You are here

Congressman Accuses Sec. Kempthorne of Pandering to NRA on Gun Issue

Share

Congressman Raul Grijalva, who heads the House subcommittee on national parks, is accusing Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne of pandering to the National Rifle Association.

In a strongly worded letter to the Interior secretary on his efforts to allow national park visitors to arm themselves, the Democrat from Arizona asserts that the proposal "is not sound policy; it is pandering to an interest group with no interest in National Parks."

In the two-page letter (attached below), Representative Grijalva not only points out misrepresentations in the NRA's push to see concealed carry allowed in national parks and national wildlife refuges but also says the secretary's proposal will not simplify gun laws across the country as he contends but "will destroy uniformity of application and hopelessly muddle visitor understanding of the requirements."

The congressman also maintains the proposal, if adopted, will further undermine the safety of park rangers.

"NPS law enforcement personal will also be put at greater risk. Most of these brave men and women work alone, confronting large crowds where alcohol can be prevalent. Wading into a situation alone to restore and protect park visitors and park resources is daunting under the current rule. The last thing these dedicated public servants need is loaded guns hidden in the crowd.

Comments

Anonymous pondered"

> Don't you think Rick it might be wise to implement some kind of psychological testing before one can be issued a concealed (handgun) weapon?

Except for Vermont, most states' application process involves some questions about past mental health history. Usually the disqualifier is whether the person was committed _unwillingly_ to mental health treatment. This is not the case when asking people who apply for drivers licenses and whether they have a drinking problem. More people are killed by drunk drivers than by mentally ill concealed carry permit holders.

and later Rick Smith declares:

> Many disagree with your assertion that carrying a weapon is guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore is an "American value."

You can disagree that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to "keep and BEAR ARMS" but you're wrong. Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania constitution, which existed prior, made it perfectly clear, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to do the same. And - you'll love this - it does, in principle, provide for possession of firearms like the M-16, M-4, SAW, or MP5 - any weapons typically carried by an individual into battle. To date, we have the Firearms Act of 1934 that regulates automatic firearms so you must pass a background check and pay a $200 fee to the Treasury Department for each automatic firearm you are registering. Since laws were changed in 1986 the availability of automatic firearms for public purchase has created ridiculous supply/demand price inflation. Typically, you'll pay approximately more than $12,000 or more for an M-16.

I don't expect Rick Smith to be down at the Knob Creek machine gun shoot but I thought I'd throw that in to explain that as an American citizen you may own the same firearms the military uses because, the individual citizen is the militia - not the National Guard - as defined by the Constitution and fantasized by the gun banners.

This little bit of trivia may not be an "American value" in your mind but it is fact. District of Columbia v. Heller will settle this decisively very soon and end the delusional and myopic claims of gun banners.


Kurt:
You need to actually read the report this information came from. The actual report is much different than the misinformation you are spreading. Read the study at: http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant.pdf


Anonymous,

According to this report (which is eight years old, by the way), violent crimes by CCW permit holders in Texas increased every year from 1996 to 1999. Over that period, according to the study, there were 27 murders/non-negligent manslaughters, two forcible rapes, five robberies, 376 aggravated assaults, and 454 "other assaults."

Rick previously had asked for proof "of a permit holder committing a gun crime against another citizen," and these statistics, produced for the Texas Concealed Handgun Association, certainly seem to provide that proof.

Beyond the violent crime, these stats also show that non-violent crime by CCW permit holders in Texas also steadily increased year after year.

Are the incident rates for the general population higher? Yes, but is that surprising in light of the greater pool of gun wielders? And interestingly, for the years cited some might say the murder rates aren't drastically different -- 5.2 per 100,000 for the general population and 4.0 per 100,000 for permit holders.


most states' application process involves some questions about past mental health history

Don't confuse or try and equate psychological evaluations with "some questions about past mental health". Any idiot can answer "some questions" about their past mental health history properly. An in-depth evaluation is a completely different animal, designed to test your stability and thought processes through a variety of similar, but unrelated qualifiers. It takes virtually a court-ordered trip to a padded cell to be denied an ownership permit, and even then there are numerous cited instances where these same "certifiable" lunatics legally purchased handguns and used them on the general public. An assessment on the other hand, is specifically designed to identify and eliminate those people who are trying to give the "right" awswer to a series of questions by approaching the topic from a variety of angles, testing to determine your thought processes, not your "right" answers. If the processes vary, they know you're full of crap, and just attempting to "ace" the test by concealing your true agenda. The quick and easy application process is not at all, in any way, an apples-to-apples comparison.


Kurt,

No reasonable person can read the report of the Texas Concealed Handgun Instructors Association (http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant.pdf) and come away with any other opinion than that it destroys your contention that possessing a CCW results in additional violent crime. In fact the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction, the availability of CCW reduces crime. This assertion is backed up, at the national level, by the FBI. People intent on committing a violent crime will do so, with or without a gun.

You state: "Beyond the violent crime, these stats also show that non-violent crime by CCW permit holders in Texas also steadily increased year after year." Wow, I wonder if that might be because the number of CCW holders increases year after year? Again, you have a problem with context. The only way to evaluate the supposed criminality of CCW holders is in relation to the age appropriate general population. Doing this destroys any assertion that CCW holders are somehow more inclined to commit a crime once in possession of their licenses.

Murders and violent crimes are being committed in the National Parks under the current regime of strict gun control. In every other instance, without exception, liberalizing gun laws has resulted in a reduction of violent crime. This is according to the FBI and appropriate state agencies, whose responsibility it is to gather and assess data without prejudice.

Stay away from the facts, they don't help your cause.


Art,

I am not -- I repeat, not -- asserting that "CCW holders are somehow more inclined to commit a crime once in possession of their licenses."

All I'm pointing out, using statistics you yourself have pointed to, is that CCW holders have committed crimes, both violent and non-violent. Period.

Here are the facts, as presented by the Texas Concealed Handgun Instructors Association, the group you directed me to:

There were 27 murders/non-negligent manslaughters, two forcible rapes, five robberies, 376 aggravated assaults, and 454 "other assaults" from 1996-1999.

Now Art, you can configure the statistics anyway you want, but you still end up with 27 murders/non-negligent manslaughters, two forcible rapes, five robberies, 376 aggravated assaults and 454 "other assaults" committed by CCW holders from 1996-1999.


Kurt:

> Now Art, you can configure the statistics anyway you want, but you still end up with 27 murders/non-negligent manslaughters, two forcible rapes,
> five robberies, 376 aggravated assaults and 454 "other assaults" committed by CCW holders from 1996-1999.

There's a big difference between arrest rates and conviction rates. Art's report is older data for one thing. Kurt, I sent you a compilation of reports from the TX Dept of Public Safety from 2002-2005. The overall _conviction_ rate in all offenses of permit holders is less than a third of a percent compared to the overall statewide rate. I counted TWO murders in the time period between 1/2002-12/2005. You need to review that data and count up whatever numbers you want. Permit holders, with the exception of these TWO, don't kill people. It doesn't look to me that they don't commit very many violent crimes, either. I look through the data and see a lot of zeroes in the permit holder columns.

I guess I have to eat humble pie and admit that yes, permit holders have killed people. That's two guilty people out of hundreds of thousands of permit holders, though. The general consensus here is that, well, parks are pretty safe and we don't need guns there because something MIGHT happen. I stand by my claim that the hysterical fear-mongering is way over the top. And I still stand by my claim that permit holders aren't the problem and - I'll generalize now because I've been proven wrong - don't commit the crimes.

Read the reports I sent you, Kurt, and feel free to comment on them here. I'm curious what your opinion is in comparing arrests and convictions. Did I miss something?


Rick,

Why do I need to look at more data? This whole back and forth started when you asked for proof that a single CCW permit holder had committed a crime, other than a "bureaucratic infraction," and the records you and Art provided, old or recent, amply provided that proof.

And when you say, "Permit holders, with the exception of these TWO, don't kill people," well, since you seem to be referring to Texas statistics, wouldn't you say you're a bit low? What about the stats from the other 49 states?

And why do you keep whittling down the criteria? First you wanted evidence that CCW permit holders committed crimes, then violent crimes, and now you seem to be settling only on murders. If Texas is what you want to focus on, fine, but let's take a closer look at all of the violent crime data involving permit holders for the years you mentioned. After all, those who believe park visitors should be able to arm themselves point to more than just murders in the parks when they try to justify their arguments.

So, reasonable ground rule?

Now, in 2005 there was one murder conviction involving a permit holder. And there was one manslaughter conviction. And five terroristic threat convictions. And seven convictions on sexual assaults of a child. And one kidnapping conviction. Fifteen deadly conduct convictions. And one criminal negligent homicide conviction. And 23 convictions on assault that causes injury in family violence. Eight convictions on assault that causes bodily injury.

2004. No murders, no manslaughters, no terroristic threats. But three convictions on sexual assault of a child. Ten deadly conduct convictions. Nineteen convictions on assault that causes injury in family violence. Fourteen convictions of assault that causes bodily injury. Four convictions on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Two convictions on aggravated assault that leads to serious bodily injury.

2003? Three convictions on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. One aggravated robbery conviction. Fourteen convictions for assaults that caused bodily injury. Eight convictions for assault that caused bodily injury family violence. Eight deadly conduct convictions. One murder conviction. Four terroristic threat convictions.

2002. Three convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. One conviction for aggravated robbery. A dozen convictions for aggravated assault that caused bodily injury. Eight that caused bodily injury as a result of family violence. Eight convictions for deadly conduct. One murder conviction. Hmmm. That makes three murder convictions Rick, not two, for the time period you cited. Four if you count the conviction for murder under the influence of sudden passion. Two convictions for terroristic threats.

How did things fare in Texas in 2006? Well, there were five convictions of CCW permit holders for aggravated assaults that caused serious bodily injury. Nine convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. One conviction for aggravated robbery. One conviction for assault against elderly or disabled individual. Twenty-one convictions for assault that causes bodily injury. Twenty-three convictions for assault that causes bodily injury family violence. One conviction for criminal negligent homicide. Eleven for deadly conduct. One for deadly conduct involving the discharge of a firearm. One murder conviction. One conviction for a terroristic threat interrupting a public place.

That's a lot of humble pie, Rick. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and guess that in one year there are more murders/manslaughters/negligent homicides, and other violent crimes, involving permit holders across the nation than there are crimes of the same nature in national parks over the same period.

Now, I know you don't trust statistics from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, but after looking unsuccessfully for crime stats at the state police websites of Kentucky and Virginia, two concealed carry states, I'm beginning to believe those who say many states don't break out crimes by CCW permit holders. If you know where to find those individual state stats, let me know. In the meantime, the Brady Campaign has tracked down at least five homicides committed by permit holders during the first five months of 2008. True, I can't predict what the judicial outcome of these cases will be (aside from the guy who also killed himself), but judging from the initial reports, these are pretty serious infractions with substantial evidence.

The bottom line?

I have no qualms about agreeing with you that there are more violent crimes involving guns in the general population than involving CCW permit holders. Any chance you'll agree that more than a sprinkling of permit holders nationwide do indeed commit violent crimes and that arming park visitors is not a panacea to feeling safe in the parks? Also, what are the odds that you'll join me in urging Congress to better fund the National Park Service so there could be more law enforcement rangers where they're needed?

Oh, one other thing. Can we stop comparing stats yet?;-)


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.