Alert: Right-to-Carry in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges

[LeavingMass]

Department of the Interior Extends Deadline for Comments
Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges Until August 8

Like a quarterback taking a knee in the fourth quarter, two of Congress's most ardent opponents of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms are trying to run out the clock on efforts to enhance your right to self-defense in our national parks and wildlife refuges.

For two months, we have been asking NRA members and gun owners to submit comments in support of allowing law-abiding citizens to carry their legally-owned firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges -- and tens of thousand of you have done so. The deadline to submit comments expired on June 30 -- or so we thought.

Rather than closing the proscribed comments period as scheduled and moving toward finalizing this federal regulation, U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona), succeeded in delaying the implementation of the final rule by bullying the Department of the Interior (their respective congressional subcommittees have oversight of national parks) to extend the deadline for comments an additional 30 days! In a letter to Secretary Kempthorne, Senator Akaka and Representative Grijalva asked that the public comment period be extended, citing the recent decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller.

In truth, however, now that the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, it is more important than ever that we move toward final resolution on this matter and extend the most basic right of self-defense to law-abiding citizens visiting national parks and refuges.

The goal of their strategy is clear. Extending the public comment period amounts to a blatant and intentional stalling tactic; further pushing back resolution on this matter, possibly until after the election, into a new Administration. This needless extension will also allow opponents of carrying guns in national parks (like the Humane Society of the U.S. and the National Parks Conservation Association) to rally their troops to express their opposition to this commonsense proposal.

While we disagree with the decision to extend the comments period on this issue, it is now more important than ever that we give the anti-gunners what they profess to want-additional comments. Gun owners, Right-to-Carry permit holders, and all Second Amendment supporters must deluge the Department of the Interior with comments in support of this proposal! The new deadline for submitting comments is August 8, 2008.

Please submit your comments on-line at:
Regulations.gov

Or in writing to:

Public Comments Processing
Attn: 1024-AD70
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203

Please act today and forward this message and request to your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners!

.

[tattedupboy]

It seems ironic to me that the federal constitution, the ultimate law of the land, is what recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, yet most federally owned property is off limits to carrying. Seems kinda backward to me.

[Stiofan]

The link to comment has been changed.

Regulations.gov

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

It seems ironic to me that the federal constitution, the ultimate law of the land, is what recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, yet most federally owned property is off limits to carrying. Seems kinda backward to me.

it seems like things in this country stopped making sense a long time ago.. and bring in the stupidity and corruption.

[Boofreakinyah]

I recently found an article about this proposal that would allow an ease of limitations on the carry of firearms in some Natinal Parks.

…Visitors to some national parks would be able to start packing heat along with their tents and picnic baskets under a proposal being considered by the Interior Department that would ease restrictions on loaded firearms in the parks.

…Parks advocates and rangers’ organizations say “allowing loaded weapons would increase illegal hunting, add a deadly element to many domestic disputes and generally make the parks less secure and family-friendly”…

“There is no need to walk around a national park with a loaded weapon,” said Bryan Faehner, a former park ranger now with the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group. “It’s a political maneuver by the NRA. They are using this as a political tool to build up support heading into the elections.”

He added that “it’s impossible for park rangers to know the difference between someone walking on a trail with a gun, and someone walking on a trail with a gun who is a poacher”. This is a management nightmare for the Park Service.” - end.

This is the typical thought process utilized by not only the liberal government but also the majority of the anti-gun population.

Stating and / or believing that “allowing loaded weapons would increase illegal hunting, add a deadly element to many domestic disputes and generally make the parks less secure and family-friendly”, is absolutely based upon ignorance and fear of the handgun. This suggests that the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, legally carrying a handgun in a national park, would not be able to enjoy nature with their families without shooting an elk with a pistol.

They go on to state that “there is no need to walk around a national park with a loaded weapon.”

- Tell that to the families of Carole Sund, her daughter Juli, and family friend Silvina Pelosso who were trying to enjoy a camping trip to Yosemite. We all know how their trip ended.

According to the National Criminal Justice Reference System (NCJRS), “In 1980, 16 homicides, 69 rapes, 294 robberies, 643 assaults, 1,552 burglaries, 6,230 larcenies, and 250 vehicle thefts were reported in national parks.” ( NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service )

These statistics are for only one year and are nearly 30 years old. We know where our crime rate has gone since then.

- Tell that to the family of Samuel Evan Ives, the 11 year old boy ripped from his camping tent and mauled to death by a black bear.

- Tell that to the hundreds of people that have been attacked, injured and killed by wild animal attacks nation wide. A problem that is ever increasing as we encroach on their hunting habitat.

As far as the third comment “it’s impossible for park rangers to know the difference between someone walking on a trail with a gun, and someone walking on a trail with a gun who is a poacher”

This is the standard, “If they have a gun, they must be a criminal” mentality. It is this ignorant fear-based mentality that has lead to the consistent infringement of our 2nd Amendment right. How about investigating gunshots in the off-season or non-hunting areas or at night. I’m pretty sure…THOSE will be the poachers.



Original Article By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 28, 2008; Page A15

[Stiofan]

Originally Posted by Boofreakinyah;30338

…Parks advocates and rangers’ organizations say [COLOR="red"

“allowing loaded weapons would increase illegal hunting, add a deadly element to many domestic disputes and generally make the parks less secure and family-friendly”[/color]…

“There is no need to walk around a national park with a loaded weapon,” said Bryan Faehner, a former park ranger now with the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group. “It’s a political maneuver by the NRA. They are using this as a political tool to build up support heading into the elections.”

He added that “it’s impossible for park rangers to know the difference between someone walking on a trail with a gun, and someone walking on a trail with a gun who is a poacher”. This is a management nightmare for the Park Service.” - end.

The Park Rangers should walk in the shoes of most game wardens, who have to approach gun carrying persons all the time. They manage to do their jobs without whining.

[HK4U]

If I were a Park ranger I would welcome law abiding citizens to be able to carry. I would know and understand that the type of person that would be likely to commit a crime would be carrying anyway because they do not care about the law. By having a park full of citizens carrying if push came to shove and I need help there just might be somebody there.