Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Well written pro-carry letter in Richmond Times Dispatch

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/new...171305/188281/

    National Park Visitors Rely on Self-Defense
    Editor, Times-Dispatch:
    On Jan. 9, 2009, the Department of the Interior implemented a new regulation for national parks and wildlife refuges that respects the right of citizens to defend themselves. This change did not come easily, or quickly. It was the culmination of a four-year effort led by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) to change regulations that made it a crime to have any form of self-protection.


    The national parks continue to outlaw mace, pepper gas, bear spray, tasers, and previously usable firearms. The new regulation allows concealed firearms, if they are legal in the state where the park is located. VCDL consistently advocated for self-defense in national parks, and not just with guns -- it was never about guns until the National Park Service made firearms an issue.

    Four years ago, VCDL members began contacting members of Congress about relaxing the regulations. The Park Service would have none of it. VCDL, along with more than 48 other organizations, petitioned to have the regulation amended. We provided hundreds of pages showing the hundreds of violent crimes, vehicle thefts, abductions, sexual assaults, and rapes reported over the course of three years in the parks. Park Service spokesmen continued to insist the parks were safe. A protracted battle ensued in which the Park Service refused to turn over evidence. After pressure from congressional offices, it finally responded and had no evidence to support its denial claims.

    Opponents of changing the rules proclaimed a host of evils -- from "blood in the park streets," to poaching, to making people uncomfortable. These excuses have not been borne out by the facts. Eventually, Interior relented and agreed to permit only concealed firearms. Now citizens can defend themselves in national parks and wildlife refuges -- if it's legal in the state wherein the park resides.
    David Yates, Virginia Citizens Defense League.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/new...171305/188281/

    National Park Visitors Rely on Self-Defense
    Editor, Times-Dispatch:
    On Jan. 9, 2009, the Department of the Interior implemented a new regulation for national parks and wildlife refuges that respects the right of citizens to defend themselves. This change did not come easily, or quickly. It was the culmination of a four-year effort led by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) to change regulations that made it a crime to have any form of self-protection.


    The national parks continue to outlaw mace, pepper gas, bear spray, tasers, and previously usable firearms. The new regulation allows concealed firearms, if they are legal in the state where the park is located. VCDL consistently advocated for self-defense in national parks, and not just with guns -- it was never about guns until the National Park Service made firearms an issue.

    Four years ago, VCDL members began contacting members of Congress about relaxing the regulations. The Park Service would have none of it. VCDL, along with more than 48 other organizations, petitioned to have the regulation amended. We provided hundreds of pages showing the hundreds of violent crimes, vehicle thefts, abductions, sexual assaults, and rapes reported over the course of three years in the parks. Park Service spokesmen continued to insist the parks were safe. A protracted battle ensued in which the Park Service refused to turn over evidence. After pressure from congressional offices, it finally responded and had no evidence to support its denial claims.

    Opponents of changing the rules proclaimed a host of evils -- from "blood in the park streets," to poaching, to making people uncomfortable. These excuses have not been borne out by the facts. Eventually, Interior relented and agreed to permit only concealed firearms. Now citizens can defend themselves in national parks and wildlife refuges -- if it's legal in the state wherein the park resides.
    David Yates, Virginia Citizens Defense League.
    I'm not sure what this means, "previously usable firearms"? Is this referring to a time before the gun ban was first put in place?

    TFred

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485

    Post imported post

    It looks like some editing went on; the last sentence of paragraph 2 speaks of a denial that is not previously mentioned... hmm.

    I think previously usablefirearms meant... NPS used to ban them...

    It's still goodto see the positive press.

  4. #4
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    Post imported post

    Thanks for writing the to the paper David, and congrats for getting published.

    I know how hard you worked on this issue and you deserve thanks for those efforts.

    It made my day when I read the letter.
    Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be well informed. ALL rights matter.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."

    --Robert A. Heinlein

    Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!

Posting Permissions

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