National Parks Update from VCDL (Merged) - Page 5

kentuckycarry · June 19th, 2008, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jabo2818

has anyone heard if the Army Corps of Engineers is even considering the same thing around their lakes and dams?

Thats a problem here too. we have Land Between the Lakes here with Kentucky and Barkley Dams. It's the closest place to camp around here..

packinnova · June 19th, 2008, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireMedicRogers

9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Proposal would allow loaded, concealed weapons in national parks

ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK – The constant clash over the Second Amendment has moved into America's national parks.

The Bush Administration is considering a rule change that would allow people to carry loaded, concealed weapons in some national parks, monuments and wildlife refuges.

The Department of Interior could decide next month whether or not to adopt the change.

The new rule would only apply to states that allow concealed weapons in state parks or wildlife refuges. Colorado is one of those states.

The move to change the current regulations comes after heavy lobbying by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

"Criminals don't stay away from national parks and individuals should have the right and ability to protect themselves... no matter where they go," said Anthony Fabian, president of the Colorado State Shooters Association.

Right now, visitors can bring a gun through a national park, but it has to be unloaded and out of reach.

Rod Chandler, a resident of Aurora and a member of the National Parks Conservation Association, says it should stay that way.

"You're not attracting the criminal element to the national parks and you don't need protection against them," Chandler said.

Seven former National Park Service directors recently wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Interior asking him to trash the proposal.

They say the Reagan Administration created the rule that stands today in order to address a particular problem.

"The regulation was crafted to be as narrowly restrictive as possible while assisting park personnel to prevent unlawful killing of wildlife," the letter states. "There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do."

Fabian responded, "The unlawful discharge of firearms is not allowed in national parks and wouldn't be changed by the new regulation."

The public comment period on this rule change will end on June 30.

The Department of Interior doesn't know when a decision will be made.

(Copyright KUSA*TV, All Rights Reserved)

So in that one bolded statement he just said right there effectively that society should view wildlife as more important than human life. What a drain on society these fools are. Pretty-please can we banish them to an island and let them live that way on their own? Personally I think maybe we should start a national tv show "Hippies for Animals...on patrol". This way we could see exactly how well they're willing to stand behind that statement when a bear or a criminal is bearing down on them.

falcon1 · June 19th, 2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckycarry

Get rid of that Naifeh moron......

I think many of us in the state would love to do so, but, unfortunately, only those who reside in his district can "un-elect" him.

BlackPR · July 1st, 2008, 01:03 PM

The request for public comment on the proposed national park rule change has now closed. My petition was submitted, along with the 3500+ signatories who took part. Not bad for a grass roots, no money, no organization, word-of-mouth effort. Hopefully it will have some impact. Thanks to all those who took part.

Now it's a waiting game. I don't know what the time period is between public comments and the new rules, but I suspect there might be someone on here who can answer that.

KenInColo · July 2nd, 2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackPR

The request for public comment on the proposed national park rule change has now closed. My petition was submitted, along with the 3500+ signatories who took part. Not bad for a grass roots, no money, no organization, word-of-mouth effort. Hopefully it will have some impact. Thanks to all those who took part.

Now it's a waiting game. I don't know what the time period is between public comments and the new rules, but I suspect there might be someone on here who can answer that.

Outstanding!

sgtD · July 3rd, 2008, 12:07 AM

How many cases are there of CCP holders poaching animals with their sidearm?? Probably NONE!

I cannot understand how a government that is supposed to be by the people for the people, and is elected by the people can have been reduced to such depths. It seems that there is hardly any rational thought going on at the governmental level these days.

ccw9mm · July 3rd, 2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtD

It seems that there is hardly any rational thought going on at the governmental level these days.

It's ... about ... control.

It's not about governance. Once the first whiff of gravy in the train caught wind, it ceased being so.

BlackPR · July 3rd, 2008, 09:33 AM

The real reason for the ban isn't really poaching. Although that's the first one they'll fly up the flagpole. Guns=Poaching like Guns=Crime. The real reason is what I was told in an email from the president of the Association of National Park Rangers. If we allow guns, we lose the probable cause to search someones car/trailer/boat/bus/van/person if they have a gun.

So Guns="Instant Probable Cause"... A neat little law enforcement tool for them. That, I suspect, is the larger reason.

rmilchman · July 3rd, 2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackPR

The real reason for the ban isn't really poaching. Although that's the first one they'll fly up the flagpole. Guns=Poaching like Guns=Crime. The real reason is what I was told in an email from the president of the Association of National Park Rangers. If we allow guns, we lose the probable cause to search someones car/trailer/boat/bus/van/person if they have a gun.

So Guns="Instant Probable Cause"... A neat little law enforcement tool for them. That, I suspect, is the larger reason.

Most likely, if the person is legally carrying a gun the search will find nothing. Search the people that are illegally carrying.

libertarian5 · July 3rd, 2008, 10:12 AM

We recently went through a comment process here in SW Colorado concerning a new wilderness proposal. There were about 3000 comments, and the estimate for getting them all together is the end of the year. I would guess at a similar timetable for the National Parks issue, but perhaps it will be accelerated or decelerated because it is on a national scale. It depends upon how many people are assigned to review and categorize the comments.

In any event, if the decision goes in our favor (I think it will) we really need to educate CCW holders about intelligent use of handguns in the parks. There is another thread running here where a forum member talks about how he would have to shoot an elk if it attacked his grandchildren who he had posed near the elk for a picture. (Thread=National Park Carry OK?)

A few shot elk via CCW holders and it will be all over folks. The real danger in National Parks is from the two legged animals, not the four legged ones.

July 1st, 2008, 01:03 PM	#44
BlackPR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Lakewood Colorado Posts: 535	The request for public comment on the proposed national park rule change has now closed. My petition was submitted, along with the 3500+ signatories who took part. Not bad for a grass roots, no money, no organization, word-of-mouth effort. Hopefully it will have some impact. Thanks to all those who took part. Now it's a waiting game. I don't know what the time period is between public comments and the new rules, but I suspect there might be someone on here who can answer that. __________________ Truth and falsehood are both whatever and simultaneously not so, rather than not. Colorado Gun Law FAQ's: http://rmgo.org/faq/ KD0EMF

July 3rd, 2008, 12:07 AM	#46
sgtD Distinguished Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Kansas Posts: 1,389	How many cases are there of CCP holders poaching animals with their sidearm?? Probably NONE! I cannot understand how a government that is supposed to be by the people for the people, and is elected by the people can have been reduced to such depths. It seems that there is hardly any rational thought going on at the governmental level these days. __________________ When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

July 3rd, 2008, 09:33 AM	#48
BlackPR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Lakewood Colorado Posts: 535	The real reason for the ban isn't really poaching. Although that's the first one they'll fly up the flagpole. Guns=Poaching like Guns=Crime. The real reason is what I was told in an email from the president of the Association of National Park Rangers. If we allow guns, we lose the probable cause to search someones car/trailer/boat/bus/van/person if they have a gun. So Guns="Instant Probable Cause"... A neat little law enforcement tool for them. That, I suspect, is the larger reason. __________________ Truth and falsehood are both whatever and simultaneously not so, rather than not. Colorado Gun Law FAQ's: http://rmgo.org/faq/ KD0EMF

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 3rd, 2008, 10:12 AM	#50
libertarian5 Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: 4 Corners Posts: 209	We recently went through a comment process here in SW Colorado concerning a new wilderness proposal. There were about 3000 comments, and the estimate for getting them all together is the end of the year. I would guess at a similar timetable for the National Parks issue, but perhaps it will be accelerated or decelerated because it is on a national scale. It depends upon how many people are assigned to review and categorize the comments. In any event, if the decision goes in our favor (I think it will) we really need to educate CCW holders about intelligent use of handguns in the parks. There is another thread running here where a forum member talks about how he would have to shoot an elk if it attacked his grandchildren who he had posed near the elk for a picture. (Thread=National Park Carry OK?) A few shot elk via CCW holders and it will be all over folks. The real danger in National Parks is from the two legged animals, not the four legged ones.