Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Association of National Park Rangers Opposes Change in Park Gun Regulations

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Try not to let your head explode.

    http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com...gun-laws-parks

    You can add the Association of National Park Rangers to the groups that oppose a change in gun laws to allow concealed weapons to be carried legally in the national park system.
    Across the nation newspapers have been batting this topic back and forth, some for, some against, but none have employees who work in the parks on a daily basis and so have a direct and specific concern over the fate of the issue.
    Now the ANPR, whose members do work and often live in the parks, is weighing in on the issue, and not just from an aspect of safety.
    "Of course we believe that there are increased risks for humans, both visitors and NPS employees, if the 47 senators get their way," Scot McElveen, the group's president, tells me. "But in terms of the reasons that the 1983 regulation was promulgated, the legal argument for opposing a regulation change on human safety grounds is not very strong.
    "Here’s why: Units of the national park system are not created as defined by the (National Park Service) Organic Act or enabling acts for public safety," Mr. McElveen continues. "They are created for the nationally significant resources they contain and the enjoyment the public can gain from them in ways that leave them unimpaired. If you argue the public safety angle, then the question that must be asked is, 'Can we make a legitimate legal argument that people deserve to be safer from firearms inside an NPS unit as opposed to their own communities, schools, stores, cities, counties, and states?' Don't each of us deserve to have our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness protected from illegal or negligent firearms' discharges everywhere in the U.S. at the same level?
    "Every state has laws on the books that protect people from firearms such as minimum distances for firearms discharges from structures and roads. That pretty much covers NPS developed areas already."
    However, Mr. McElveen points out, the 1983 regulation that banned concealed carry in the parks was designed to "ensure public safety and maximum protection of natural resources."
    "States can make a pretty good argument that public safety from firearms discharges is ensured to a reasonable level everywhere in their state," he says. "What they cannot argue is that wildlife, other natural resources, and the integrity of cultural resources receive the 'maximum protection' in their states... That is the winning argument (to retain the ban) in my opinion, because it is supported by federal statutory law and federal case law."
    That said, ANPR also believes the 47 senators who want to change the regulation are using the 2nd Amendment argument "selectively."
    "Certainly there are federal, state, and local government lands that prohibit the possession of firearms, as well as private businesses that will not allow firearms on their premises," the group says. "Examples include postal property, some schools including school grounds/athletic events, courtrooms and buildings, U. S. Capitol grounds and buildings (including the Senate office buildings), the White House and grounds, portions of airports and certain airplanes, and some churches and church grounds.
    "These examples clearly show that USA society does not view the Second Amendment right to bear arms as absolute in all locations and at all times."
    Furthermore, the group says that, "Since the creation of the NPS by congressional act in 1916, it seems clear by the language Congress used that lands and waters administered by the NPS would be regulated more stringently and for different purposes than other federal lands."
    "While other federal land-management agencies permit consumptive uses such as hunting on the majority of the acreage they administer, regulated primarily by state law, in contrast the NPS has a statutory mandate for preservation of natural and cultural resources as its priority, (its) fundamental purpose. Wildlife is one broad group of natural resources in parks specifically mentioned in the 1916 NPS Organic Act to be preserved. When wildlife in parks is illegally taken, firearms are frequently involved."
    If gun-rights advocates believe the park ban should be overturned in the name of adding "consistency across federal land-management agencies," says ANPR, then "why isn’t that same consistency necessary for other consumptive uses on federal lands? If firearms policy should be consistent across federal lands by adopting state law……why not allowing logging on all federal lands per state law? Or mining? Or aircraft use? Or where new roads are constructed? Or a host of other consumptive or resource damaging activities?
    "In short, why not just turn federal lands over to the states for management by state laws and regulations? ANPR believes the reason is fairly obvious. USA citizens, through their elected representatives in the U. S. Congress, have legislated their desire for a variety of experiences on federal lands. If this was not the case we would have one federal land-management agency to manage all federal lands under the same set of laws and regulations."



  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Idiots. To any and all rangers opposed to allowing concealed weapons in the parks that might be reading this...

    My life is more sacred than all the bears that **** in the woodscombined. Like it or not. Silly little thing I have called a SOUL that makes me differnet and gives meDOMINION over the beasts or something like that....where was it I read that? (dopes)

    You protect the trees, bears and natural resources and hand out maps and let me take responsibility for protecting myself and my family. You're obviously not willing nor capable of doing so. Have a nice day.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I wonder if others notice the steady proliferation of special advocacy groups. I used to rail against the publication of Letters to the Editor with lines and lines of credentialism and interest group boilerplate in their signatures - to no avail.

    An argument from authority is the contrapositive of an ad hominem personal attack. One implies the other.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credentialism

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    "In short, why not just turn federal lands over to the states for management by state laws and regulations?


    Sounds good to me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member XD40coyote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    woman stuck in Maryland, ,
    Posts
    709

    Post imported post

    Some rangers are just trigger itchy anyway over the whole poaching deal- and they are stupid too. When my parents and I went to CO years ago we went to Estes Park and bought some nice hard no velvet on them and even shed elk antlers at a store there. Then we went into Rocky Mt natl park. At some point some snitch or ranger saw the elk antlers and radioed ahead to other rangers. Now keep in mind this was July and ALL elk bulls in July have VELVET antlers. We stop at this 11,000 elevation place with gift shops and whatnot, and suddenly have rangers surrounding us, with them all having a hand on their sidearms. Being from the east it was already hard enough breathing at this elevation, now add in adrenaline. It was over the elk antlers- someone had shot an elk that morning and cut the (velvet) antlers off it. They thought we might be the poachers with our HARD winter antlers! Can you say DUHHHHHHHH? Well we showed them the receipt for the antlers and explained ourselves as having stopped in Estes Park first to shop, and they backed off. I was almost hyperventilating from the thin air and adrenaline, the freakin bastards!

    So I can see why some moronic rangers association would moronically oppose legal ccw, OMG they might be poachers!

    HoweverI recall the incidents of a killer in 1 park and stories of dangerous fugitives hiding in others, as well as rapes, assaults and murders along the Appalachian Trail. Not to mention the threat of bears, mt lions,rabid coyotes ,wild dog packs, wild hogs,and heck rabid wolves are a possibility too. It is plain rediculous that the state the park is in allows ccw, some if not all the state parks allow it, national forests allow it, blm allows it, and so on, but not the stuck up snotty nat'l parks!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    806

    Post imported post

    I like how it's highly probable that at the same time they say things like this, none of them would say that we need to stop letting people drive on their roads or "certain" public roads because SOME people might drive illegally, negligently, drunk, etc.

    You can use a car against the police to run from or attack them. You can also use it to attack "normal" citizens, or to kill wildlife either accidentally, negligently or puposely. You can steal a car and do any of the above as well. The negligent use of a vehicle can and does regularly lead to fatalities of all kinds.

    None of these folks think that we need to protect citizens from negligent drivers by removing the rights for all people to drive in or near a park.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    Open carry should be allowed (recommended) in national parks. It is hard to conceal when jogging in shorts and a t-shirt. CC should be a no-brainer. Since it is federal property state licenses should not be required either. I am always amazed at how the feds like to exempt themselves from the law. Including the constitution.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    Dear Park Rangers:

    I hope you never encounter a situation where the difference between your life and your death is the proximity of the nearest law-abiding gun carrier, because they are the only gun carriers you will be able to bar from your parks and forests.

    Thank you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •