Recent comments

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 27 weeks ago

    As I have stated before. I carry a gun on my RV for protection. I consider this my home space and I will continue to carry the gun onboard legal or not. I see no reason to carry concealed . If someone thinks they need protection while out on a trail, carry bear spray. In my opinion it will do as good on a man or beast as a handgun. These are my thoughts only not intended to cause a major debate.

  • NPCA, Park Retirees File Lawsuit to Halt Change in National Park Gun Rules   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Ted: Thanks. I hope you enjoyed your day on the trail. :)

    Eric: As beautifully explained in the DC vs Heller opinion, the 2nd Amendment doesn't create a right, it only affirms & protects a preexisting natural right from infringement. As such there really is no reason to explain why one might want to exercise that right. It would be like asking someone to explain why they would want to have free speech on the Internet when they can already have free speech in the newspaper letters to the editor section. We all have a right to free speech, so why would we need to explain? Each person should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they want to exercise that right on the Internet or to abstain from such exercise.

    Just as a small side tangent - someone earlier posed the thought that because there are restrictions on free speech such as a prohibition on shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, it is therefore reasonable to have restrictions on firearms. There actually are restrictions on the use of firearms - I am prohibited from pulling it out of my holster & aiming it at someone, or even showing it to someone in an effort to intimidate, much less shooting it at someone, unless very specific criteria are met to fit the legal requirements of a justified shooting, such as self defense for example. There are also specific restrictions on where I'm not prohibited from firing my weapon other than in self defense - for example in town I'm not allowed to fire my gun, nor within specific distances to buildings or city boundaries, etc. The right to keep & bear arms however, is not to be infringed.

    OK, back to the question you asked. Although no reason need be given as justification for exercising a right, I will indulge your question from my own point of view. Although I always wear my seat belt while driving it doesn't mean I'm scared that I'm going to crash my car every time I get behind the wheel. Although I have smoke, heat, and carbon monoxide detectors in my home I don't have trouble sleeping at night wondering if my house is going to catch fire. I pay for home, auto, life, and health insurance not because I'm scared that I'll need them. I do these things to be prepared, not because I'm paranoid. If anything, being prepared allows me to relax, which is quite the opposite of being scared.

    To anyone who wonders why I would carry my gun in a National Park I ask the question why not? Is there some fortune teller who can tell me exactly on what day & in what location I would need my gun? If such a thing were possible I would simply avoid going to that location on that particular day, and never have a need to carry a tool I could use for self defense.

    Bear attack survivor John Shorter was glad he had his gun. Bear attack survivor Joshua McKim was glad he had his gun (as was his sister). Rabid Mountain Lion attack survivor Paul Schalow was glad his uncle had his gun. In fact, having a gun in a moment of great need has mattered to many people.

    I'm not trying to say that these attacks are highly likely. However I am trying to say that if you suddenly were to find yourself in need of a self defense tool against predators of either the 2 or 4 legged type, your need will be vast, and it will be immediate. There will be no time in the hour of need to go shopping. Like the parable of the 10 virgins - you either are prepared with what you need, or you are not. How the story ends depends on ones level of preparedness if and when the hour of need arises. You could say that I prepare for the worst, but hope for the best.

    I carry a gun around town because it is easier than carrying a cop. I carry a gun in the National Forest (and as of today in National Parks as well) because it is easier than carrying a Forest Ranger. In town when seconds count the Police are only minutes away. While out in the wide open space of God's Beautiful Country a Forest Ranger is likely many miles away, long out of ear shot. Even if you happen to be lucky enough to get a signal on your cell phone 911 would likely have difficulty determining where you are & how to get help out to you. Out in God's Country when seconds count you'd be lucky to have help in hours, much less minutes.

    So finally, if for no other reason, I carry a gun because I've accepted the fact that I alone am responsible for the safety of myself & my family, not the Police, and not the Forest Rangers. They are available as a crime deterrent, and even to gather evidence or seek out the criminals after the event of a crime, but there is absolutely no way they can be in all places at all times to ensure everyone's safety. We'd all need our own Secret Service agents to have that level of protection which of course would be absurd.

    As far as your question about concealed vs open carry - right now National Parks still prohibit open carry - the rule changes only allow concealed carry. I would be very much in favor of allowing open carry as well as concealed carry, but I'm happy to at least finally have concealed carry as an option rather than no option at all. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify that we can only bear arms in the open, nor that we can only bear them concealed. If they had intended it to be specific they would have made it so - for example, the right to keep and bear concealed arms shall not be infringed, or the other way around.

    As far as the choice of open carry vs concealed - the primary issue with open carry would be the loss of tactical advantage against a criminal who first scopes a scene (who would then obviously either decide to look for easier targets or decide to shoot the armed folks before they attack the unarmed folks). The other lesser issue with open carry is that some people have an irrational fear of firearms - the very sight of firearms makes them break out into a cold sweat & dial 911. Concealed carry lets people with that type of phobia go about their lives without having to know that there are armed folks in their midst on a daily basis, which lack of knowledge helps them stay at ease while they sip their hot cup of Java.

    I hope that I have been some level of assistance to you Eric, if nothing else to perhaps give you a little food for thought. Deciding whether or not to carry a gun is a very personal decision, one that each of us needs to make on our own for our own personal reasons. Have a great weekend :)

  • Muir Woods National Monument is More than Really Old, Really Big Trees   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Uh, Bob, did you forget to buy a new calendar? That Centennial was one year ago.

    [Ed: My bad; it's been fixed. Now, here's some weaselspeak -- a limp excuse, to be sure.

    When you go to the Muir Woods website, which has not been properly updated, you'll see at one point this statement;

    To learn about upcoming centennial events please visit our schedule of events. [italics mine]

    The "schedule of events" in that sentence is a hotlink that takes you to a January 2009 calendar.

    It remains that I ignored the basic math , not to mention other statements at the MUWO website that referred to the centennial in the past tense. There's no excuse for that.

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Ted, you are probably correct in your assumption that many of these comments were made to bait the Pro-Gun folks, but I suggest that it is not the only reason for the comments. I genuinely believe that these folks (park employee groups) have actual concerns about being exposed to higher numbers of firearms on a daily basis, and that maybe they just aren't very good at nonconfrontational speaking. Should their concerns be overtly ignored when it would appear there is a 2-to-1 margin of the public in the comment period agreeing with them? Isn't that rather undemocratic? I suggest that gun-rule changes put into place despite the lack of a majority support really makes it irrelevant as far as a constitutional issue. The Pro -Gun (In the Parks) Folks will get their way due to the activist-policies of an administration that doesn't seem to give a SH*# about the will of the people who have the most vested in these parks. When a public outcry for keeping guns out of national parks (about 98,000 people) is absolutely ignored, I think it's safe to say that Pro-Gun folks aren't really being baited, but are instead being out & out reviled as thugs. But you are correct, as long as the gun lobby is winning, Ya'll should probably just keep quiet.

  • NPCA, Park Retirees File Lawsuit to Halt Change in National Park Gun Rules   5 years 27 weeks ago
  • NPCA, Park Retirees File Lawsuit to Halt Change in National Park Gun Rules   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Warren Z wrote: "My life wasn't threatened, though I did suffer bodily harm.
    But you know what? I never once thought "I wish I'd had a gun..." The gang that surrounded and attacked me did so swiftly, even efficiently. The lead pipe they used to break my arm and lacerate my scalp almost knocked me unconscious..."

    Wow. Hit in the head with a lead pipe? Your definition of "life threatening" must be decidedly different than mine. And speaking for myself, I don't believe I have a moral or legal obligation to suffer head injuries and a broken arm to ensure the comfort and economic success of criminals.

    I certainly don't think you need to exercise your First Amendment right by spouting such inane drivel. Obviously , we need to close that loophole in the free speech laws. See how that works...?

  • Interior Officials Want to Allow Concealed Carry in the National Parks   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Concealed Carry holders are some of the most law abiding most checked "civilians"in the country. It is amazing that the anti-gun folks really seem to believe that since it was illegal to carry a gun that people did not carry a gun. Now the law abiding citizens can carry as well. You can carry concealed in 48 states. Millions of people across the country legally carry concealed everyday. A despite the constant fear mongering of the anti-gun crowd every place that allows reasonable access to concealed carry has seen a REDUCTION in crime. The myth that these people carrying guns are going to snap and shoot someone over a parking place has not happened. The myth that the police will not know the difference between a concealed carry holder and a criminal has not happened. It is has not turned into the "Wild West" with blood running in the streets like the anti-gun crowd promised. It is also a fact that the places in this country that are the most gun restrictive, are also the most violent. All of these facts can be confirmed and I would ask all of the anti-gun crowd basing their opinions on emotion and ignorance to learn more about what they are blindly opposing.

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 27 weeks ago

    I guess that your name is on the page so you get the glory and the blame. I've enjoyed the Traveler and I'm a person who believes that we would be more respectful of each other if there was the possibility that someone was armed. You make a point that people rant and rave across the internet at you. They wouldn't be so brave in a face to face situation. They would be down right civil if they thought old Kurt was armed somehow (gun, attack dog or your own set of bodyguards). I looked at the accidents and they were all tragic. They were all preventable if the people involved parents,hunters had used any intelligence. You can't protect against stupidity! I agree that the street is far more dangerous then the woods. You do read about mountain lions out in California attacking bike riders. I spent a week this past summer up at Baniff national park in Canada while we were there a park employee was attacked by a black bear. She was jogging and the bear took an interest. She walked backwards yelling at the bear for about a quarter mile. the bear followed her then she made the mistake of playing dead and was bitten. She fought back then and the bear went away.Bear Spray would have been ideal. I'm sixty and if i go walking in the woods, I bring some sort of weapon. It's usually a large stick and a decent knife but there were times that I've taken a firearm. I wish that as a society that we weren't always adjusting for those on the lowest level of intelligence. If you do something stupid or bad you should be punished, the same way if I'm backing out of a parking space to fast and kill someone. It doesn't matter that i was in a hurry, I was negligent with a three thousand pound weapon. Gun owners are a persecuted bunch and sometimes they get excited since we can't understand why us legal guys always have to change. Thanks for doing a great job!

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 27 weeks ago

    The first line of my previous comment is:

    "Kurt presents a list of firearms-concerns assembled by former Park-employee groups."

    Kurt presents a list. Of firearms-concerns. Assembled by former Park-employee groups.

    Read the sentence again. The concerns are "assembled" by former Park-employee groups. Kurt "presents" a list of them.

    Kurt is not the author of the "concerns". I didn't even pin authorship on the "groups". Only that they were "assembled" by them.

    Kurt presents "a list". The stuff in the list is somebody else's. Not Kurt's.
    ----

    I pointed out in my previous comment that the "concerns" (being "caricatures" (aka, 'cartoons') appear intended to:

    "provoke (ill-considered) reaction in the pro-gun community."

    In other words, to induce gun-owners to, um, go off half-cocked and, um, shoot themselves in the foot.

    This is pretty standard-brand politics. We watch McCain and Obama and Romney and Clinton and Palin and (Caroline) Kennedy do this to each other 24/7 wall-to-wall non-stop. (Biden doesn't count, because he does it to himself without provocation.) Hey, I even watch little kids who don't what puberty is do this!

    Make a statement designed to get your opponent's panties in a twist, whereupon he jumps up and in four seconds convinces the entire audience that he's a congenital imbicile. He did it to himself, and you walk.

    The former Park-employee groups are putting out these outlandish statements about how horrible it will be when folks can carry concealed pistols in the Parks. The idea is to provoke the pro-gun folks into jumping up all in a lather and making themselves look ... as ding-dong as the Park-employee groups wants the public to see them.

    It's bait. Don't bite!

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 27 weeks ago

    "How will families with youngsters feel about attending interpretive programs in national parks when the person next to them might be armed?"

    They will feel the same way as they do today (whatever that may be) since the person next to them today might be armed. Not everyone follows the rules.

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Ted,

    Thanks for sicing the dogs on the bait. But first things first. Let's make the record clear that *I* didn't "present" those concerns, they were presented by the Association of National Park Rangers. I merely reported on 'em.

    I just want to make that clear because, while you understand the construction, there are others out there who are awfully darn quick to blame the messenger. Over the past few years *I've* been taken to task for reporting what OTHERS have said regarding guns in the parks. And you know what? It's tiresome and has led my wife to suggest I enter the witness protection program. I'm pretty sure she was joking.

    I mean, it's really quite amazing how "civilized" many Second Amendment-rights advocates can be. I've had my masculinity challenged, my sexual orientation questioned, my maturity and god knows what else taken to task. From folks who claim they are law-abiding, upstanding, just-a-regular-Joe-who-I'd-never-realize-was-packin'-in-the-parks. And then they occasionally use ALL CAPS or underline their words in a futile bid to raise the sound of their typing to make it appear as if they're shouting.

    Hell, Ted, if they act like that on an Internet forum....what might transpire face-to-face on a backcountry trail?

    Now, that said, let me make it clear (that's for emphasis, Ted and anyone else reading this, not shouting) that I fully realize those folks are in the minority. I would indeed agree that most CCW permit holders are upstanding individuals who'd watch my back in a pinch. At the same time, I hoped you'd agree that accidents (here's one, here's another, here are a couple more, though you can ignore the hunting accident) happen.

    Still, I'm one of those who, like Warren Z, probably are just too dang naive after spending quite a bit of time over the past four decades tromping about woods, deserts, national parks, national forests and who knows where else without a scent of crime or furry attacker and just don't feel that in the parks I need firepower to protect myself from man nor beast. Now, out on the highway, that's something else....

    Oh, one other point I'd like to make clear to those who you hope will beeline it for the bait: I'm not anti-2nd Amendment. I could care less if you own a gun. I've fired a rifle and what at the time was reputed to be the world's most powerful handgun. A good life-long friend is an ex-state trooper who often was armed around me (not that I always knew it). So let's not have any bashing Kurt cuz he's anti-gun, because he ain't.

    All that said, I'll let others debate (hopefully constructively) the list presented by ANPR. Perhaps we could even entice some active-duty rangers to describe some of the incidents they've encountered.

  • Park Rangers, Active and Retired, Lament Change in Gun Rules for National Parks   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Kurt presents a list of firearms-concerns assembled by former Park-employee groups.

    1. Families & children at Parks will be spooked by the mere idea that some other visitors may be armed.

    People know that other people in the communities they are in, are armed. Guns are part of many families' experience. In isn't a novel concept, that some people have guns.

    2. Rangers will be forced to mount extraordinary security measures, to prevent guns in buildings.

    I understand that under Federal law, Parks staff will be required to mount signage on buildings alerting those with firearms that such weapons (and others) are not allowed within the building. While I also understand that some courtrooms and maybe even some Federal buildings have installed metal detectors, I think this is done only where it is thought (or demonstrated) that there is an actual security-threat.

    3. Solitude will be subject to threat & hazard.

    Solitude is where you find it, when you find. The fact that somebody else in the Park, somewhere, smoked pot in the parking lot before going off into the woods does not affect our solitude. The fact that somebody else in the woods, somewhere, is going through a painful divorce, with children who suck the joy out life ... is a personal tragedy. But not ours, and we don't worry about it.

    That some people have guns is, and always has been, a fact of life. Normal people aren't going to be disturbed in their solitude, at the mere thought of another visitor, somewhere, possibly being armed.

    4. Wildlife will be subject to impulsive & opportunistic shooting.

    I would guess that in some areas/Parks, a certain amount of poaching has always gone on. But I seriously doubt that much of this is by licensed concealed carry people, and it is highly doubtful there will be a change - up or down - in what poaching occurs due to the new rule.

    5. Trigger-happy varmint-hunters will be shooting up everything that twitches.

    Although some classes of citizens deplore varmint-hunting, the truth about the sport is that it takes place under specific conditions, in specific locations, with specific species as targets.

    In sum, most of the objections raised in this article are such over-wrought caricatures that I think their real purpose is to provoke (ill-considered) reaction in the pro-gun community.

    All you hunters and firearms-owners out there do understand bait, don't you? ;-)

  • Judge Tosses Surprise Canyon Lawsuit   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Hey Frank and Ned,

    I bet you both live in the San Francisco area with nothing more to do but drink your lattes and think of stuff to destroy the freedoms that we are supposed to have. Democrats obviously. More government with my latte please. Maybe we should be taxing the hell out of lattes since those cups are just filling up landfills and killing fish and birds. Wait, they don't go after that kind of stuff that would interrupt their lives.

    The problem is with so many things in this state alone. We keep voting in the likes of Boxer and Feinstein. The 9th District court of appeals. What a ridiculous organization. We vote for something, they don't like it, so they throw it out. This is just another example.

    Frank and Ned just love more government, oh and they just hate guns. Guns are evil too. People that want to enjoy the desert and the park systems are evil.

    The comment on the frivilous law suits is correct. Another example, in part, of why the government, local to federal, is in the shape that it is in.

    I have never been to Panamint City, but have been to many places in the area and that was my next trek. I am a native here and it kills me to see the likes of these "organizations (or is it organisms...a.k.a. parasites)" come in and tell me what I can and can't do. I pay my taxes and a hell of a lot of them. So, back off and go fight for this country like our fore-fathers did.

    This comment was edited to remove gratuitous attacks and language.

  • The Interior Building in Washington, D.C. Gets a "Green Roof"   5 years 27 weeks ago

    I just don't understand why some people can be so pessimistic about positive environmental actions. Of course, these projects may not be as perfect as they should be but it should always be considered as a first step towards our ultimate goal. This project may be flawed for some, but that doesn't mean the people behind it are not doing something to improve it.

  • NPCA, Park Retirees File Lawsuit to Halt Change in National Park Gun Rules   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Hello All, I have been reading the comments on this subject here for some time now. I hope my comments here don't sound like a wise guy, that is not my intention. I am just trying to understand. I am not anti gun, I own guns myself. I do not hunt anymore, I just enjoy target shooting. Myself, I don't feel the need to carry a concealed weapon in a Nat. Park or elsewhere. I have lived in some remote areas of Montana, Idaho and Minnesota and carried weapons and today I wonder why. I wasn't hunting and have a pretty good head about me while camping where bears, wolves, moose and other animals make their home, and have come across some rather strange people out there. I have been in the backcountry of many Nat. Parks, yet, I have not felt "I wish I had a gun that no one can see". I have read many comments on both sides of this thing and I'm not here to jump in on either side. It just seems like stubborness on the part of the pro carriers. I really haven't heard a good argument other than It's my right. That answer is too easy for me. I see the Nat. Parks as places for friends and families to enjoy what good ol' Mother Nature has given us. Let the people who are hired to protect the parks carry the weapons if necessary. So help me understand the need or right to carry a concealed weapon in a place where there are people other than the carriers family or friends. Accidents do happen and it doesn't seem fair to the others who do not carry these weapons. OK, I did get a bit on one side of this, sorry for that, but Someone give me something to help change that. Thanks for listening.

  • NPCA, Park Retirees File Lawsuit to Halt Change in National Park Gun Rules   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Dear Warren:

    You are correct in that the Heller opinion included language ruling that a ban on handguns in the home is unconstitutional.

    However, it appears you need reminding that the opinion also included other "very specific wording", including the following (from page 19 of the ruling; emphases mine):

    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

    So, in part you are correct, given words (page 64 of the opinion) such as "In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession IN THE HOME violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm IN THE HOME operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. But taking the opinion as a whole, and including the words from page 19, you seem to be kicking a dead horse here.

  • Lost to Hurricanes, the Flamingo Lodge at Everglades National Park Will be Hard to Replace   5 years 27 weeks ago

    People should camp more. Everglades Flamingo has showers so a tent and thermarests is all you need. Stove is nice but optional. Mosquito are the only issue. NPS needs do spray often, a fraction of the cost of building a hurricane proof lodge.

  • NPCA, Park Retirees File Lawsuit to Halt Change in National Park Gun Rules   5 years 27 weeks ago

    Dustin and Ted,

    How can you blatantly ignore the very specific wording of the Supreme Court's written opinion in DC v. Heller?

  • Studies Show Bear Spray More Effective Than Guns Against Grizzlies   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Dear Armed and proud: Please remember that many (perhaps most?) who oppose concealed carry in the national parks are not "anti-gun." Take me for instance. I've owned and used guns for going on sixty years now. There's probably more firepower in my closet (properly secured, of course) than in yours, and unless you are exceptionally good, I am a better marksman and wingshot than you are (practice, practice, practice). I have never harmed myself or another human being with a weapon, accidentally or otherwise, and I trained my son to be just about the most careful hunter and responsible gun owner there ever was. My point here is that you need to be more careful when you sling those "anti-gun" remarks around. You may be offending some people you shouldn't want to.

  • Interior Department To Be Sued Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore Plover Habitat Decisions   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Recreational Area a Red Herring

    All National Seashores have a recreational component to them despite if “Recreational Area” was added to the name of the park as an amendment to the enabling legislation to allow waterfowl hunting in that park, as was the case with Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

    Recreation has a broad meaning to visitors. It can encompass a broad range of activities. Often, as the case with CHNS, the enabling legislation suggests the type of recreation intended with respect to other values associated with the Park.

    (Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area . . .)

    In addition with respect to the Organic Act and Park Policy recreation has a much broader meaning than ORV access.

    No where in CHNS’s enabling legislation does it discuss what means of access to the Seashore was guaranteed. Presenting an outdated brochure that has “Recreational Area” in its title is not a mandate for ORV use anywhere in CHNS.

    Anyone not familiar with CHNS would find it informative to take a close look at an aerial view from google earth at this park and see just how easy it is to access much of the beach without an ORV. Walking and boating are viable historical means of access that cause less recreational conflict and impairment of the Seashore resources and values than ORV use in some visitor’s opinion. Obviously ORV access and use is not impairment or conflict to those visitors using ORVs as their chosen means of access but to other visitors not accessing the Seashore’s beaches via a vehicle I can assure you ORV’s create a significant recreational conflict for them.

  • NPCA, Park Retirees File Lawsuit to Halt Change in National Park Gun Rules   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Dustin,

    Thanks for the lucid correction of the distortion that the Supreme Court ruling in D.C. vs Heller was about allow guns in the home (and not elsewhere). Stale baloney ... and a full-letter mark-down on the homework & preparation grade for everyone using this bogus talking-point. Excellent pair of comments!
    ----

    Guys, I'm off for a work-day on the trail - finally! Lots of other catch-up work, too, so will be working both sides, and will be home & on-line part-time. But, I see a monster high-pressure system has built over Alaska, giving them extreme cold ... and this air-mass is expected to move down over the lower-48 in the next 10 days. Along the coast here, that's how we usually get our big snow-dumps. Check ya'll tonight. Will go see your blog then, Dustin.

  • Studies Show Bear Spray More Effective Than Guns Against Grizzlies   5 years 28 weeks ago

    I am not as concerned about bears as I am about the possibility of some deranged maniac out to do harm to me or some other innocent person(s) who are out enjoying the great outdoors. While crimes such as robbery, rape and murder are more prevalent in the cities they do occur in national parks (wilderness areas) not your national monument type areas. A person with a concealed weapons license isn't going to bother anyone, unless you are the deranged maniac out to hurt someone. No one ever thinks it will happen to them, but violent crime does happen. All the liberal mind anti gun sentiment in the world will not change anything. I have never seen a ranger off the asphalt in a national park. They won't get to you until after you have been victimized. So to all the anti gunners out there who have never had the the proper positve education about firearms and probably never served this great nation in the armed forces maybe you can run and get away from the thug. Hope you don't run into a bear during your getaway, if you are so lucky.

  • NPCA, Park Retirees File Lawsuit to Halt Change in National Park Gun Rules   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Kurt said:

    And no one is claiming that there's never been a crime committed in a national park.

    Very good point Kurt. In fact, not including unreported cases of rape, nor unsolved missing person cases where no body was ever recovered, as Unlce Lar mentioned: "The National Park Service says there were 116,588 REPORTED offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults."

    of course, no one is claiming that if concealed carry becomes the lay of the land that crime will vanish, either.

    Very true indeed. In places like Florida & other States that have introduced concealed carry laws, the crime stats bear out that although after implementation violent crime was indeed reduced, it has not yet had the effect of making all crime vanish. That goal while noble is simply not realistic.

    All we're asking for is that as Americans we not have our right to choose to bear arms for our own protection infringed while we are on public property. If a private business owner wants to make a rule prohibiting men from coming onto their private property (such as a woman only Gym), or to make a rule prohibiting armed people from coming into their privately owned restaurant, I'm fine with that. As a patron I can choose to go to another restaurant that doesn't make that prohibition.

    National Parks on the other hand are public property supported by public tax money. As such they should not have unconstitutional rules that violate our civil rights. Saying only disarmed people can walk onto National Park property is similar to saying only white people can attend a particular public school. Both are infringements of civil rights. We've done away with the race segregation issue in public schools, and once the new rules go into effect civil liberty & the right to bear arms will finally be restored in National Parks, at least in the States that are not already infringing it through State laws.

  • NPCA, Park Retirees File Lawsuit to Halt Change in National Park Gun Rules   5 years 28 weeks ago

    Kurt said:

    According to the Supreme Court, your "right to bear arms" in your home may not be infringed, but it's perfectly legal for a government, state or federal, to restrict where you can carry.

    Actually the Heller case was specific to determining whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to all citizens or if it only applies to members of the Military, and if it applies to all citizens the second question was whether or not the DC ban on possession & use of handguns in the home was unconstitutional. They found that yes it applies to all citizens, and yes the DC ban on handguns in the home was indeed unconstitutional.

    The issue of the "bear arms" portion of the second amendment was not addressed other than to mention they were not addressing it. The next Supreme Court challenge will probably be to determine incorporation to see if the civil right to keep & bear arms restricts only the Federal government from making laws that infringe it, or if it also applies to the States. Sometime after that the bear arms issue will probably be addressed (the issue of determining if the right to bear arms applies to law abiding citizens anyplace they're not prohibited from being, at least while on public property). Establishing precedents in these types of matters in the Supreme court will be a long process. Ironing out the 1st Amendment for example took many years in the courts to establish existing precedents.

    As for the sources in the above post, the story was about the lawsuit those groups filed. Would you prefer that in the future I insert a boilerplate sentence on the NRA's position? If you spend a little time looking at past Traveler posts, and comments, on this issue you'll find the NRA's position very well-represented.

    I was merely establishing the fact that the article was one sided, I did not mean to imply that there was something wrong with writing a one sided article. It would of course add a bit of interest to incorporate the view of folks from the other side of the issue rather than simply including the views of one side as if they were indisputable, but it is a free country so including only one side or both sides is of course always up to the author. :)
    And finally, I suppose one could say your blogs are one-sided as they don't include comment from NPCA, the coalition, or the Brady Campaign.

    I actually do often discuss the viewpoints of the other side or if not I at least link to the story I'm discussing. In my response to your article for example, I linked directly to it so everyone could read your side & judge for themselves.

  • Black Bear Attacks Child at Great Smoky Mountains National Park   5 years 28 weeks ago

    I totally agree, the only issue is that we can't have bears and kids playing together. So, either don't build a house in the woods and complain about the animals or stay in the city. If you are visiting a State Park that is known for bears, heck you can't walk two feet in Gatlinburg, TN without someone selling you a cute little black bear stuffed animal, T-shirt or salt & pepper shakers. So pay attention, carry a whistle, if not bear mace. So it's sad but, humans “WILL ALWAYS COME FIRST”, when it comes to bear confrontations. I have to adimit I agree to a depending on the situation.
    I would have also killed this bear, to help save the other bears! Humans have a way of wiping out what they fear or hate. I have large dogs and would have to always insist that any biting or sever mouthing or human aggression, is totally unacceptable from any dog of any size... period! Any animal that bites humans, MUST be rehabilitated, relocated or put down, humanely. Once an animal breaks that invisible line of fear and respect for humans and humans for bears, it becomes a recipe of disaster.
    I have helped with various wildlife rescues in Tennesse and love all animals. I hoping to go back to EKU for wildlife biology.