced, contrary to evidence, and ridiculous.

[geckosfeet]

29. Not rubbish. I don't want to camp next to a bunch of people carrying .

I just don't want to have to worry about it.

[gorfle]

34. Well what about this worry?

Not rubbish. I don't want to camp next to a bunch of people carrying . I just don't want to have to worry about it.

First of all, there is no guarantee that you won't be camping next to a bunch of people carrying. You just won't be camping next to any upstanding, law-abiding citizens who are carrying.

Secondly, if you're worried about camping next to a CCW permit holder, what about walking down main street next to a CCW permit holder? If I can walk down main street while armed and surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens, why not walk through a park?

[paulsby]

36. the constitution

is not responsible for what you want to worry about. of course, it's a baseless worry, as evidence shows, but regardless...

lots of people justify incursion on others rights by such a selfish metric.

"i don't want to see them gays kissin' in public. that should be illegal"

"i don't want to see a woman nursing her baby, that should be illegal"

"i don't want to see a person with an anti-choice poster that depicts an aborted fetus. that should be illegal"

"i don't want to live next to a bunch of (insert race here) people. i just don't want to have to worry about it"

etc.

sorry, your baseless worries are not the concern of the constitution.

[hatrack]

131. Really, REALLY lousy argument

In none of the cases cited above - gays kissing, a woman nursing, an anti-abortion poster, a family of (fill in the blank) living next door - do you face the possibility of bodily harm or death due to accidental conduct or deliberate misconduct, as none of the cases you cite involve firearms.

Two guys kissing drop a briefcase or bookbag, and even if it falls on your foot, no big deal. The guys at the next campsite drop a pistol and it discharges - potentially a very big deal.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. Same here

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Concealed carry isn't 'unlimited'.

It requires an FBI fingerprint and background check. Nor does it authorize people to discharge weapons in a national park for no reason at all.

I carry mine while hiking in national forests. Perfectly legal. You won't find me shooting at whatever, for no reason. If you mis-use a firearm, you lose your permit, in many cases, forever. On top of whatever other crimes you may have committed in the process.

[gorfle]

33. "armed yahoos"

I was horrifed that Bush and his acolytes thought it was a good idea to have unlimited concealed weapons in the national parks. Just what we need, a bunch of armed yahoos shooting off steam around vacationing families.

Concealed carry permit holders are among the most law abiding citizens around. They are not only less likely to be involved in firearm-related crime than non-CCW permit holders, they are less likely to be involved in crime in general. Additionally, when involved in a shooting, CCW permit holders are less likely to cause collateral damage than police officers.

CCW permit holders are about as far from "armed yahoos" as you can get.

It is ridiculous that a CCW permit holder can walk down main street surrounded by hundreds of his fellow citizens while armed but cannot walk through a park while armed.

[paulsby]

37. because parks are magickal places

where the lion and the lamb lay down together, and never a discouragin' word is heard.

it's a place where nobody would DARE violate a gun ban, thus making them a gun free zone where evidence-ignoring-civil-rights-restricting-anti-civil-rights people won't have to WORRY about all them no teeth havin, domestic beer drinkin', gas guzzlin' truck drivin' armed yahoos!

darnit!

[TankLV]

128. And so is embezzelment and running a stoplight -so we should get rid of all such laws, too, right??

fucking stupid bullshit "reasoning" perfectly illustrated by people like you...

[The Doctor.]

6. That would be cool...

The only question with parks is how?

[paulsby]

8. except

that's not why this decision was handed down. it was based on environmental impacts.

also note that banning CCW in parks does NOT create a gun-free zone.

it only means the law abiding are gun free.

criminals, by definition, ignore gun free zones.

[rhett o rick]

13. Duh. Criminals ignore laws. That's not a reason not to have the laws. nm

[paulsby]

17. it's a reason not to call them "gun free zones"

because they clearly aren't.

that was yer error. hth

[rhett o rick]

20. Good grief. nm

[paulsby]

22. god forbid

we should be even reasonably accurate.

the idea that national parks are gun free zones is absurd and contrary to evidence.

[humbled_opinion]

39. It is a flawed concept...

Criminals will carry guns no matter what the law says.

Citizens that wish to conceal carry to protect themselves should not be limited from carrying in National parks.

Case: Young lady hiker uses a national park for her outings where she is stalked and subsequently attacked by a would be rapist.

With her concealed carry permit she whips out her Bursa Thunder and pow-pow the rapist is no more.

How can you argue that she should be forced by law to be defenseless in this situation?

[rhett o rick]

46. Good grief. nm

[humbled_opinion]

49. I take it you would rather

her remain defenseless and rely on the goodwill of humanity to save her from the FREAKS. Good Grief to your flawed logic.

[Lorien]

85. Amen nt.

[slackmaster]

99. Gun-free zones require controlled access

I don't want that for our national parks.

[hack89]

104. Just like Virginia Tech? nt

[goforit]

147. agreed!!!

[elleng]

2. Those are the 'facts' that environmental impact statements

are REQUIRED to analyze. SO, if done properly, the new rule that w imposed would likely be approved.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. editorial cartoon

[Owl]

96. excellent cartoon!

[santamargarita]

7. That should screw up a lot of right-wing assholes' vacation plans

:nopity:

[paulsby]

10. plenty on the left support civil rights

to include CCW.

[rhett o rick]

14. Everywhere? Or are there limits? nm

[paulsby]

18. what is so magical about national parks

such that gun bans are ok?

courthouses and such that ban guns actually CONTROL the entrants to the facility, thus ensuring a true gun free zone (except for on duty LEO's).

what rationale do we have for violating civil rights once one decides to enter a national park?

[rhett o rick]

23. We obviously disagree on what a civil right is. Continuing this discussion is pointless. nm

[paulsby]

26. civil rights are first defined in the bill of rights. try reading it and get back to us nm

[rhett o rick]

44. "try reading it and get back to us", How rude. Discussion over. nm

[paulsby]

50. translation: screw you guys, i'm going home!

but yes, it is in that pesky bill of rights. i was helping you out because you were apparently unable to realize where these rights were recognized

[rhett o rick]

55. Whatever, there is no excuse for being rude. nm

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. I think that was wahhh I lost I'm leaving.

[panzerfaust]

116. Back With You: Militia or Not?

The Constitutional issue with respect to arms arises from the Second Amendment's wording "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". Does this, or does it not, apply uniquely to those in such a Militia?

Wikipedia has an interesting, if non-neutral, article on this point at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The lack of neutrality is discussed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Each of these presentations makes a more nuanced case than the "from my cold, dead hands" argument appearing on this thread.

With respect to the assertion that "civil rights are first defined in the bill of rights..."

"Civil rights" are basically those rights that protect the individual from the power of the state. As such, "civil rights" are, in the Western world, held to date from the Magna Carta Libertatum - Sealed in the Year of Our Lord 1215 (hundreds of years prior to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights).

At the time "civil rights" applied to only the English Barons vis-à-vis their King; but, in the fullness of time, the concept of "civil rights" came to be more inclusive.

Magna Carta Libertatum (1215)


US Constitution, First 10 Amendments (1791)

I do find myself wondering how many here would favor this more up-to-date Bill of Rights (accordez une attention exceptionnelle à Article 2):

In any event, I see no reason for people (whether in a Militia or not) to be carrying firearms in our National Parks.

[Tim01]

57. Yep, people who legally carry concealed will go elswhere.

The criminals who ignore the laws will be in the park, with you.


There was a story recently where a crazy ex-husband came into a Walmart and started stabbing one of the checkers in the middle of the store. An average guy who happened to be carrying a gun shot the ex-husband and saved the victim.
Is isn't going to end that way in the national park.

[llmart]

65. Ooooohhh.....

I bet you read that in "American Rifleman". They just love to find the one in a trillion episode where guns saved someone's life while they ignore the episodes where guns take lives. Then they use that episode over and over again to convince their already convinced NRA crowd that everyone needs to carry a gun.

I'm fine with this ruling.

[Pavulon]

66. and i'm fine ignoring it, same as the last 20 years

always pack a sidearm on a trip. one of the heavier things in my pack.

[Tim01]

95. It was on CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soZT__WQKsM


But here is the security video of the badguy chasing the woman down in the store until he corners her, jumps on her and starts stabbing her to death.
Reality is that everybody else in the store just lets him do it.
The 72 year old guy with his concealed 9mm is the one who saves her.

[panzerfaust]

119. When I was an NRA member (dropped them in the '80s when they went cracker-dog ...

... and turned into the assault-weapons supporting right-wing nutter organization they are today - as did about a third of their membership at the time) that was the section I always read first.

Do not recall the section title, something like "The Armed Citizen," but it was (and I am sure still is) a popular collection of vignettes where the steely-eyed firearms owner saves a life, by shooting a crim.

And truly, it is beyond any dispute that there are people who are saved in this country because someone besides the criminal has a gun - "When guns are outlawed ..."

However, it is equally true that in any given year more "citizens" (Think: children, spouses) are killed by "guns owned for protection" than are criminals.

So these days I find myself reading vignettes on such sites as "The Gun Guys" (scroll down to http://www.gunguys.com/">"Man Shoots Wife As She Tried To Get Into Bed — Husband Said He Thought She Was a Burglar") instead, since that is the much more common scenario.

I am not anti-gun (I have over half-a-dozen); but, even here in Texas, I feel no need to tote one to the grocery store, PTA meeting, rodeo, gas-station, hardware store, bar or night-club. In fact, I just leave them home 'less am goin' shootin' somewheres. Hell, don't even have one in my pickup.

Certainly see no need to be clutching a firearm when am on vacation out to Big Bend (even if it is right on the border).

[llmart]

130. Even the first President Bush......

made a public display of renouncing his lifetime membership in the NRA back when they because rightwing nutjobs. Remember that? It was in reference to some stupid NRA comment about "jackbooted thugs" (I think it was in regard to FBI agents maybe???).

They still have that stupid column. In a country as large and highly populated as ours you are always going to be able to come up with an incident where someone's life was saved because somebody had a weapon, but I, like you, believe those are the exceptions to the rule. I also am not anti-gun but I am anti-people, even many DU'ers, who think guns are the answer to everything in this country, which clearly they are not.

[MajorChode]

133. Most people have the exact same opinion you do

Certainly there are a few anti-gun fanatics that will never be happy unless all guns are banned entirely. However, on the opposite side you have many more gunnut fanatics that will NEVER compromise because they irrationally believe if someone wants them to register their gun so illegal firearms can be better tracked, or if they can't buy a gun that was specifically designed to kill people in the most efficient way possible, then the very next thing that will happen is the government will come for all their guns and their bibles. Unfortunately the gunnut lobby is one of the many cobbled together constituencies of the GOP and MUST keep that minority happy at all costs.

The net result is the US has a firearm death and injury rate that rivals most 3rd world countries and every other civilized country doesn't.

[liberal N proud]

11. Good

[winyanstaz]

27. mass shooting have only occurred in gun-free zones...

where the killers KNEW their victims could not protect themselves. Am I the only one to have noticed this?
In every nation that gave up their guns, dictatorships have not been far behind....have the people of this planet learned nothing yet? In every nation that registers all their guns, the government knows exactly where to come to get the guns that are not given up.
Registering guns has not shown to have saved a single life. Criminals will not obey the laws anyways so why spend the money on such useless crap? I say a basic mental evaluation test before being allowed to own a gun might be a far better law.
If you really think that your are safer with gun laws taking honest peoples' guns away then be sure to list your name and address in here so every crook in town will know you have no guns at your house.
If your too afraid to tell the world that you are unarmed..then you have NO right to advocate disarming your fellow citizen.
It is NOT the law-abiding citizen that does the killings, it is the mentally unstable. Try working harder to discover these people while they are still young enough to help instead of disarming their victims later.

[geckosfeet]

30. Wow. You are a prophet. Guess we should scrap all the gun regs so that

we don't end up in a dictatorship.

By your way of thinking, if everyone had a gun crime would drop to zero because all the criminals would know better than to try anything. I don't buy that, and I am pretty sure you don't either. As a matter of fact, I think a fully armed society would see an increase in gun crime and gun violence.

I full agree with you about one thing. That it's the crazies that take their guns and go out and shoot people.

But I'm not sure that they are always crazy. These may be people who have had a bad day, or week, or life. These may be law abiding citizens who have listened to Rush one time too many. They may have just lost their job or home or family, or simply an argument.

In any case they have lost connection to society and meaning in their lives. They are lost in a dark place and they reach for what is probably the only thing that ever gave them a sense of control and power. Then they walk out into the world and take things from other people that no one has the right to take.

These people are not always crazy. I don't think a mental evaluation would be 100% effective, just as regulation is not 100% effective. Requiring a mental evaluation would probably be considered an invasion of privacy anyway. Medical and criminal history are fair game and should certainly be considered.

You will never get rid of criminals. Hell. Some of the biggest criminals in the world today work at AIG and probably don't carry.

[rhett o rick]

43. I don't agree with your fantasy logic. Nice to fantasize that having guns will protect

you from evil. Statistics show otherwise. Some believe that if they have their guns they can fight off a government gone bad. Wasn't the case at Ruby Ridge. Vicki Weaver might be alive today if they hadn't had guns. Guns didn't help David Koresh when the government came for him. Recently in New Orleans when the government went door to door confiscating guns, not one single gun owner decided to fight back. They all gave up their guns. It's a shame but guns can't protect you from the government.

I just think there are places where guns don't have any business. Like church, school and even National Parks. Just me.

[paulsby]

60. then don't come to WA state

"I just think there are places where guns don't have any business. Like church, school and even National Parks. Just me. "

guns legal in college campuses here (limited legality on elementary/high school campuses. must be kept in car when parents come to pick up kids).

it's crazy i tell you. i walk around the UW and people have LEGAL GUNZ!!!

oh NOES!

the horror!

i swear the UW campus is like frigging beirut.

[panzerfaust]

115. Stay out of WA? Might want to look at the Horsey cartoon higher in the thread

When I was a college kid, Horsey was the cartoonist for the UW student paper

Now it seems he draws for the (? actually defunct) Seattle Post Intelligencer

For the record: Both the UW, and Seattle itself, are in Washington State

I think that Horsey's cartoon does catch the flavor of those who oppose the general public's carrying weapons in national parks

Oh. Right. Those with a "concealed carry" permit are NOT part of the general public

They are special

So are national parks

I have never had any problem with unloading and locking any firearms that I might have when entering a national park

But then I am not a gun-nut

[paulsby]

125. it has nothing to do with being a "gun nut"

i supported gun RIGHTS long before i even OWNED a gun.

it simply comes down to this. there is no reason to deprive people of their rights merely because they want to enjoy a national park.

and the right to carry is a right that helps protect the most vulnerable amongst us.

i view the majesty of nature as magical. that's one of the reasons why i live in the pacific NW.

i don't view national parks as some sort of place where constitutional rights magically don't apply.

[ismnotwasm]

143. Really?

WAC 478-124-020
Conduct on campus code — Prohibited conduct.

(e) Possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities on the university campus, except for authorized university purposes, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the university chief of police, or any other person designated by the president of the university;

[TankLV]

129. BULL SHIT...but we epect as much from you guys...

It is a GIVEN that access to more guns means more guns are used - IN CRIMES - the record PROVES this.

Reduce the amount of and access to guns, and the use of guns in crimes DECLINES.

[winyanstaz]

139. Sorry but records show that banning guns does nothing to lower crime rates.

Case in point, Washington D.C., no guns allowed and yet..the biggest murder rate in the United States.
I say it again..if you want to give up your guns..go right ahead and be sure to post your name and address so all the burglars, rapist, pedophiles, and other criminals know where you are and that you are unarmed. Then come back and show us how safe you are :)
But in the meantime, leave your hands off my rights to protect my family and home.

[Tim01]

142. And the use of knives goes up. Great Britain is in a knife epidemic right now.

So they are trying to ban knives.

[geckosfeet]

28. If I was a park ranger I wouldn't want people carrying in my park.

"This decision by the courts reaffirms our concerns, and the concerns of park rangers across the country, that this new regulation . . . has serious impacts on the parks and increases the risk of opportunistic poaching of wildlife in the parks, and increases the risk to park visitors," Faehner said.

Come to think of it, if I was a visitor to a park I wouldn't want people carrying either.

[gorfle]

35. What about a pedestrian on main street?

Come to think of it, if I was a visitor to a park I wouldn't want people carrying either.

But what about if you were a pedestrian on main street? Because you could easily have a CCW permit holder walking down main street while armed and surrounded by hundreds of his fellow citizens. Why not walk through a park with one?

[paulsby]

38. i am a cop and i WANT people carrying

where i work. heck, many do with valid CCW's and i support that.

and of course, i know the statistics about CCW'ers and those have been reinforced in my two decades of law enforcement work. simply put, they are amongst the most law abiding demographics. i am about as worried about your average CCW'er committing a crime against me as i am about a mormon soccer mom.

but more importantly, who frigging cares what a park ranger or cop WANTS when it comes to our civil rights? we don't curtail other people's civil rights because some authoritah figure doesn't WANT them exercising it.

it's nice to know you have so much respect for authority, such that you are willing to cede to them the decision as to whether your civil rights matter.

[razors edge]

41. Well said,

and a hat tip, Sir.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[iamthebandfanman]

45. so anything a majority does safely

should be legal ?

cause ur makin a strong case for drug legalization, and i can definitely throw my support behind that...
hope youre talking about everyones civil rights, and not just gun owners.

[paulsby]

48. actually, i am pro

legalization for many now illegal drugs.

however, drug legalization is NOT a constitutional rights issue. there is no constitutional right to smoke mj, even though imo as a matter of POLICY, it should be legal.

this is distinct from the 2nd amendment rights we see as part of our bill of rights.

i didn't say that the REASON WHY i support CCW in the parks is because CCW'ers are safe.

i explained that they were safe(r) people than the majority to counter a claim that they are gun carryin' yahoos.

it's not the reason why they should be allowed. that's a matter of constiotutioonal rights.

but facts matter, and the data supports that CCW holders are a net positive, not a net negative

[MajorChode]

52. Carrying a gun anywhere at any time is not a "civil right"

Thanks to the Republican installed USSC judicial activists we apparently now have the "right" to own certain classes of weapons, but the government always has and still does have the responsibility to regulate that "right".

I'm all for people owning and keeping guns in their home so long as they take prudent precautions to keep kids out of them. In fact, I own quite a few myself. However, there are some places I don't think civilian carried guns should ever go and at the top of that list are places were people consume alcohol. I've spent a lot of time at federal parks and never felt threatened except for one encounter with a bull moose. I see no need for people to carry guns there just so in the event they get drunk and their alligator mouth overloads their candy ass they can one up their antagonist. Now if people were routinely getting robbed or raped on federal parks and no alcohol were allowed, then I might see things differently.

The rule change Bush imposed was nothing more than a political trick designed to stir the pot against the Obama administration. He KNEW it was going to get shot down, or otherwise he would have done it at the START of his administration. Regardless of which side of the gun debate you're on, everyone should be able to see this as a partisan load of bullshit.

[paulsby]

59. rubbish

":Thanks to the Republican installed USSC judicial activists we apparently now have the "right" to own certain classes of weapons, but thegovernment always has and still does have the responsibility to regulate that "right"."

the same "activists" that agree with such liberal legal scholars as harvard law's larry tribe.

deal with it. both liberal and conservative judicial scholars agree. it's an individual right.

"I'm all for people owning and keeping guns in their home so long as they take prudent precautions to keep kids out of them. In fact, I own quite a few myself. However, there are some places I don't think civilian carried guns should ever go and at the top of that list are places were people consume alcohol. I've spent a lot of time at federal parks and never felt threatened except for one encounter with a bull moose. I see no need for people to carry guns there just so in the event they get drunk and their alligator mouth overloads their candy ass they can one up their antagonist. Now if people were routinely getting robbed or raped on federal parks and no alcohol were allowed, then I might see things differently."

bearing arms refers to CARRYING them. so, keeping them in the home is only part of the equation

and then you go into the "need canard" (one of the 3 in the holy trio).

nobody is required to show a NEED to carry a firearm. it's a civil right. you don't have to justify a need (in a national park) any more than you do for your 1st amendment or 4th amendment rights.

only people who don't value civil rights engage the "need canard".

i could give a flying fuck about the partisan politics angle.

i care about civil rights.

as for which side *i* am on? the side of civil rights and the constitution

[Paladin]

68. If The "Partisan Politics Angle" Isn't Important To You.....

...how come you're braying the standard right-wing gun rights line, just like the rest of DU's resident gun militants? In point of fact, there's nothing remotely like unanimous legal backing for the individual right theory, despite what Scalia's Supreme Court ruled---if you doubt it, check out the regular savaging the ACLU gets down in the Gun Dungeon, for holding a view contrary to Fat Tony Scalia's; sometimes you'd never know this was a Democratic site. And you guys cling to Larry Tribe to the point of desperation, because otherwise, your remaining supporters are the likes of Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent---hyper-conservative thugs who have about the same regard for civil rights and the Constitution as they do for toilet paper...

[paulsby]

70. thank you

i *am* a civil rights militant.

unlike people like you, though, i do not selectively pick and choose which civil rights to support and which to fight against.

yes, it is true that those on the right are more likely to respect our 2nd amendment rights than those on the left.

tuff for the left. because in this regard, those that are against supporting this civil right are just as wrong.

you can use your ad hominems all you want about "fat tony" but he gets it right on the 2nd just like he got it right by ruling that texas' flag burning amendment was unconstitutional.
he of course got it wrong on the medical mj issue, which is ironic since it was a states' rights issue.

lol

regardless, i don't give a flying fuck what most people on the left or right think. i assess issues based on their merit, not whose company i am in.

many people, you apparently, just want to be safelt with the "in group"

[Paladin]

72. The "In Group" Hereabouts Is The Democratic Party, Sport.

But we for-real Democrats do like a good laugh---and your claim that you don't pick and choose which civil rights to support is a real side-splitter; "tuff for the left" and be nice to Scalia while you're at it---priceless. Hey, unintentional humor is better than no humor at all, right? Thanks for the levity....

[paulsby]

73. i am just as much a

"for real" democrat as you.

i just happen to support ALL our civil rights.

you, cafeteria style, pick and choose, selectively ignoring those represented by the 2nd amendment.

i haven't yet seen you display any logical reason WHY you ignore our civil rights.

so, i will continue to assume you are just following the crowd.

again, being a democrat does NOT mean marching in lockstep as you would like me to do.

the left IS wrong about gun rights.

it cost us dems many elections over the years, too.

civil rights matter. and again, i don't give a flying fuck what %age of dems support or don't support civil rights when it comes to guns.

i choose my issues based on their merit. you choose based on the "in group"

[Paladin]

76. So Shoot Me...... (n/t)

[paulsby]

80. no, i'll just criticize your lack of vigilance in regards to civil rights nt

[MajorChode]

86. What a complete load of crap

Your view of "civil rights" comes right off the list of the NRA's talking points.

Your view of "gun rights" is no different than every other wingnut moran who thinks he has a "right" to keep and/or conceal any type of weapon anywhere at any time and to hell with every other person who has a "right" to life and liberty.

Furthermore irrespective of any constitutional issue, you've made it quite clear that you think the answer to the problem of gunnuts is simply that we don't have enough gunnuts. If that's not a backwards ass wingnut POV, then I'm not really sure what else would qualify.

[paulsby]

105. nice strawmen. and utter rubbish

your above claims are not supported by my posts or any other evidence.

iow, you are either delusional or lying.

i don't give a flying fuck whose talking points are whose.

i support civil rights.

i believe in , for example, right to choice. does that mean i am spouting NARAL's "talking points".

no, it means i objectively look at evidence and my experience and determined the best position is prochoice

similarly,. i support gun rights.

people who support gun rights are no more "gun nuts" than people who support choice are "abortion nuts"

your bigotry towards those of us who support civil rights does not change that.

hth

[MajorChode]

120. You're nothing more than a broken record

What you assert as a "civil right" only exists in your mind. If you can't support that assertion (and you sure as hell haven't), then the rest of your babble falls apart like a house of cards.

[beevul]

102. Dont let the anti types get you down.

Its rather entertaining to listen to many of them crow about you or anyone else "braying the standard right-wing gun rights line" out of one side of thier mouth, and listening to them spout republican paul helmke and sara bradys talking points out of the other.


Entertaining yes indeed.

Of course, they have every excuse in the book when it comes to that.

[Paladin]

103. Give Us Some Evidence That The Republican Party Embraces The Brady Campaign

Sarah Brady didn't start her organization because she was a Republican. She started it because her husband took a bullet in the brain, shot into him by a lunatic with an easily-acquired firearm. Do you imagine that the majority of the Brady Campaign's current membership is Republican? You gun obsessives are the ones who constantly suckle at the Republican nipple, not those of us who want to keep guns out of the hands of nut cases. And even if the Brady Campaign were a solidly Republican organization (which it sure as hell isn't), those of us who support it would only be doing what you dubiously Democratic gun militants are doing---engaging in a cafeteria-style selection of political viewpoints. If you guys are going to blow-job Fat Tony Scalia, you have no standing to slam us for supporting Sarah Brady......

[paulsby]

106. i support the constitution, and i had a similar experience to sarah brady

sarah brady doesn't support it.

that's all that matters to me.

she took a tragedy and is trying to do something about it. i respect that . she is just taking the wrong approach.

the tragedy of 911 doesn't justify all sorts of crap bush did (that was unconstitutional). just because a tragedy happens doesn't give ANYBODY the right to trample the constitution.

my best friend took a bullet to the brain, and i had three of my unit partners shot on one warrant.

it doesn't mean i throw away the constitution cause some piece of shit felon shot my friends.

[Paladin]

110. Sarah Brady Doesn't Agree With Your Position On Guns

Don't say she doesn't support the entire Constitution, OK?

Other than that, I have no argument with your comments, officer......

[paulsby]

111. she doesn't support

PART of the constitution, to more precise.
that was my bad.

she does not support 2nd amendment rights.

she has stated that she thinks handguns should be banned, and other stuff that is clearly inconsistent with the 2nd amendment

as for her position on other aspects of the constitution, i have no idea, though.

[primavera]

144. Kind of like gun nuts...

... spouting Republican Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas talking points, is that what you mean? You're right, that one's an absolute crack-up!

[Pavulon]

71. At least the prohibition fools

actually rigged the constitution to push their stupidity. Gun control is a crutch for idiots who are to lazy to demand their politicians fix root cause. Look good feel good stunts like this are not relevant to crime in america.
Tackle some drug law, in fact when you guys finally ban coke and weed I will surrender a constitutional right.

Good luck.

[MajorChode]

74. Bullshit

the same "activists" that agree with such liberal legal scholars as harvard law's larry tribe.

deal with it. both liberal and conservative judicial scholars agree. it's an individual right.

One "liberal" legal scholar(s) does not a consensus make. There are plenty who don't share that opinion. In over 200 years the USSC never affirmed any such "right" and they had plenty of opportunities. So why do you think this is just NOW happening right after the court got stocked with conservative judges who have no qualms about imposing their ideology from the bench? Or do you even consider such things which run counter to your own belief system? The decision was partisan, pure and simple.

Deal with it.

bearing arms refers to CARRYING them. so, keeping them in the home is only part of the equation

And there are lots of places you will never be allowed to carry one.

Deal with it.

and then you go into the "need canard" (one of the 3 in the holy trio).

nobody is required to show a NEED to carry a firearm. it's a civil right. you don't have to justify a need (in a national park) any more than you do for your 1st amendment or 4th amendment rights.

Sorry to break the news to you, but The 1st amendment does not guarantee you the right to say anything at any time, either.

Deal with it.

only people who don't value civil rights engage the "need canard".

i could give a flying fuck about the partisan politics angle.

i care about civil rights.

as for which side *i* am on? the side of civil rights and the constitution

The entire line of bullshit you just slung assumes you have a "civil right" to carry a gun anytime and anywhere. No such right exists. Not in the 2nd amendment. Not in any USSC decision. Only in your mind. It says so right in DC v Heller and if you had actually bothered to read the decision you might know these things. As such everything you just said is pure unadulterated strawman bullshit.

Deal with it.

[paulsby]

77. nice strawman

"The entire line of bullshit you just slung assumes you have a "civil right" to carry a gun anytime and anywhere. "


no, it doesn't. i am glad you show such mad skillz at making crap up.

what i said is the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, and nobody has to justify a NEED to exercise it.

if instead of making shit up, you had asked what is needed to restrict gun rights, there would have to be a narrowly tailored restriction, and one based on compelling interest.

places like courthouses, where ALL people are screened, etc. is fine.

restricting those convicted of crimes of violence, etc. is also fine.

just like we restrict voting rights (in some jurisdictions) for convicted felons.

but there is no compelling reason to strip people of their civil rights merely because they want to use a PUBLIC RESOURCE like a national park.

what is so special about a national park (vs. a state park for instance) where people should be forced to give up their civil right to carry merely because they want to explore the park?

again, you just made crap up because you don't have the intellectual honesty to address the actual issues.

i NEVER said one has a civil right to carry a gun anytime and anywhere.

[MajorChode]

84. Ah, so "need" is not OK, but "compelling reason" is?

Do you even read your own bullshit before you hit send?

Guess what? Some states don't have concealed carry laws. By your narrow wingnut view of "gun rights" such a thing could never happen! Furthermore practically every state puts restrictions on where those guns may be carried, and many have opt-out provisions. All of this runs completely counter to your NRA inspired views.

So don't preach about "intellectual honesty" when it's quite clear you are bankrupt in that dept.

[beevul]

100. If you only knew what the hell you were talking about...

"Guess what? Some states don't have concealed carry laws."

Yeah, all 3 of them. The states that dont have concealed carry, that is.

[MajorChode]

121. It doesn't matter if it were just one

I can also give you dozens of examples of states that do have concealed carry laws that don't even come within a cab ride of the other poster's "compelling need" bullshit. The point which completely escaped you was that if the other poster's argument held any water at all, there would be exactly zero states that could place any restrictions that don't fit his "compelling need" reasoning. So either you don't know what we were discussing, your you don't know what the hell you "were talking about" or both. My money is on both.

[paulsby]

107. do you even read the constitution and case law. clearly not

google "compelling state interest".

the issue is that NOBODY (and i mean NOBODY) has to establish a NEED to exercise ANY civil rights - that goes for ANY civil right.

period.

you do NOT have to justify a NEED to use your first amendment rights.

the GOVERNMENT is the one restricted by the bill of rights.

thus, govt. restriction of bill of rights must be narrowly tailored and conform to a compelling state interest.

iow, the burden is on the govt NOT on the individual when it comes to "need"

you have it backwards.

it's sad that people form opinions about constitutional law without even a cursory understanding of it.

sad, but typical.

[MajorChode]

122. More bullshit

Obviously you don't have a clue about how any of these laws work, statutory or case law included.

Consider Alababa's concealed carry law (which is similar to many other states but I'll use Alabama because you'd be hard pressed to find a redder state). In order to apply for a permit, you have to state your need to the county sheriff, and if he doesn't agree that you have a need then he can deny your application simply based on his own subjectivity. Furthermore he can restrict that permit however he likes. In other words, the if the sheriff actually does grant the application, he can say your permit is only good within a 5 mile radius of your house or whatever other restrictions he wants.

So the sheriff of Pigfuck county Alabama has the power to deny or restrict a concealed carry permit for the state of Alabama, yet you would have us believe that the President of the United States and the US Congress can't place firearm restrictions on federal lands? Right.

It's sad that people form opinions about constitutional law without even a cursory understanding of it. Sad, but typical.

[Paladin]

78. Well Said, Major C. (n/t)

[beevul]

101. Major...

"Thanks to the Republican installed USSC judicial activists we apparently now have the "right" to own certain classes of weapons, but the government always has and still does have the responsibility to regulate that "right"."

Even the dissent in the Heller decision said that there is a right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The dissent being those liberal justices...unless you think they be "Republican installed USSC judicial activists " too.

[paulsby]

108. don't confuse the ignorati with facts

it's all those evul republickan justices i tell you!

[MajorChode]

132. Pete and re-Pete strike again

The dissent never said any such thing. I guess if either of you had actually bothered to read it, you both might not look like complete idiots about right now, eh?

[NewEnglandKnowledge]

113. Collateral Damage

Sir, simply put, carrying a concealed weapon is not normal. It indicates a lack of safety, or intent to kill. The U.S. has its bad spots, but we are not Baghdad. I wish I didn't know there were Police who want more guns on the streets. It seems intuitive that 10 guns is safer than 20 guns. I guess it depends on who is holding them...

[BrklynLiberal]

31. It is a start...

[Owl]

32. Good.

[Redneck Socialist]

40. That's disappointing.

What environmental impacts?

[iamthebandfanman]

42. everyone whos posted in this thread seems confused

as people keep debating guns versus no guns...
when in reality all this is about is your right to carry a HIDDEN GUN.

why do you need to have a hidden gun in a park?


frankly id hope nobody would bring a gun into a national park, as theres no reason for it... but hey, whatever floats peoples boats...

whats wrong with making people have it visible?

[Redneck Socialist]

51. Open carry isn't allowed either.

So for the most part is is a matter of guns vs no guns.

[iamthebandfanman]

54. where in the OP does it talk about that?

seriously, where does the article posted in the OP say anything about the right to carry guns in general?
all i see is an article about not being able to carry CONCEALED WEAPONS....
if im missing something in the article about non-concealed weapons, then please point it out cause i cant find it

[Redneck Socialist]

62. From the article...

"n the past, guns had been allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded, stored or dismantled; gun rights advocates said they saw no reason to be denied the right to carry concealed weapons in parks when they could in other public places."

So yes, technically guns are allowed in Nat'l parks, but an "...unloaded, stored or dismantled..." gun isn't very useful should one need to defend oneself.

[iamthebandfanman]

64. so then you agree this article is ONLY about CONCEALED WEAPONS

and not about the right to have a gun in the park.

thanks for agreeing.

but kudos on trying to change it around to fit whatever you want to argue about.

[Tim01]

67. No

it is about being allow to have a concealed loaded handgun on your person provided you already poses a concealed handgun permit.
Loaded functional guns are not permitted in national parks.

[Redneck Socialist]

83. Hunh?

What in the world are you on about?

Previously is was not legal to have a gun in a national park unless it was unloaded, stored or dismantled. The bushies issued an administrative rule that changed that, allowing you to carry a gun if you had a concealed carry permit from the state in which the park is located. Concealed? Yes, but given the earlier restrictions placed on guns in national parks the argument is essentially guns vs no guns. The "concealed" bit is incidental to that.

I'm not sure why you are fixated on the word concealed. If your point is that you could have a gun in a national park, well then yes, technically you are correct, but given the "stored, unloaded or dismantled" caveat that gun wouldn't serve you very well if you needed for self defense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. Are you saying there is no danger in National Parks?

[paulsby]

109. it's irrelevant

even if there WAS no danger in national parks (or very minimal danger), nobody is required to JUSTIFY (iow establish a NEED) in order to exercise a civil right.

that goes for the 1st amendment

the 2nd amendment

the 4th amendment

the 5th amendment etc.

as i am sure you know.

i don't have to say why i NEED to exercise my first amendment rights in order to post on the internet or use my free speech.

[iamthebandfanman]

47. Posting the definition of CONCEALED WEAPON

so nobody is confused about whether this is a matter of no guns or yay for guns...
cause its neither.


Definition of concealed: A firearm or dangerous weapon is concealed if it is carried in such a manner as to not be discernible by the ordinary observation of a passerby. There is no requirement that there be absolute invisibility of the firearm or dangerous weapon, merely that it not be ordinarily discernible. A firearm or dangerous weapon is considered concealed if it is not secured, and is worn under clothing or carried in a bundle that is held or carried by the individual, or transported in a vehicle under the individual's control or direction and available to the individual, including beneath the seat or in a glove compartment. A firearm or dangerous weapon is not considered concealed if it is:

Carried in a belt holster which is wholly or substantially visible or carried in a case designed for carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon and which is wholly or substantially visible;
Locked in a closed trunk or luggage compartment of a motor vehicle;
Carried in the field while lawfully engaged in hunting, trapping, or target shooting, whether visible or not; or
Carried by any person permitted by law to possess a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to that person's home or place of business, or to a place of repair, or back from those locations.
A bow and arrow, an unloaded rifle or shotgun, or an unloaded weapon that will expel, or is readily capable of expelling, a projectile by the action of a spring, compressed air, or compressed gas including any such weapon commonly referred to as a BB gun, air rifle, or CO 2 gun, while carried in a motor vehicle

[Tim01]

53. 1996 Two women have their throats slit in national park.

http://www.aldha.org/murders.htm

If the women had been carrying maybe they would have been able to save themselves. Any chance would have been better than what they got. Rumor was it had to do with them being gay.

[iamthebandfanman]

56. or maybe he woulda still killed them

and gotten a gun as a bonus.

if we are gonna play ifs ands or butts lets go all in shall we ?

[Tim01]

58. You are really going to say it is better they were murdered?

Because he could have taken their gun if they had one. Things just couldn't have gone much worse for them than having their throats slit. Do you have any sympathy for murdered young women?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. But wait you said there was no need for weapons in National Parks.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. We'll leave it for you to argue their deaths were a good thing.

How's that for all in?

David

[BrightKnight]

61. Nobody that uses National Park backcountry wants this.

Guns are very heavy and my backpack already weighs too much. I have spend a fortune shaving ounces and pounds off of my pack.

The military caries 100+ pounds of gear but I am too old for that and it not recreation.

I cary a can of bear spray, a knife, a whistle, and SARSAT PLB. The most effective weapon is usually a cool head and common sense.

I keep my food, trash, and aromatics in a bear vault. I don't cook or eat anywhere near my camp. I try to avoid hiking at dawn or dusk.

The people that would cary guns would not be the typical hikers and backpackers. Some of these fools would feel the need to do some plinking or poaching in very sensitive areas. What is going to happen one of these yahoos sees a snake.

For some reason the movie Deliverance comes to mind. I do not want to have to cary heat because everyone else is.

---

An exception might be made for heavy grizzly bear areas like Denali. A weapon substantial enough to stop a charging grizzly would weigh more than my food, bedding and tent combined.

[Tim01]

63. The people I know who hike the AT

are a lot more concerned about criminals than animals.

[BrightKnight]

82. No AT through hiker is going to carry a gun.

I have done sections of the AT and will probably do another section in May. AT through hikers are the biggest ounce winnies on earth. More than half don't even cary water filters. They trim the tags off if their clothing and cook from v8 can stoves ( http://www.backpacking.net/makegear/sgt-v8stove/index.html )

I carried a 50 pound pack on the beginning of my last AT trip. I had to run a parachute chord to hang my pack because the existing pack lines in the shelter would not support it. (The bear lines were only being used for food.)


In mid April the shelters were packed like sardine cans. Also, you get to know people and people look after each other. The AT is a busy trail and it is patrolled. Crime is everywhere. I cary a knife a bear spray and a GPS SARSAT PLB.

[Tim01]

94. Since I know people who carry on the AT

you don't know what you are talking about.
AND see post 69.

[Pavulon]

69. Carried a 5 shot s&w up and down the AT

twice. Cut toothbrushes in half, never had a problem carrying a snub nose.

I have resisted the urge to go all buck wild and shoot snakes and such for decades.

Most people ignore this one anyway. I have been, way back when moonstone made quality gear, before being bought up.

[BrightKnight]

87. I guarantee that the groups that maintain the AT don't want it.

No hiking or backpacking organizations want this. It is entirely an NRA issue.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. Who gives a shit what they want?

I don't care what people think about my right to free speech. Why should anyone care what other people think about their choices in regards to self defense?

David

[Pavulon]

98. I could care less

I never harmed or was harmed by anyone. However there are places where it is wise to be self-sufficient.

It is a NON issue.

[paulsby]

75. ah, the yahoos canard

it is ok for some bigots to constantly refer to those of us who support civil rights as "yahoos".

god forbid we should deal with issues.

and fools who would "feel the need" to do plinking or poaching illegally aren't going to be deterred by the carry issue in the first place.

[Paladin]

79. Ah, The Canard Canard (n/t)

[paulsby]

81. logic trumps yer name calling hth nt

[slackmaster]

118. JADP - A loaded Smith & Wesson AirLite revolver weighs about 400 grams

Less than one pound.

[petronius]

88. I favor the rule allowing guns, but I more strongly favor following the environmental laws

There's been enough skirting around ESA, NEPA, and all the other environmental laws in the last 8 years. As much as it sounds like a waste of time, if the law clearly requires an environmental impact statement when this kind of rule is enacted, then I want the Interior Department to jump through that hoop. (And, when the law is satisfied, I want the CCW rule to go into effect...)

[btwhiteh]

112. Can everyone say Judicial Activism?

I'm sorry but this is no way for a judge to rule. Environmental Impacts!?!? She has over reached. If Bush's rule is against the law you rule against it. Environmental Impact is cowards way of activism.

[depakid]

114. It's a run of the mill administrative law decision

I know that won't sit well with the gun toting cowards- but that's all it is.

[Paladin]

117. You Want To See Some Judicial Activism?

Check out Antonin Scalia's Heller decision, the most important Second Amendment case, ever. Pesky little things like that "well regulated militia" requirement basically ignored, it reads like it was dictated directly from within the NRA headquarters. The gun lobby could have arranged for a decisive Second Amendment case to be heard before the Supreme Court in decades past, but they held off, waiting until there were enough conservative justices to insure a favorable decision. Judicial activism of the most blatant sort. And do you want to know the ironic part? As potent and as favorable as it is to them, the Gun Nuts are taking absolutely no pleasure or comfort in the decision. They're howling their paranoia chorus just as loud and long as ever, particularly now that a Democrat is back in the White House. Some times you just can't please anybody.....

[lynne]

123. This ruling is only about concealed. Sounds like its OK to open carry in US Parks based on this.

[Staneck]

124. I'm with the judge. The move seemed dangerous to me

I want the ability to go to a park with my kids without the fear of a whacko unloading his glock on us. Good decision.

[jefflrrp]

126. well then . . .

I'm assuming you don't go out of your house at all, except for when you go to your super-safe national park. huh. Because if you did, you'd gosh probably be around a few law-abiding armed citizens (unless of course you reside in Wisconsin, Illinois or New York). And you wouldn't know it, either, because well their guns remained concealed. I don't know how it is in your state, but in VA, roughly 3% of the population has a concealed carry permit. So then, when i go out of the house and into a crowd at the local fair, maybe 3-4 people out of every hundred are carrying. I have yet to hear of a river of blood flowing down the street from ccw permit holders in any state just 'unloading glock' on innocent bystanders. If it doesn't happen on main street usa, then, whys carrying in a park so bad?

I have a permit from 3 states (VA, PA, and NH). I have yet to take my gun hiking, because my main carry is a G19, and well, jeesh 30 oz of extra weight is heavy. Plus, I have yet to really venture off the beaten path in a national park, and feel that a large knife should suffice. However, if I had a smaller, lighter gun I would carry that.

These people that carry are vetted, dammit. They've passed background checks, a class and spent time and money getting their permit. These people are not the ones that should worry you. Im far more worried about the threat of killer mutant squirrel attacks then I am from a permit-holder unleashing his gun at a campsite in a national park. After all, carry in National forests has been legal for years, and yet no animals have been poached or a vacationing Mom&Pop killed by a permit holder in these areas.

The question that the interior department had to answer is this: why are thousands of people denied their right to self-defense in a national park when these same folks can carry a gun down a crowded main-street. If the police are only minutes away during an emergency in a city or town, how much time do you think you'd wait for park police or rangers to help you out in a park's backcountry: hours, days? No siree. To me, carrying a concealed gun in a secluded national park makes far more sense then carrying one when you go down to the local stop-and-rob for a thing of milk at night. Especially for women and older folk who may lack the strength to fight off an attacker unarmed.

The DOI decided to bring National Parks into line with the rest of the United States with this rule change, and no, it wasn't a rushed attempt by BushCo to get it done before Obama took office. There was two separate comment periods for the change (and the period for comment was actually lengthened). If anything, BushCo dragged its feet on this issue and took the red-tape approach instead of scoring an easy victory among gun-owners. And yea, the poaching issue is nil, because no one is going to poach a deer/wolf/moose etc with a small-caliber personal protection handgun.

Hows that for ya?

[county worker]

137. Why do you need to carry a weapon where ever you go?

I don't give a shit how sane you are. This isn't the wild west. Even in Tombstone guns were not carried in town.

I really feel that if you need to carry a gun in your line of work that is one thing but to carry it wherever you feel like it is another.

Statically the less people carrying guns the less the chance someone will be killed by one.


I am a gun owner but even at that I think carrying a concealed weapon when you are not at a job that needs one borders on mental illness. How's that for ya?

[Scout]

138. how DARE you question a gun owner's "need" to carry a gun everywhere all the time!

don't you believe in civil rights?

:rofl:

i'm with you, really, but there will be a gungeon denizen along soon to berate you... i'm a gun owner too, but i don't feel the need to carry it around.

[TankLV]

127. GOOD - It's about time SANITY was returned to this!

The rest of the country is not texASS - and even in the west, they city fathers SUCCESFULLY banned ALL guns upon entering the town...

[JerseygirlCT]

135. I know - it's like sanity is breaking out all over! nt

[JerseygirlCT]

134. Wow, this plus the Plan B ruling - how about that?

It will take untold years to undo the damage of Bush, but this is a nice start!

[county worker]

136. I don't know why if you are going to visit Yosemite for example you need to carry a concealed

weapon. I am a gun owner so this isn't a gun grabber rant. It just seems to me that it isn't a good idea with all the wild life and people around that you should have people carrying guns.

I would like to think that when I visit the park someone won't go nuts and start shooting people. It has been known to happen in the country that some people go nuts and start shooting people.

I believe that if you have a ccw permit it should have restrictions as to where you carry a gun. The idea of the permit in CA is that you need a gun in the business or job you are in. That does not hold for every place you may find yourself.

The second amendment is not Constitutional permission to carry a gun where ever you feel like it.

[EFerrari]

146. I personally don't want those same idiots who can't even store FOOD properly

carrying guns all over the park. Let them learn to manage their Cheetos and stop endangering wildlife first.

[winyanstaz]

140. No need for guns in the National Parks?

The National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported drugs, meth labs, criminals, smuggling, rapes and murders in national parks just in 2006.
So why don't you tell us all again why its good we don't let citizens carry concealed or otherwise weapons in the National Parks?
Again I say, the most crimes occur where the criminals know their victims are unarmed.

[Threedifferentones]

141. Heh, its funny, I have always been against concealed weapons period

I am all for gun ownership, but I think, if you want to be prepared for violence everywhere you go, you should do it openly. This actually would be more effective for defense.

Think about it. You are a robber or rapist or serial killer or whatever. You find a target, are about to act, when you realize she has a shotgun swung over her shoulder, or a pistol strapped to her waist. Carrying a weapon here has probably averted trouble, although it is true the attacker will probably just go find an easier target.

Now, let's say I am carrying a concealed gun. I am in a line at a gas station, and some huge dude cuts in front of me in line. I tell him to get to the back, but he tells me to fuck off. Now, if I were not carrying, I would probably just let this go, since he is so much bigger than me, and I am not a judo master. But, since I secretly know my ability to do violence is actually far greater than his, I continue to stand up for myself. Dude finally hits me, and I shoot him. If I had just had the gun in the open, chances are he would have seen it and never tried in the first place.

[mr_smith007]

148. When I carry concealed

I have to change my mindset completely. If I don't have it in the car, I don't mind flipping someone the bird if they cut me off, tail too close etc. But when I have a weapon on me or in the car, I force myself to go against those silly, spontaneous emotions knowing that it could escalate to the use of the weapon.

Most concealed carry licensees shoot regularly and have researched thoroughly the power and violence of a chunk of metal flying 900 fps or more and will go the extra mile to avoid confrontation. So I would disagree with your assessment of feeling bigger than you really are when you carry. I can't say this is the case for everyone but anectdotally, I personaly and and every CC licensee I know will force themselves to be smaller and more humble knowing that the death of another person at one's own hand is at risk from this mistaken mentality and/or serious prison time for misuse.

The other point I wanted to make is that open carry is a very dangerous thing to do. In a scenario where you are waiting in a line, a criminal could easily sneak up on you and steal the weapon. That is one of the main reasons people carry concealed, the other is to avoid freaking out people that are not used to guns.

It would be a heck of a deterrent to carry openly though. I guess if citizens were more comfortable with open carry and licensees were trained to protect their weapon with proper holsters, behavior etc, that would be nice.

[Tim01]

149. When I carry

I am painfully aware of the fact that if I get into a dispute at the gas pump,grocery store, in traffic, or whever and the gun gets involved at all, I am going to jail. Even if the gun doesn't get involved and the cops show up, I am probably going to jail. When they find out I was stupid enough to get into a stupid disagreement while carrying a handgun, they are going to have no sympathy whatsoever. They do not want dumbasses carrying guns.
When I am carrying I am the most polite and least argumentative guy you have ever met. All of my friends who carry have exactly the same attitude.

And a visible weapon does make a good deterrent. Unfortunately it also makes a good target for somebody to try to snatch it and run,or use it against you.
Or the drunk guy can show all his redneck buddies what a tough guy he is by picking a fight with the guy who has a gun. That kind of thing does happen. Do you shoot the unarmed drunk, or end up in a struggle for your gun?

[lanlady]

145. good

One small (and all too rare) victory for gun control.