Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
If only the AJC would take editorial positions like this . . .

http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProces...ection=Opinion

Second Amendment rights don't end in parks
November 27,2006
The Freedom View
The Colorado Springs Gazette

Virginia Sen. George Allen, a Republican who narrowly lost to Democrat James Webb on Nov. 7, in one of the races that overturned control of Congress, seems intent on going out with a bang rather than a whimper. Allen last week unveiled S. 4057, a bill that would overturn the almost-total ban on personal firearms in national parks, an idea we strongly support because our constitutional rights don’t end at national park boundaries and there are sound reasons why Americans might want to be armed in these places.

Allen says the bill will "protect the Second Amendment rights of individuals to carry firearms" in all national park units, where and when this doesn’t clash with state law. Conceding that such a bill may have a hard time passing in the lame-duck session, Allen said he hopes to attach it as an amendment to some other must-pass legislation. While we don’t approve of such legislative end-arounds, we do support the intent of this bill.

There’s no reason to believe this would lead to a flurry of Wild West shootouts, since we see no similar outbreaks of violence or lawlessness in national forests, where firearms are permitted. This argument gets trotted out by the firearm-phobes whenever strengthening gun rights is debated, despite the fact that the sensationalist scenarios never come to pass. An argument might be made that lifting the ban would make it harder to police poaching in national parks, though we doubt this is a serious enough problem to justify continuing a blanket gun ban.

"Serious crimes against persons in national parks are extremely low under existing federal law," the associate director of visitor and resource protection for the NPS wrote in one memo. "There are no discernible facts or statistics that demonstrate the need for visitors to carry concealed firearms."

But crime is a growing problem in national parks â€" that is a discernible fact â€" and we have seen numerous reports of their increasing use by meth-makers, pot growers and smugglers. Perhaps it’s the unlikelihood of running into an armed civilian, in addition to their physical remoteness, that makes parks seem like safe venues to the criminal element. Help can be a long way off if one runs into a dangerous person or animal in some remote area of a national park â€" all the more reason why Americans should have the option a going armed, if they so choose.

Each of the arguments for maintaining the ban is easily knocked down, with reference to fact or logic. Yet emotion will probably carry the day in this dispute, as it does with so many involving public lands issues. Park officials have consistently resisted lifting the ban, as have other groups. "From our standpoint it’s a non-starter," Blake Selzer of the National Parks Conservation Association said in one news story. "The parks have much more urgent needs that need to be addressed by Congress."

But this isn’t about the needs of the parks; it’s about the rights of American citizens, which don’t get thrown out the car window when they drive through a national park entrance. If these were private natural preserves, the owners could ban whatever they wanted. But these are public places, where our constitutional rights should be fully respected. After all, it can’t be really called a right if the government can waive it on a whim, as they have in this case.

It’s unlikely Allen’s bill will pass. It’s also unfortunate that he waited until so late in his Senate tenure to bring it forward. Had he done so several years ago, S. 4057 might have had a chance of passage. But this is a debate worth having nonetheless, if you believe, as we do, that the crown jewels of the Constitution are as worthy of protection as the crown jewels of the national park system.

â€" The Colorado Springs Gazette
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
A bad one!

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... 70323/1008

Excerpt:

"But the added factor here is public safety for the 274 million who use the parks every year. There is no place for guns in non-hunting parks, because hikers and campers could be at risk of stray shots. And there is a real concern that gun crime could increase in these parks, which have historically been among the safest places in the country."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Malum Prohibitum said:
A bad one!

which have historically been among the safest places in the country."
LMAO!!!! OMG that's funny! Are those people blind??? Here in Atl alone, how many folks get stabbed, mugged shot attacked, etc. in some of our parks here...There are alot more parks elsehwre in this country that are filled with illegal felon misfits that own guns and arn't afraid to use them...Once again, our law abiding non violent citizens are fighting for our rights to defend ourselves....
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top