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:
"[S]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."
Violence Policy Center’s tax returns included a section entitled
“Schedule A, Part IV-A: Support Schedule.†It includes a line item for membership fees.
For the years 2000 through 2004, the total membership fees received was $0.
That about says it all.
Via Arms and the Law.
According to Josh Sugarmann, VPC executive director and one of the authors of the study, "The FFL is a public safety scandal created by the very agency charged with enforcing federal firearms laws. By giving a federal gun-dealing license to virtually anyone who can come up with $30 and isn't a convicted felon, ATF has put criminals in the business of selling guns."
http://www.vpc.org/press/9212mrgd.htm
http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/everyhandgun/intro.html
“Fearful of becoming enmeshed in the gun lobby's "slippery slope" argument (that any gun control, no matter how limited, is the first step toward total gun confiscation), many actively voiced their opposition to a handgun ban, warning that ban proponents would marginalize the entire movement. They could offer no proof of this claim—yet the argument took hold.â€
-Josh seems to think that not supporting a handgun ban just because you are afraid of an eventual “all out firearm ban/confiscation is a ridiculous notion. Hum... is it??
“By 1993 the gun death toll in America reached an all-time high of 39,595.6 Many Americans rationalized away these deaths, focusing on the skin color of the most heavily impacted victims, and not on the handguns that made the killing so easy…If many Americans were able to dismiss the first wave of youth gun violence through the prism of race, this changed in the late 1990s with mass shootings in rural and suburban schools by white students. Ironically, these shootings took place during a period in which gun violence had reached its lowest level since the early 1980s, but they removed once and for all white America's false sense of security.
Oh yeah, here’s a chapter from Josh’s book: Chapter Eight: Handguns and Minorities details the disproportionate impact handguns have on minority communities—most notably blacks and Hispanics—by looking not only at national figures, but at three "snapshots" to gauge more accurately the effect on Hispanic America: California, Texas, and Chicago. The chapter also details the racism prevalent among high-profile members of the gun lobby.
So Josh, are we focusing on the disproportionate racial/socio-economic factors that contribute toward violence, or are we using the argument that to look at the disproportion is naïve? Please pick one.
Contradictions a-plenty.
Oh yeah, and again, Josh is an FFL holder.
-Josh Sugarmann, Washington Monthly 1987
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8
-New Orleans, 2005
So remember, while Josh and the VPC argue for keeping the handgun ban alive in DC, he is EXEMPT from this ban by virtue of his FFL.
Interesting.
Why does Josh feel the need to have an FFL dealers license?
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/02/the_quintessenc.php#comments
Are you in the business of dealing firearms? When was your last BATFE inspection?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gW9eeND6lpzUpgmD_jq7GRujvfRAD8UM94HG0
Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't we talking about law-abiding citizens having the right to carry a weapon for protection in State Parks?
The only difference this law would make is that I would be able to carry a weapon with me while I cam camping, hiking, etc... The weapon in my pocket would not magically change my behavior!
Josh, I have a few corn-cob pipes and some buttons for those strawmen you are building if you need them....
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.
Is this for real? "Slob shooters?" "Vandalism?"
Oh that's right, that damn mind-control those guns put people under.....
The "wild west" and "blood in the streets" rhetoric against pro gun-rights legislation is old, tired, and disproven many times over.
Elizabeth Hafter might have defended herself if armed in this park.
John and Irene Bryant might be alive if they had a gun while hiking
http://www.wyff4.com/news/14585002/detail.html
Arizona parks are not safe either.
htt://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59430
Tourists aren't safe in parks.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070918-1442-wst-canyonhomicide.html
Even Park Rangers aren't safe.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/08/national/main?65404.shtml
Meredith Emerson might be alive if she had a firearm to protect herself in a State Park.
htt://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22541845/
Drug problems in parks.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0110_030113_organpipeclynes.html
I could do this until I get carpal tunnel syndrome and it wouldn't convince those that are anti gun. I'll just give a few more facts, a little logic and hope that makes my case.
1) Criminals do what they want regardless of laws. They don't obey them.
2) Criminals and psychos prey on those weaker than themselves. This usually includes the unarmed. That's why Gun Free Zones are shot up more often than police stations, gun shows, NRA offices, shooting ranges and gun stores.
3) Most of what the police do is reactive. They respond after a crime has been committed. Their response could take minutes, hours or they might never show up (New Orleans/Katrina). Regardless of when they show up you are already a victim. Hopefully you are not a fatality.
4) There are between 70-80 million gun owners in the US. The VAST majority are good, law abiding citizens. Mixing guns, trees and a hiking trail is not going to change that.
5) Calling 911 is more of an option for those in cities rather than someone hiking 6 hours back in the mountains.
Oh, BTW, many, many campers and hikers go armed already. If you don't you're just asking for trouble. It's about time to legalize something that has been routine for years.