The criminal killing of an elk underscores the need to restrict the use of loaded guns in national parks, Chief U.S. District Judge William Downes said Tuesday.Let's apply the same logic everywhere. If one criminal with a firearm breaks the law anywhere, the rest of us must be banned from having them everywhere.
At least according to this subversive nitwit.
"If one criminal with a firearm breaks the law anywhere, the rest of us must be banned from having them everywhere."
ReplyDeleteThat does seem to be the underlying theme. That goes for uniformed criminals too though, right? If one of our employees perpetrates a crime while armed, then they'll call for the same disarmament across law enforcement, right?
They wouldn't seek to apply different standards to the employer and the employee would they?
What if an elk stampedes and tramples a visitor to the park?
ReplyDeleteWould that instigate a leash law for all the other elk?
I be thinkin' no.
Wow. What inscrutable logic.
ReplyDeleteA criminal, unlawfully in possession of a firearm, illegally kills an elk in a place where firearms are illegal to possess by anyone, and hunting is not permitted. Of course, it goes without saying that poaching is already illegal everywhere.
The answer, folks, is to - get this - make firearms illegal to possess by anyone, and to continue to not permit hunting, and to keep poaching illegal.
That'll fix 'em. Hey - I've get an idea along those same lines: Lets make narcotics illegal, and not let felons possess guns. Lets make poaching illegal.
Oh - wait -- you mean those things are ALREADY illegal?
Oh, and if a concerned citizen had tried to intercede while this guy was poaching, he'd be expected to do it armed with, well, words. That'll work.
It's simple: The anti-self-defense crowd simply doesn't trust anyone with a gun. If guns were allowed, everyone carrying a gun would poach, shoot campers, shoot up signs, and just generally cause a ruckus. Murder and mayhem would be the rule. You know, just like when concealed carry laws were enacted.
This is third-grade "logic" at best. Downe's syndrome indeed.
Uhhmmmm, that elk was, according to the article, OUTSIDE of the park. So, how does this relate to firearm carry in parks?
ReplyDeleteI guess I got it from the article:
ReplyDelete"You took a magnificent bull elk in a United States park, then engaged in acts to cover up your crime," Downes said before sentencing Michael David Belderrain to four years in prison.
The article continues:
On Dec. 14, 2005, he killed an elk standing in Gallatin County, Mont., just outside the Yellowstone National Park boundary, decapitated it, and dragged the head to his truck inside the park, he said when he changed his plea on Aug. 22.
I know of several hunters that shot an elk during hunting season outside the Yellowstone boundary. It crossed the boundary fence before it dropped and they followed it to retrieve it. The had it dressed out and in their horse's panniers when they crossed the boundary and were arrested by Yellowstone rangers.
They were fined 2500 bux apiece. Oh, and they got their panniers back, packed with rotten meat. So they went after an elk, so not to waste the meat, and the Rangers really didn't give a hoot. Who was the criminal in that case?
Like I said - the Judge uses great logic here. He applies whatever facts he dreams up for the alleged crime.
I don't condone poaching - especially when the meat is left on the ground. But it seems that judges dream up whatever "facts" in making their judgments.
Poaching is illegal. So is carrying a gun in Yellowstone.
Whatever the case, guns in parks will not likely result in every gun owner shooting every animal he or she sees.
Would this guy not have poached simply because of a line in the sand? I thought poaching is illegal anywhere.
Why does he have to pay restitution to the Yellowstone Park Service for poaching outside the boundaries? Why does none of this make any sense?
I've always been a bit uncomfortable about using the term poaching in regards to the taking of "wild" game animals. You can only "poach" something that belongs to someone else. Thus, if I kill a cow, steer, sheep , etc... belonging to a rancher I have poached. In the old country all of the game animals belonged to the king, and by extension his noble vassals, thus killing a game animal was poaching. However, last I checked the .gov did not de jure own ALL animals inside the boundaries, or am I wrong?
ReplyDeleteYes, yes I know that they do de facto, heck de facto they own all of the property until we decide to enforce the law.
Gregg,
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't that long ago that what is known as "poaching" today, was simply a way to put meat on the table, and a way of life.
Not to mention, healthier than any "meat" that is bought in stores today..
And still does today, as far as I'm concerned.....
Gregg,
ReplyDeleteI agree. It's owned by everyone who pays taxes, so all of we taxpayers have a say. If the treehuggers don't like it, have the fedgov sell off the property, and they can buy it up and make it into a sanctuary -- after they beat out the highest bid, that is.
The last I checked, offering a reward and fining poachers worked just fine. I'm not sure how punishing everyone but the poacher -- mostly non-hunters -- is supposed to fix anything.
Talking about poaching property of the state (animals) how come it is they don't claim ownership of the big sonofabitch when it comes through a windshield and decapitates a mother of four?
ReplyDeleteIf a rancher's cow does, he is liable.
We may be shooting the wrong game.
Yes, the argument that the forest rangers have that allowing people to bring loaded weapons vs unloaded weapons somehow makes it easier to poach is stupid beyond belief. Are we to believe someone who is willing to break the poaching law won't grab their unloaded weapon & load it so that they can then poach? How is getting away carrying off a large poached animal supposed to be easier than hiding a small loaded weapon even if they break the no loaded weapon rule? These anti gun folks have no clue.
ReplyDeleteI know people who "poach" to put meat on the table. Much of this type of "poaching" takes place in areas where game is plentiful.
ReplyDeleteI think that in many places some sort of management is in order.
Here in Arizona there are game counts used to determine how many animals should be culled to keep the herds at a viable and healthy level. Wildlife biologists typically set the numbers.
If everyone who wanted to, drove up to the mountains from Phoenix and shot an elk, the elk in Arizona would go he way of the bison.
Perhaps some sort of management is in order. But when someone kills an elk and chops off the head, the s.o.b. deserves some sort of punishment. I don't think that arbitrarily applying laws is the answer, as the judge did in this case.
On the flip side, if you are charged with poaching or any type of hunting crime in Arizona you get a "hearing."
Near where I live, an outfitter walked up to, and finished off an elk that a client had shot. After shooting the elk, the hunter became ill - seems that he was a diabetic, and needed medicine. The outfitter lost his license for finishing off the wounded bull. Seems that the overseers decided that he should have walked off and let the elk suffer and die after being gut shot. The outfitter lost his license for doing the right thing.
At the hearing, one of the hearing officers slept through the proceeding, then woke up after being nudged and shouted "guilty!"
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I wouldn't relish going into Judge Downes court, or before an Arizona hearing for a game violation.
"Guilty!"