• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Well written pro-carry letter in Richmond Times Dispatch

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
imported post

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/letters/article/GOODMANL_20090125-171305/188281/

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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

T Dubya wrote:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/letters/article/GOODMANL_20090125-171305/188281/

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
 

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
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.
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
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.
 
Top