If the champagne being quaffed by consumer groups and others in the wake of House passage of a bill aimed at limiting deceptive and abusive credit card practices has a slightly bitter aftertaste, it's probably because they're sharing a magnum with the National Rifle Association. In its ongoing efforts to open up every possible space in America to gun toting, the NRA succeeded in attaching to the credit card bill legislation allowing loaded guns in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges (legislation passed on the Senate side contained similar language).
College presidents. Business owners. City mayors. Now you can add park rangers and other national park employees as the latest additions to the list of those whose knowledge and expertise have been trampled in the wake of the NRA's bullying efforts to remake America in its own image. After all, as the NRA's Wayne LaPierre says, and a majority of Congress seems to agree, "the guys with the guns make the rules."
This dangerous provision will put park park rangers, visitors, and wildlife at extreme risk. Don't believe me? Listen to the people who actually work every day to protect our nation's parks and their visitors.
John Waterman, president, U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police:
One should ask, what do guns have to do with credit cards? We are disappointed that congress chose to disregard the safety of U.S. Park Rangers, the most assaulted federal officer, and forgo the environmental process set up by them to assure the protection of our national parks. If signed by Obama, this will clearly be a change in the president's rhetoric towards taking better care of our environment and protecting federal employees.
Theresa Pierno, executive vice president, National Parks Conservation Association:
We are disappointed in the members of the House and Senate who allowed this amendment to pass, as well as President Obama. By not taking a stand to prevent this change, they have sacrificed public safety and national park resources, in favor of the political agenda of the National Rifle Association. This amendment had no hearing or review, and will increase the risk of poaching, vandalism of historic park treasures, and threats to park visitors and staff.
Bill Wade, chair, executive council,Coalition of National Park Service Retirees:
Passage of this legislation that would allow firearms of all kinds in national parks is an absolute travesty. There is simply no need for it, given the extremely low risks that visitors face in national parks compared with everywhere else. Legislators who voted for this Amendment now have to live with the fact that they have, in fact, increased the risk to visitors and employees, as well as the risk to wildlife and some cultural resources. Moreover,they've just contributed to diminishing the specialness of this country's National Park System. We hope the American people register their disappointment in the actions of these legislators.
Sorry guys. You didn't get the memo. The guys with the guns make the rules.
Congratulations, NRA, you just turned a strong supporter of gun ownership and the right to bear arms in to a skeptic.
Loaded firearms have been allowed in state parks and national forests all along with very few problems.
I highly doubt you were a "strong supporter of gun ownership and the right to bear arms".
http://www.lildobe.net/gallery2/v/PAFOA/Meleanie/SFN+on+Lyn+Doyle.flv.html
Enjoy. I recommend some popcorn and cocoa.
What a disappointment!
As Odinseye already stated, I can carry my firearm into a movie theater, a shopping mall, a grocery store, a bank, a day care center and any state park already. Concealed or open carry is perfectly legal in all these places and more RIGHT NOW for me.
Allowing me to carry a firearm in a National park will cause a problem how?
Just for reference, I had to get finger-printed by the local LEO's, take a training class(after shooting for 25+ years) and pass a background check at the county level, the state level, the federal level and the international level through interpol.
Allowing me to do something INSIDE a national park that I am already able to do legally OUTSIDE a national park will not produce the mayhem you envision.
BTW, you voted for Obama, didn't you? The Brady Campaign endorsed Obama, didn't they?
Don't blame me for guns in parks, I voted for McCain.
Hopey Changey.
The line of reasoning in this article is TOTALLY missing the fact America is a FREE nation (well we are still trying, no thanks to those in office today and in the recent past) and is just yet another attempt to attack the great, FREE lifestyle our forefathers fought so we could enjoy.
I trust the author will NOT be partaking in the upcoming holiday as it was for those who defended our freedoms, not those who attacked them - like he is doing.
For Obama to sign this bill is an insult and an affront to everyone who put him in office. This is not change, it is the same old BS that has been taking place in Washington for hundreds of years.
"The sole purpose of a gun is to kill something with."
Never seen a Hammerli 106/162 pistol, have you? If the sole purpose of a firearm is to kill, than 99% of them are being misused.
"What is there in a national park that anyone has to kill? "
Bears, mountain lions, psychopaths....
"There are park rangers to take care of bears "
Not always.
Firearms have not been a problem in state parks or national forests.
Local Police chief in plain clothes , sitting in a cafe, that was robbed at gun point. Sat quietly till robbers were gone and called in a discription, They were caught leaving the City.
The press demanded to know why he did nothing. He said " you think i'm going to start a gun fight in a crowded cafe, and get people killed ? Are you crazy? " Good job Chief !
This true story carries some common sense that Anybody carrying a gun Anywhere should take to heart.
I'm also glad I have car insurance even though I don't plan on getting into an accident.
Just because never experienced something up to this point doesn't mean taking precautions against it isn't a good idea.
If I am standing next to you , you would be blissfully clueless as to whether I am carrying or not.
But if you feel you can not trust me with a firearm, then by all means, please leave so that less paranoid, more friendly people can have your spot.
What would you do if instead of a National Park, it was at
1. A movie theater
2. A bank
3. A grocery store
4. A day care center.
5. The sidewalk.
6. An Auditorium where you were doing a dance routine
7. Burger King
8. The non-secure area of an airport
9. A kosher deli
10. A carnival
I could easily go on but I've made my point.
If you don't want to be around people carrying concealed firearms, then stop going to all of the places listed above for starters.
The revision at issue was a prodcut of deliberate legislative action. The rider was a rider -- a common legislative practice -- but it was by no means "hidden" or the product of some "surprise." Congress followed democratically enacted rules in attaching that rider to the the bill, and Congress followed democratically enacted rules when it voted that amended bill into law. Contrary to your characterization of the legislative process that takes place under our Constition, "the guys with the guns" did not simply impose their will on an unwitting American people.
Your citation to comments from lobbyists who for whatever reason were paid to oppose the rider are inapposite to anything. For every statement of opinion in opposition to the rider that you can cite, I can cite a statement of support.
The passage of this rider underscores a fact of political life in America: gun control is a losing proposition. The only people who care enough to speak with their vote are pro-gun. Supporting a gun control measure creates many enemies and few friends, and just the same, supporting a pro-gun reform creates many friends and few real enemies.
Far from your characterization, the reality is that this bill is the product of the democratic process and reflects the expressed will of the people.
Can we do away with whatever law makes it possible to attach ANYthing to bills so that our lawmakers actually vote only on the bill that is before them?
It is called a "rider" and is a horrible practice.
"Can we do away with whatever law makes it possible to attach ANYthing to bills so that our lawmakers actually vote only on the bill that is before them?"
Efforts have been tried in the past and failed. It is actually a commonly cited justification of line item veto powers.
The gun portion was voted on seperately in the House and still passed by a huge margin.
In this case, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns23feb23,0,1267373,full.story
Sorry, but just ONE killing or rape or robbery or aggravated assault justifies my choice to exercise my constitutional right.
I suppose you want the government to tell you where and when to speak, and what to say too. I suppose you want the governmet to control all of your RIGHTS.
As soon as the guns are gone, the fascism moves in. We need our guns to protect us FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
"But what is in a National Park"
Bears, mountian lions, wolves, people....