Several National Park Service employee advocacy groups and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) are warning that the National Rifle Association-driven changes to the firearms safety and uniformity regulations in our national parks proposed today by the Department of the Interior will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers, and other law enforcement agencies.Right, and we all know how confused "The Only Ones" can get some times, and who better to define our rights than retired public "service" employees and vested "law enforcer" careerists partnered with neo-Marxists masquerading as Americans?
The coalition is urging concerned citizens to submit their comments on the proposed regulation change to the Department of the Interior by clicking here.
Yes--by all means, do so, and pass that link on to all interested in reestablishing a legally-recognized right to the means of self defense in national parks.
I'm serious. Please take a moment and do it now. Click on the link, enter a comment and then spread the comments page url far and wide. Let's inundate them with pro-RKBA rationality.
And thanks, Common Dreams, for the reminder that it's time to mobilize and overwhelm you.
18 comments:
PSH from The Oregonian:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1209614124304370.xml&coll=7
Key passage from my comment:
The right to life is meaningless without access to the means of effective self-defense. To deny the citizen self-protection while simultaneously denying responsibility for her protection (just as in Warren v DC and Gonzales v Castle Rock, I am certain NPS and FWS accept no legal obligation to protect any
individual) is not merely unjust, it is perverse.
I'll get a post up tonight or tomorrow with the URL. At least one and a third of my three and a half readers might be interested. :-)
This stuck out from your link, Jeffersonian:
"Parks are a very special place," said Dave Uberuaga, superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park. "You don't wear your gun into church. You should feel comfortable in a national park without carrying a concealed weapon."
Tell that to Jeanne Assam, Uberalles, you total moron.
I said this:
My right to defend my life does not end at park boundaries, and no one in government has moral authority to intervene or infringe. I will do what I deem
necessary to protect myself and my loved ones from all threats, including the two-legged kind.
The poaching argument is ridiculous. As is the hysteria about danger: look at the
remarkable level of safety and peacefulness demonstrated by those who carry concealed wherever the practice has been accepted. Good people simply do not turn bad in the presence of tools.
and then attached a copy of this.
I left my comment and I was even polite. I live within a mile of a national park and hope this goes our way.
I sent my comments. I focused on three main issues:
1. Concealed carry makes us all safer, including those of us (like me) who don't carry concealed;
2. Those who carry concealed have shown a high degree of competence, professionalism, and sound judgment; and
3. The proposed regulations respect local rule of law. The state and federal governments each have areas of expertise, and this issue is one where the states are best situated to use their skills to reflect the will of the people.
I just posted my comment to the DOI.
In considering whether to allow Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders to carry their firearms in national parks, it is important to remember that CHP holders have proven themselves to be law-abiding citizens. They have instead put forth _extra_ effort to legally carry an effective means of self-defense, and in most states have submitted to an extensive criminal background check and undergone safety and self-defense training. These are the individuals who are the _least_ likely to engage in illegal activity such as poaching, target shooting outside of a designated shooting range, or violent attacks against others. CHP holders have demonstrated a profound respect for the law and are far more likely to familiarize themselves with applicable laws, and boundaries where the laws may change, than the average person. A law-abiding person does not become a violent criminal simply by crossing a line, and CHP holders have proven, both by their actions and through a background check, that they are law-abiding citizens.
Comment tracking #80540112
If you have not read the downloadable document at the comments page, I would strongly recommend that you do so. It is truly refreshing to see such strong support for federalism and (gasp) state's rights. Here is an excerpt:
"A core tenet of our system of
government is that States have the
prerogative to develop their own
policies and standards in many areas,
and this principle has long been
honored with respect to policies
governing the possession of firearms.
Recognizing the importance of this longstanding
tradition, we believe that
federal agencies have a responsibility to
recognize the competence of the States
in this area, and that federal regulations
should be developed and implemented
in a manner that respects ‘‘state
prerogatives and authority.’’"
See, I disagree with that, anon. The states have no competency to infringe on my unalienable rights.
It's not a state powers thing, otherwise they'd also be able to keep slaves in the name of federalism.
Read William Rawle's view on this before you disagree with me.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. My perspective is that of nudging others in our direction, and when I see that others are heading in the right direction (albeit imperfectly), I like to encourage the behavior.
So much of life is momentum. If we can get the right people rolling in the right direction, they will tend to keep rolling that way, and it will make it easier for us to make additional improvements as time goes by.
Thanks for the referrel to William Rawle. I will check into that.
From my letter response in GUNS Magazine:
Allow me to quote William Rawle, whose View of the Constitution was the constitutional law text used at Harvard and Dartmouth until the mid-19th century. George Washington wanted Rawle to be the first Attorney General.
His view of the 2nd Amendment: "No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
I didn't know the editor was going to print my reply until the issue came out--I had merely intended to give him someinfo he could use. Had I known my email was going to be included in total, I'd have credited where I learned this from.
That Rawle quote is very interesting. I guess he could not imagine the day when our federal legislators and judges, in addition to the state equivalents, would actually believe that they could use the constitution or contrived laws to disarm the people.
For further clarification on the federalism and states' rights issue, we have been operating under an implicit regime for several decades that can best be summarized as follows:
-The feds know best.
-The states are incompetent.
-Individuals are incompetent.
The comments on the proposed regulation show a very subtle shift coming out of D.C. The new implicit regime is as follows:
-The feds know a lot.
-The states know a lot.
-Individuals are incompetent.
We are one step closer to acknowledging that "Individuals know a lot." After that, we can then shoot for "Individuals are supreme." We are not yet there, and it frustrates me to no end, but we are inching closer to the goal.
Here's my comment:
Although I myself am not a holder of a CCW, I would find it safer to enjoy the park knowing that CCW's are permitted. Having vetted and armed citizens in the park system will have the effect of increasing the park staff without any increase in budget, salary or staffing.
There are documented instances of criminals who have used parks as a base and refuge, and as well, there is the known danger of getting in between a bear and her cubs, not to mention the equally well-known but much less dramatic situation in which one literally trips over a poisonous snake.
The park rangers and other staff simply cannot be everywhere at once, whether to warn of potential threats or to mitigate an existing danger. Citizens who are armed will be able to deal with these incidents themselves, leaving the park staff free to help others who are less well prepared for the environment they're in.
PS: I didn't see a link to read other comments. Did I miss it?
Peter said, "PS: I didn't see a link to read other comments. Did I miss it?"
I don't think they will publish any of the comments for a while.
In my earlier post, I referred to "comments on the proposed regulation" when I really meant the "document specifying the proposed regulations."
I hope that did not cause too much confusion.
I submitted this:
I am VERY concerned that bureaucrats, globalists, and socialists all masquerading as real Americans are conspiring to further strip our God-given right to keep and bear arms that is codified in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
First, there seems to be a complete lack of ability to discern the difference between the gun-toting thug and the law abiding American exercising a constitutionally protected right! It appears to me that gun owners are being demonized and vilified to suit the purposes of a political agenda.
Second, if there was a genuine fear of confusion regarding conflicting gun laws, then the solution is so simple as to be ridiculous: Repeal all of these unconstitutional laws that generate the confusion in the first place! What part of “…shall not be infringed.” Do you not understand?
And my final point is this: A gun is a tool, an inanimate object; nothing more. It is NOT a catalyst of evil. And when you need one, you need it NOW, and no substitute will suffice. Being of the sort that abhors the intractable advance of the Nanny-State mentality in this country, I refuse to delegate the responsibility for my self-protection to ANY ONE. I will not reply on Keystone Cops, cop wanna-be’s, and/or uniformed tree-huggers for the protection of my life or the lives of my family! Know that when I am in a federal or state park, I’m armed. Assault me or accost me at your own risk.
Done.
I sent a polite comment too.
David, I explained to them that a sign at Whitney Portal, the trailhead to Mt. Whitney, said that the discharge of firearms, except in emergency situtations, was prohibited. Which means firearms themselves are permitted, for the purpose of self-defense. Then I asked why that was not extended to the national parks. We'll see if I get a response.
Post a Comment