Want Loaded Guns in National Parks?--Senator Tom Coburn's Your Man!
Posted February 5, 2008 | 12:33 PM (EST)
As early as next week, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is expected to offer an amendment to S. 2483, the "National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Projects Authorization Act of 2007," that would stop the enforcement of park service regulations requiring gun owners to keep their guns unloaded and stored while visiting most areas of America's National Park System.
Under the Coburn Amendment, state law would supercede the current federal regulations. So, if you have a concealed carry license that's valid in the state(s) the national park you're visiting is located, go ahead, load up that handgun and carry it around your campsite, over to Old Faithful, back to the general store for a six-pack of beer, and then back to your tent. If state law allows you to hang an AK-47 off your truck's gun rack, and then march with the loaded assault rifle along a backwoods trail to say "hi" to the bird watchers and flower gazers, all the better.
Among the groups opposing the Coburn Amendment are: the National Parks Conservation Association; the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police; the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees; the Association of National Park Rangers; and, The Wilderness Society.
Eh, but what do they know?
They're only the individuals and organizations charged with maintaining our national parks and protecting those who visit them.
In a letter sent to the U.S. Senate last Friday, three of these groups--the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the Association of National Park Rangers--voiced their strong opposition to the Coburn Amendment and raised their concerns about the real-world effects of the bill. Among these:
o The Coburn Amendment "could dramatically degrade the experience of park visitors and put their safety at risk if units of the National Park System were compelled to follow state gun laws." The letter offers the following example:
"ince Wyoming has limited gun restrictions, visitors could see persons with semi-automatic weapons attending campground programs, hiking down park trails or picnicking along park shorelines at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Moreover, many rangers can recite stories about incidents where the risk to other visitors--as well as to the ranger--would have been exacerbated if a gun had been readily-accessible. This amendment would compromise the safe atmosphere that is valued by Americans and expected by international tourists traveling to the United States."
o The Coburn Amendment "will make poaching in parks even more prevalent than it already is, thus reducing the opportunity for children, families, and Americans from all walks of life to easily view wildlife that so many parks provide." The letter explains:
"This amendment could hamper efforts by park rangers to halt poaching, a chronic problem in many national park units throughout the country that is growing because of an increase in the illegal international animal parts trade. According to the National Park Service, poaching `is suspected to be a factor in the decline of at least 29 species of wildlife and could cause the extirpation of 19 species from the parks.' The...[current federal regulations]...have proven essential to law enforcement officers who patrol the boundaries of national parks looking for poachers who illegally take wildlife enjoyed by all people within the parks....Senator Coburn's amendment will make it more difficult to apprehend these individuals because possession and display of a weapon would no longer be probable cause to initiate a search for evidence of wildlife or wildlife parts."
In a lesson in understatement, the letter adds, "Moreover, wildlife will not remain easily viewable when it is being shot at."
Other concerns raised by the Coburn Amendment but not addressed in the letter include:
o The effect the amendment would have on heavily-trafficked national parks, national shrines, and other national "icons" (oh, say, like the Statue of Liberty) that are located in urban areas that allow the carrying of concealed weapons.
o The increased opportunity for vandalism and other dangerous activities by "slob shooters" who would now have their loaded weapons ready.
o If it is no longer illegal to have loaded weapons in parks, the number of charges that can be brought against those involved in illegal drug operations will be reduced.
As the letter concludes:
"There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits hunting. The requirement that guns in parks are unloaded and put away is a reasonable and limited restriction to facilitate legitimate purposes--the protection of precious park resources and safety of visitors."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/want-loaded-guns-in-natio_b_85083.html
Dr. Tom, why is it you have good ideas but engage in stupid manipulation by the NRA?
AK-47 is so passe. Lot's of better assault rifles legally on the market.
The amendment to the Constitution happened a long time ago and didn't anticipate today's weapons.
You have the right to own a musket.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The amendment to the Constitution happened a long time ago and didn't anticipate today's weapons.
You have the right to own a musket.
Luckily, the Constitution says zip about owning a rapier and quarterstaff.
En garde, Robespierre! Defend your honor!
In other news, the tragedy of gun violence is visited on the youngest and hippest of our Founding Fathers. (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V_DsL1x1uY%22)(warning: some language is NSFW)
There have been stories about how dangerous some national parks can be to tourists. Drug gangs have set up shop in some of them. Maybe packing some heat isn't such a bad idea.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/14/162412.shtml
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The amendment to the Constitution happened a long time ago and didn't anticipate today's weapons.
You have the right to own a musket.
It didn't anticipate emancipation or universal suffrage either. So they changed the document to accommodate those changes. In the days of the document, a man had the right to own any and all weapons he desired including military artillery, ships with mounted cannon, and has many military style rifles as he desired.
Arguing that they didn't mean military weapons is inaccurate. While the power of military weapons has no doubt increased, if you want to apply the document as it was "a long time ago" I should be able to by nuclear weapons - because nothing was off limits. If you don't like the current watered down application, seek a constitutional amendment instead of arguing "things have changed."
- - -
From a different argument: the point of the well regulate militia was for individual communities to be able to defend themselves from threats. That included robbers, Indians, pirates, foreign governments, and from the tyranny of their own government. Recall these people just used their weapons to fight for their independence from their country. The though of having to do so again was certainly not far from their minds.
Hence, arguing that we don't need them anymore is perfectly contrary to the framers though process. If you recall, the revolution got underway in earnest when the government tried to take away their arms.
- - -
Conan, I own a pair of Ak (Romanian SAR and Chinese AK - technically) for plinking. There are better rifles out there, but not better than can shoot cheap ammo, go without cleanings, and get dragged around in the woods without having to worry about it. I get tired of cleaning star clusters, cleaning corrosive ammo out of of CCR rifles, and/or trying not to scratch it.
- - -
Per the national parks, my main thought is hikers in the larger areas of national parks. If I was hiking the back country of California, or Colorado, or Wyoming I'd want to have a firearm with me too. I've seen enough bears in my life to know that 90% of the time they run away in terror. But I've also heard enough accounts to know that I'd really like an alternative if it turned the wrong way.
I'm also seen "a river wild" and would do better with a firearm. [:P] No, I don't ever carry a loaded weapon with me while hiking. But if a state thinks it is a viable measure to allow trained individuals to do so I would have no problem with it. Heaven forbid those pesky states start making up laws in their territory.
Most of the complaints are moot - there won't be more "slob" shooters in populated areas because gun shots are noticeable. The threat of firearms at other monuments could easily be remedied by amending this bill or state laws that were concerned with such. "No added charges against drug dealers" is ancillary to the issue. The only real concern would be safety - which if restricted to trained and certified carry permits or other state laws would be no more of a concern than anywhere else in the state.
The better question is why or who ever made carrying a gun out in a national park a crime?
Seems silly.
Do you really think the criminals care the law says you can't have a gun in a park?
In essence, you are only allowing the criminals to be armed.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
In the days of the document, a man had the right to own any and all weapons he desired including military artillery, ships with mounted cannon, and has many military style rifles as he desired.
Arguing that they didn't mean military weapons is inaccurate. While the power of military weapons has no doubt increased, if you want to apply the document as it was "a long time ago" I should be able to by nuclear weapons - because nothing was off limits.
Would you be in favor of any restrictions?
I think restricting ships from having mounted cannons and individuals to have nuclear weapons makes sense. How about laws prohibiting ownership of flamethrowers? ...bazookas? ...machine guns?...
How about laws that put restrictions on numbers or sale of guns? If we said you had to wait a week to buy a handgun...is that reasonable? How about a limit? What if we said you can only buy ten guns per day?
Would you be in favor of any restrictions?
Yes RM, I'm happy with the current compromise of some restrictions. But I fear the incremental argument of "you don't really need" to slowly erode the right to bare arms. To be cliche, it is a slippery slope argument with no ending in site.
The status quo is fine with me. Semi automatic but-for 50 cal and above is legal by default. Automatic and higher 50 cal and above generally require permitting. Large bore artillery, rocketry, and high explosives by permit only.
Bare in mind that your argument was that the 2nd amendment was irrelevant and guaranteed only muskets. My counter argument never state a position by rather effectively refuted your position. We suffer greater restrictions today than in the founders time for a number of reasons, but the fact remains that at that time military hardware was fair game.
Though, I reiterate, I am happy with the current compromise.
Apparently, no one has been camping in Sequoia State Park on Ft. Gibson.
Not to say that there's a law enforcement problem there all the time, but there have been a few times when we have ended up camping near RAGING skin-head meth parties that go all night.
We got up and left once for fear of our lives, the second time, the festivities were further away but I slept cuddled up with my wife and our friends Smith & Wesson.
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.
Hollow aphorism watch: This gets deployed over and over again as the folksy wisdom behind the need for automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and jeep mounted machine guns like the A-team had . . . but is it really true? It's a great way to cap your post, but I kinda doubt its veracity. Can you guys point me somewhere that might be able to prove that more gun control correlates to a rise in violent crime?
BTW, I'm not a rabid gun control type, but I think the discussion should be clear eyed and honest, and based on facts, and without all the tough-guy posturing.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.
Hollow aphorism watch: This gets deployed over and over again as the folksy wisdom behind the need for automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and jeep mounted machine guns like the A-team had . . . but is it really true? It's a great way to cap your post, but I kinda doubt its veracity. Can you guys point me somewhere that might be able to prove that more gun control correlates to a rise in violent crime?
BTW, I'm not a rabid gun control type, but I think the discussion should be clear eyed and honest, and based on facts, and without all the tough-guy posturing.
There is a BIG difference between most gun owners and the A-Team.
We can hit what we shoot at. And we realize that people may die when we shoot them.
Instead of showing crime going up when you take guns, how about we show crime going down when more people have guns.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/pubs/ttp/ttp-09-2003.html
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The amendment to the Constitution happened a long time ago and didn't anticipate today's weapons.
You have the right to own a musket.
14th Amendment happened a long time ago and didn't anticipate us being overrun with 20 million or so neighbors of ours from the south who were giving birth increasingly in our country and creating a bunch of new automatic citizens.
Not a personal jab at you RM, just interesting how we each have certain things about the constitution we pick out to justify our own view points.
Cannon- just having a little fun. AK's are good cheap fun and will take abuse and neglect. I'll let you know next time we have a shooting party out at the farm.
Wevus, the facts support neither contention. In areas where stricter gun control has been implemented there has usually been little change in crime statistics. When change does occur it goes in either direction.
Australia is often cited as an example of gun control causing crime. However, while the trend of violent crime is up 7% since their more stringent gun control went into effect the data lacks both correlation and explanation. 7% is a common deviation over the course of a few years - did the economy pick up, where additional measures taken? The prime example, Australia, really only says gun control increased and violent crime edged up 7% in the year following.
(google Australia & gun control for all sorts of takes if you want, but finding an unbiased source is difficult and subject to opinion)
San Francisco instituted some of the strictest gun control measures in 2004 and much of the bay area followed the lead. However, it failed to result in a decrease in violent crime and the area has had a rash of murders in 2007 and a flurry so far this year. But again, it really can't be attributed to people not having firearms.
In the nation as a whole the Brady bill has not shown a significant correlation to gun violence. The number of firearm murders committed by unregistered guns remains the same, the availability of firearms has not changed. The much heralded assault weapons did next to nothing either for the legal availability, the illegal trade of, nor the use of assault rifles.
Sorry, but the fact remains we are and always have been a violent culture. Be it with muskets, hand guns, or trucks filled with farm supplies we find a way to kill each other. The harder you make it for legally obtaining a firearm the more loopholes or illegal trades will occur. I follow all firearm laws, ordinances, background checks and safety recommendations - but most criminals do not.
So at the end of the day who does gun control effect? I'll give you a hint, criminals will probably just keep breaking the law.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The amendment to the Constitution happened a long time ago and didn't anticipate today's weapons.
You have the right to own a musket.
Luckily, the Constitution says zip about owning a rapier and quarterstaff.
En garde, Robespierre! Defend your honor!
In other news, the tragedy of gun violence is visited on the youngest and hippest of our Founding Fathers. (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V_DsL1x1uY%22)(warning: some language is NSFW)
god how i love drunk history...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wevus, the facts support neither contention. In areas where stricter gun control has been implemented there has usually been little change in crime statistics. When change does occur it goes in either direction.
Australia is often cited as an example of gun control causing crime. However, while the trend of violent crime is up 7% since their more stringent gun control went into effect the data lacks both correlation and explanation. 7% is a common deviation over the course of a few years - did the economy pick up, where additional measures taken? The prime example, Australia, really only says gun control increased and violent crime edged up 7% in the year following.
(google Australia & gun control for all sorts of takes if you want, but finding an unbiased source is difficult and subject to opinion)
San Francisco instituted some of the strictest gun control measures in 2004 and much of the bay area followed the lead. However, it failed to result in a decrease in violent crime and the area has had a rash of murders in 2007 and a flurry so far this year. But again, it really can't be attributed to people not having firearms.
In the nation as a whole the Brady bill has not shown a significant correlation to gun violence. The number of firearm murders committed by unregistered guns remains the same, the availability of firearms has not changed. The much heralded assault weapons did next to nothing either for the legal availability, the illegal trade of, nor the use of assault rifles.
Sorry, but the fact remains we are and always have been a violent culture. Be it with muskets, hand guns, or trucks filled with farm supplies we find a way to kill each other. The harder you make it for legally obtaining a firearm the more loopholes or illegal trades will occur. I follow all firearm laws, ordinances, background checks and safety recommendations - but most criminals do not.
So at the end of the day who does gun control effect? I'll give you a hint, criminals will probably just keep breaking the law.
See, CF, I was following you all the way through until you did the exact same thing. Your last sentence is the same assumption that Gaspar makes, with nothing much to back it up but that folksy conventional wisdom again. It pretty much is contradicted by the five paragraphs previous.
Why wouldn't gun control measures reduce the total number of guns in circulation? Both for citizens and criminals? Isn't it fair to assume that the number of guns in aggregate would go down? So while your access to guns decreases, so might criminal access also decrease?
Who here is a member of The InfraGard?
http://www.progressive.org/mag_rothschild0308
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wevus, the facts support neither contention. In areas where stricter gun control has been implemented there has usually been little change in crime statistics. When change does occur it goes in either direction.
Australia is often cited as an example of gun control causing crime. However, while the trend of violent crime is up 7% since their more stringent gun control went into effect the data lacks both correlation and explanation. 7% is a common deviation over the course of a few years - did the economy pick up, where additional measures taken? The prime example, Australia, really only says gun control increased and violent crime edged up 7% in the year following.
(google Australia & gun control for all sorts of takes if you want, but finding an unbiased source is difficult and subject to opinion)
San Francisco instituted some of the strictest gun control measures in 2004 and much of the bay area followed the lead. However, it failed to result in a decrease in violent crime and the area has had a rash of murders in 2007 and a flurry so far this year. But again, it really can't be attributed to people not having firearms.
In the nation as a whole the Brady bill has not shown a significant correlation to gun violence. The number of firearm murders committed by unregistered guns remains the same, the availability of firearms has not changed. The much heralded assault weapons did next to nothing either for the legal availability, the illegal trade of, nor the use of assault rifles.
Sorry, but the fact remains we are and always have been a violent culture. Be it with muskets, hand guns, or trucks filled with farm supplies we find a way to kill each other. The harder you make it for legally obtaining a firearm the more loopholes or illegal trades will occur. I follow all firearm laws, ordinances, background checks and safety recommendations - but most criminals do not.
So at the end of the day who does gun control effect? I'll give you a hint, criminals will probably just keep breaking the law.
See, CF, I was following you all the way through until you did the exact same thing. Your last sentence is the same assumption that Gaspar makes, with nothing much to back it up but that folksy conventional wisdom again. It pretty much is contradicted by the five paragraphs previous.
Why wouldn't gun control measures reduce the total number of guns in circulation? Both for citizens and criminals? Isn't it fair to assume that the number of guns in aggregate would go down? So while your access to guns decreases, so might criminal access also decrease?
I don't know, but I would assume most violent criminals with a deep love of firearms don't go to Academy and fill out the proper paperwork to purchase a gun like I do. So I would then logically assume that gun control measures would make it more difficult for me to own a gun but would not have a very significant effect on criminals obtaining a gun. Just a hunch.
And there are some very direct correlation's. Switzerland for instance. Nearly every male gets to keep his service rifle (a simi-auto assault rifle), and a 9mm pistol. They have the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and the lowest crime rate in the world. But I assume those could be completely unrelated statistics. Basically, everyone owns a machine gun![;)]
A few more Hollow aphorisms for you:
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! – Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany.The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. – Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese Shogun, August 29, 1558The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself. – Harry BrowneGun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. – Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, whose testimony convicted John GottiTry to halt violence by restricting gun ownership and you won't halt violence. But you will create entire classes of new criminals – people who make paperwork errors, violate technical specification of the law, or rebel against the new restrictions. And you'll create new bureaus, new enforcement arms, new prisons to punish them. You'll make hordes of lawyers and bureaucrats very happy. Organized criminals will be grateful to the naive moral crusaders ("useful idiots") as they profit by selling an illegal product. And ordinary street criminals will bless fools, legislators, and "leaders" for making their job so much safer. – JPFO's "Bill of RIghts Sentinel", Fall 2001.
Wevus, I did not say that it makes criminal's jobs easier and in fact very clearly stated that the data seems to indicate other factors are more important than having firearms or banning firearms int he prevention of violent crime.
In recognition of that fact that it seems to have no effect I mused:
quote:
So at the end of the day who does gun control effect?
Under your assumption of the total number of firearms going down, that result would be achieved by law abiding people following any new law that restricted ownership rights. Meanwhile, criminal will continue to ignore gun control measures. Thus, under your framework the statement is entirely accurate as law abiding citizens give up firearms and criminals continue to be criminals.
How does that contradict any statistic that implies gun control measures have little effect on violent crime rates, especially in light of the fact that I argued for a lack of correlation in the statistics to begin with?
If you disagree with the general premise that criminals are unlikely to follow gun control measures while most citizens would - then we have a disagreement. Otherwise I fail to see a logical disagreement between our stances.
- - -
and, FYI, there are plenty of firearms both in this country and in the world to supply global black markets, war zones, gangs, terrorists, and criminals. It is unlikely any action in the United States to limit gun ownership would have a meaningful impact domestically for a generation (I routinely fire rifles from WWI with ammo from 1934), at which point illegal arms dealers would gladly fill any gap in demand for criminals. Keep in mind, a lack of supply inherently raises prices to the point of making it worth someones while to go into business.
What I'm getting at is I don't see supply side economics working in America's favor to reduce violence from firearms within my lifetime.