The National Rifle Association on Friday appealed a federal judge's ruling that put a halt to concealed weapons permit holders arming themselves in national parks.
The judge's ruling won't hold water. The 2nd Amendment is absolute...if the USSC hears this case, we will never have to worry about this issue again.
Editor's note: This comment was edited to remove a gratuitous comment.
I carry a comb in my back pocket just out of habit, never us it, as I have little hair left. When you stand next to me in line at the 7-11 you don't know I have a comb and if you stand next to me at the railing overlooking some scenic view in a national park you don't know I have a comb. The point being, what you don't see can't upset you weather in a store or in a park. Same person, same comb, what diffence does a location make??
The number of people licensed to carry is small, and the number who enter parks is probably smaller, is it worth all this fuss over??
NRA members in good standing carry firearms to give ourselves a means of protection against those who do not believe in our constitutional, God given rights to life liberty and justice for all. We fight for this right because we are aware there are unfortunately people that live in this nation that believe they have the right to abuse us, rob us, steal from us and use the NRA and any other agency that we have created to protect us from them to take from us even our lives in anyway, anywhere they please. The NRA by standing up for us by fighting for an individuals, any individuals right to bear arms, allows us to remain a free country. Animals in our national Parks however are not allowed to carry firearms to defend themselves, so they must rely on their instincts to attack and defend those creatures that evade there homes and territory. After living and working in the Park system for 6 years I can assure you that there are already some individuals that enter the National Parks armed illegally now. Now they will venture into areas where they surely would not go without the security of firearms to defend them selves from the vicious, aggressive attacking animals that they run into on the trails. If anyone out there thinks this is not the case then you must disbelieve any of the stories told in any of the sporting and hunting magazines. Anytime a person hiking, camping and visiting our National Parks confronts any of these "wild" animals viciously attacking either themselves of anyone else that has ventured too close to these poor animals, the animals always lose. I myself did not believe this until I spent time trying to educate park visitors, not to try to touch the animals and give them the space and respect they deserve. I have personally witnessed a park visitor running towards a grizzly bear with a young child in her arms so the child could see the bear. I am sure that if this grizzly bear had felt aggression from this act that it would have defended itself. If a concealed carrying park patron witnessed this act of aggression I am sure the outcome would have been radically different for the bear. If we as a Nation can not control crime in our cities why do we think we can control crime in the National Parks by carrying concealed weapons. The real problem is the crime we can not or will not control so we feel safer arming ourselves.
I’m afraid that there are too many ignorant people out there in the parks that are unaware that a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm, is not only protecting themselves and their families but everyone around them! This Judge that listened to the ignorant misinformed people who don’t have any respect for the “Law-abiding” person who will not be there in case of emergencies. Many of these people like myself have worked in law enforcement for many years before retiring. Now we go through the process of getting a permit to continue our “To Serve & to Protect” training while trying to enjoy the many parks ourselves! I really feel sorry for those who cannot tell the difference between a Law-abiding citizen and a “CRIMINAL”, who doesn’t play by any one’s rule! I personally have seen many of these people that wouldn’t think twice about killing you or yours without a second’s thought! I only hope you don’t get to meet one of these “Criminals” that will teach you the difference. The hard way.
well, first of all, i don't think you'll use a comb when a brown bear comes into camp!
you do not need a gun in the park. i have hiked back country three times in Yellowstone. no gun required.
my next trip in will be to Shoshone Lake, so i will buy a can of pepper spray.
if you don't have a gun, like a CONCEALED gun, you won't shoot the gun at a bear. and the small concealed weapon will do nothing but piss the bear off.
so, if you feel you need to carry a concealed weapoin when you're in a national park- just go someplace else for your vacation.
Well, Tom J., I would like to think "law-abiding" people have respect for all laws, not just the ones that suit them. In the case at hand, the Interior Department in the judge's opinion more than likely broke the law by failing to consider the possible environmental impacts of the rule change. Now, it's very likely that there won't be any significant impacts, but that's why the National Environmental Policy Act calls for such a study -- to make that determination so politicians can't ramrod things through the system.
I’ve carried a concealed weapon for over forty years and there has been no environmental impact, however, there has been an impact on crime! I’m pretty sure who’s trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes.
Well here we go again. While staying in a popular California resort, a competent legal carrying gun owner just left his loaded 45 under a pillow for the housekeepers to find. Then he checked out and left the property. Then he ask us to mail it to him in a bubble wrapped package so it won't get damaged. Need I say more?
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Copyright 2005-2016 - National Park Advocates LLC