Endangered Species and Guns get equal protection under the law in our National Parks

[marmar]

Published on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 by The Boston Globe
Deadly - Guns in National Parks

by Derrick Z. Jackson


In its infinite cowardice, Congress is extending the same national park protections to guns as it does wildlife.

Proving that some corners of Obamaworld are just as insane as the Bush administration, Congress handed Obama a credit card reform bill last week where the biggest "Yahoo!" came not from debt-ridden consumers but the National Rifle Association. After months of trying, gun advocates finally managed to slap an amendment on the bill that allows people to carry loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges.

Obama and the majority Democrats did little to stop it as the amendment passed the Senate 67-29 and the House, 279-147. Even with a popular president and renewed power, the Democrats remain as shell-shocked as ever as NRA lobbyist Chris Cox proclaimed, "This common-sense measure, offered by Senator Tom Coburn, gives law-abiding gun owners the option of protecting themselves."

If it is common sense that gun owners must pack heat in our most peaceful places, it is bound to guarantee a new level of craziness for the people who come to parks armed only with binoculars, cameras, backpacks, and sticks to roast marshmallows. It shows you a clear firewall between courage and cowardice that the Democrats will not cross.

You would think Congress has much more important things to do than to effectively elevate guns to the protected status of bears. The Government Accountability Office reported this spring that the Interior Department has a deferred maintenance backlog of between $13.2 billion and $19.4 billion. Within that is about a $9 billion maintenance backlog for the national parks. A GAO report last year found that staff levels at the nation's wildlife refuges declined by 8.4 percent from 2004 to 2007. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/26-5

[SPedigrees]

1. I fail to see why these two protections should be mutually exclusive. nt

[Raskolnik]

2. Is the author under the impression that one of these issues affects the other? n/t

[GKirk]

3. I really don't see the big deal...

...if a person can legally posess a gun outside the park border I don't see why they would be any bigger of a threat to me inside the park border.

[Kolesar]

4. I expect more armed robberies in the National Parks after this

Heretofore, criminals would have risked getting charged with a weapons violation if they took a firearm into a park to rob people. Now they can tell the law enforcement rangers any damn thing they want.

[paulsby]

5. your expectation runs contrary to data

the same "expectations" were made in florida, etc. that proposed passed shall issue CCW laws.

we heard all the cries that we would see road rage shootings, more shootings in general, etc. etc. etc.

it didn't happen

crime went... DOWN

is it possible that armed robberies will go up? sure. it's also possible that the flying spaghetti monster will make an appearance at yosemite.

but metric assloads of data, in places where concealed carry was prohibited then allowed, has not resulted in increased crime. crime has remained stable or gone down.

period.

so your expectation runs contrary to all those examples.

[marmar]

6. Umm, is there some rampant crime problem in national parks that I'm unaware of?

People can now cap bears that steal their picnic baskets?

[paulsby]

8. of course not

crime in national parks is rare.

how that is even remotely relevant to the point i made is another question entirely.

[GKirk]

7. Someone correct me

if I'm wrong but wouldn't you have to have a concealed weapon permit to carry in the national park? I'm assuming CWPs aren't paseed out to criminals.

[Redneck Socialist]

14. Yes, you need a concealed carry permit.

The retired ranger quoted at the end of the article doesn't seem to understand that. People poaching rare artifacts for resale on the black market aren't too likely to trouble themselves with applying for a carry permit.

[slackmaster]

18. Has allowing qualified people to carry firearms at shopping malls resulted in more armed robberies?

I don't believe so.

Heretofore, criminals would have risked getting charged with a weapons violation if they took a firearm into a park to rob people. Now they can tell the law enforcement rangers any damn thing they want.

I don't believe any state issues concealed firearm permits to criminals. Can you cite an example of this?

[MercutioATC]

9. Excellent! I can finally carry my manatee in a national park!

[XemaSab]

10. This is an issue I am deeply

unconcerned about. :shrug:

[ThomWV]

11. The right is being extended to gun owners, not to guns.

And it is the dimmest of the dim that does not understand a person's fundamental right to bear arms.

[marmar]

12. Not quite sure if you're attempting to call me "dim"...but the headline was intentionally hyperbolic

Claro que si? :think:

[depakid]

13. Yeah, right

More guns always = GOOD.

No matter what the context.

[benEzra]

15. Ah, another defender of James Watt, that paragon of environmental virtue

who decided as Reagan's Secretary of the Interior that only "his" people should be allowed to have guns on "his" park lands.

Repealing the Watt rule and letting states set their own policies is a good thing, IMO. It has never been a problem for National Forest and BLM lands, and wasn't a problem prior to the enactment of the Watt rule in the late '80s.

[konnichi wa]

16. Are there actually people who think nobody ever took guns into nat'l parks?

:eyes: :eyes:
Let's see...the rationale for all the concern is that people LEGALLY taking guns into a park are more dangerous than people who ILLEGALLY do it. Have I got that about right?

[slackmaster]

17. Another "Blood will run in the streams!" hyperbolic nonsensical post

Ridiculous.